CHAPTER 4: 

 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

 through 

 Hazardous Materials and Waste 

Miles City Field Office 

Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement 

BLM
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-130

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES, SECTION 2 (CONT’D)

For a description of the impacts from management actions in Chapter 2, see below or, for electronic drafts, click 

on the following link to take you to a specific resource: 

Back Country Byways; Coal; Cultural Resources; Economic; Environmental Justice; Facilities; Fish and 

Wildlife (Terrestrial, including Special Status Species); Forestry and Woodland Products; Hazardous Materials 

and Waste; Lands and Realty; Land Tenure Adjustment (including Access); Land Use Authorizations; Lands 

with Wilderness Characteristics; Livestock Grazing; Locatable Minerals; Mineral Materials; National Trails; 

Oil, Gas, and Geothermal; Paleontological Resources; Prescribed Fire and Fuels Management; Recreation;

Renewable Energy; Social; Special Designation Areas; Transportation; Travel Management and Off-highway 

Vehicle Use; Visual Resources; Wilderness; and Wildland Fire Management and Ecology.

RESOURCES 

This section of Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, continues a description of potential impacts to 

biological and physical resources of the planning area and follows the order of topics addressed in Chapter 2 as 

follows: 

 Fish and Wildlife, 

o Terrestrial (including Special Status Species), 

 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management, 

o Wildland Fire Management, 

o Prescribed Fire and Fuels Management, 

 Cultural Resources, 

 Paleontological Resources, and 

 Visual Resources. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE, TERRESTRIAL (INCLUDING SPECIAL STATUS 

SPECIES) 

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 

There would be changes in special status species in the future. 

Disturbance during sensitive periods would decrease the population viability of the affected wildlife species. 

Because habitat fragmentation impacts wildlife, protecting greater acres of habitat from fragmentation would 

result in greater benefits to wildlife species. Alternatives proposing to protect greater portions of landscapes 

from fragmentation are anticipated to be the most beneficial to wildlife. 

Prohibiting surface disturbance or occupancy would constitute a more restrictive action and provide greater 

protection for wildlife than avoiding surface disturbance or occupancy. 

Currently accepted science would be used to assist in making sound decisions regarding surface-disturbing 

activities, disruptive activities, or other actions in the planning area. 

Unregulated OHV use or high OHV density would be anticipated to impact wildlife habitats in these areas. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-131

The availability, quality, and amount of habitat correlate to the viability, health, and size of wildlife populations 

that depend on the habitat. 

The exact locations of future surface-disturbing activities cannot be predicted at the RMP level. For analysis 

purposes, surface-disturbing activities are assumed to occur in vegetation types in proportion to their 

availability within the planning area. Affected acreage for vegetation types are not absolute, but serve as a 

relative comparison among alternatives. 

Prescribed fire and forest management are tools used to manage vegetative communities and would result in 

short-term adverse impacts with long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitats. 

The BLM would utilize best available information, management and conservation plans, and other research and 

related directives, as appropriate; to guide wildlife habitat management on BLM-administered lands. Important 

wildlife habitats (i.e., winter ranges, leks, raptor nests) and locations would be modified based on habitat 

monitoring surveys, wildlife population surveys, and other information provided by industry, the BLM, and the 

MFWP. 

Wildlife species would be able to sustain disturbance or habitat degradation to a specific threshold before 

experiencing a reduction in population viability. 

Impact analysis and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources, existing literature, 

and information provided by other agencies and institutions. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Anticipated surface-disturbing actions on BLM-administered lands, such as vegetation or fuels treatments (up to 

approximately 18,000 acres in the short term and 70,000 acres the long term); range or habitat improvements 

(up to approximately 420 acres annually); mechanical weed control (up to approximately 12,000 acres in the 

short term and 80,000 acres in the long term); fire suppression activities (up to approximately 15 acres in the 

short term and 60 acres in the long term); excavation of cultural and paleontological sites (up to approximately 

45 acres in the short term and 150 acres in the long term); minerals exploration and extraction (up to 

approximately 8,900 acres in the short term and 51,000 acres in the long term); vehicle use; infrastructure; and 

lands, realty, or renewable energy projects (up to approximately 1,600 acres in the short term and 5,700 acres in 

the long term) would result in wildlife habitat fragmentation, the magnitude of which would depend on specific 

specialized design features (addressed in the various sections for wildlife habitat management). 

Although surface-disturbing actions would potentially occur on BLM-administered lands (up to approximately 

50,000 acres in the short term and up to 330,000 acres in the long term), all land uses under all alternatives 

would meet the Standards for Rangeland Health. 

Authorizing and fencing new spring developments that were not designed to maintain the functionality of the 

habitat would not ensure that riparian habitats were maintained and improved or would not ensure water was 

for a variety of wildlife species, including big game and numerous non-game species. 

The BLM’s Manual 6840 (Special Status Species Management), which is the BLM’s policy to conserve listed 

species and the ecosystems on which they depend, ensures that actions requiring authorization or approval by 

the BLM are consistent with the conservation needs of special status species and avoid contributing to the need 

to list any special status species. Essentially every acre of BLM-administered land in the planning area is habitat 

for special status species at some point during the year. 

Maintaining riparian and wetland areas and prairie stream fishery resources in PFC and in compliance with 

Standards for Rangeland Health would ensure maintenance of, or improvement toward, high quality overall 

riparian habitat conditions. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-132

Installing troughs or tanks in important riparian vegetation in the Big Dry RMP area would result in a 

downward trend in riparian and wetland wildlife habitat. Installing troughs or tanks on a case-by-case basis in 

the Powder River RMP area would cause varying impacts to riparian and wetland areas (e.g., result in the 

maintenance or decline of riparian and wetland wildlife habitats) and depend on the location of the trough or 

tank. 

Generally, actions to maintain and enhance healthy populations of aquatic wildlife species would provide 

optimal wildlife habitat conditions for a variety of wildlife species, including many mammal, bird, and special 

status bird species (such as black-crowned night herons, sedge wrens, and other riparian-dependent species). 

Actions that improved the health of aquatic systems, including the maintenance of PFC in prairie streams, 

would also result in improved aquatic invertebrate populations, which are invertebrate sources of food for 

several species of wetland-dependent avian species. Actions that improved the quantity, quality, and structure 

of riparian vegetation would indirectly increase and improve the quality of riparian habitats for wildlife, 

including the yellow warbler and numerous other neotropical bird species. 

Restoring disturbed habitats following the guidelines in the Fish and Wildlife Appendix and Reclamation 

Appendix would require the reestablishment of native shrubs and forbs, including big sagebrush, which would 

benefit sage-grouse. Benefits would be realized when disturbed habitats were restored to a point capable of 

supporting viable sage-grouse populations. 

Conducting oil and gas development (up to approximately 3,700 BLM-administered acres in the long term) in 

accordance with the Mitigation Guidelines in the Best Management Practices Appendix would help protect 

unfragmented habitats; minimize habitat loss and fragmentation; and maintain, enhance, or restore conditions 

that meet sage-grouse life history needs and other wildlife species needs. For example, remote telemetry 

would be used to reduce vehicle traffic (e.g., monitoring oil and gas operations), disturbance areas would be 

kept to a minimum, and vegetation would be removed only when necessary. 

The BLM’s 2008 Final Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement 

and Proposed Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans mandates that sagegrouse habitats, connectivity of habitats, and healthy sage-grouse populations are maintained to serve as 

source populations. However, since the BLM’s 2008 Final Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil and 

Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource 

Management Plans was finalized, little CBNG development has occurred and the WMPP stipulations have 

not been tested. 

ALTERNATIVE A 

Vegetative treatments and surface-disturbing activities on slopes would cause varying impacts to wildlife and 

special status wildlife species. These impacts would depend on the magnitude and soil composition of the 

slope; steeper slopes or those containing highly erodible soils would be the most difficult to mitigate or 

reclaim for wildlife habitat. 

Mechanical treatments would reduce the diversity and availability of wildlife habitat (e.g., forage and thermal 

or nesting cover). Avoiding mechanical treatments and other activities on slopes would reduce impacts to the 

quantity and quality of vegetation and habitats caused by other resource uses. 

No surface occupancy (NSO) stipulations for oil and gas leasing and development on 100-year floodplains of 

rivers, streams, and other waterbodies would improve overall riparian habitat conditions in both the short and 

long term and improve or maintain wildlife habitat conditions in general. Improvements would include 

increased vegetation species diversity, cover, and bank stability. 

Allowing surface water impoundments would provide additional water and riparian habitat for numerous 

wildlife and special status wildlife species, including numerous migratory bird species. This action would 

also create additional habitat for Culex tarsalis, a mosquito species that carries West Nile virus and causes 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-133

mortality in many avian species. An exception would be produced water in the areas addressed in the BLM’s 

2008 Final Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and 

Proposed Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans in which proposed 

impoundments would be designed to minimize the spread of West Nile virus. 

When allowed, vegetative actions, such as nonnative or native species haying, would reduce available forage 

and cover, depending on the vegetation condition, such as height and density. These effects would not be 

anticipated when harvesting native hay or seed were consistent with wildlife management objectives. 

Oil and gas timing restrictions within 2 miles of grouse leks and 0.5 miles of active raptor nests would help 

provide protection for these species during the nesting and brood-rearing periods. 

Under this alternative, vegetative treatments would be used to restore or maintain healthy, multiple-age stands 

of hardwood draw communities (e.g., green ash, chokecherry, silver buffaloberry), which would provide 

preferred habitats for multiple wildlife species, including big game and migratory birds.

Allowing surface-disturbing activities in areas of invasive species infestations would impact wildlife and 

special status wildlife species habitat through the spread of invasive species, which would reduce habitat 

quality, vegetative species diversity, and forage available for wildlife. 

Generally, actions to maintain and enhance healthy populations of aquatic wildlife species would provide 

optimal wildlife habitat conditions for a variety of wildlife species, including many mammal, bird, and special 

status bird species (such as black-crowned night herons, sedge wrens, and other riparian-dependent species). 

Maintaining riparian and wetland areas and prairie stream fishery resources in PFC and in compliance with 

Standards for Rangeland Health would ensure maintenance of, or improvement toward, high quality overall 

riparian habitat conditions. 

Actions that resulted in the improved health of aquatic systems, including the maintenance of PFC in prairie 

streams, would also result in improved aquatic invertebrate populations, which are sources of food for several 

species of wetland-dependent avian species. Actions that improved the quantity, quality, and structure of 

riparian vegetation would increase and improve the quality of riparian habitats for wildlife, including the 

yellow warbler and numerous other neotropical bird species. 

Under this alternative, overhead power lines would be allowed in the Big Dry RMP area and buried when 

associated with oil and gas development within the Powder River RMP area. There would be wildlife 

collisions with aboveground lines, as well as increased habitat fragmentation. Research indicates 

approximately one-third of juvenile sage-grouse mortality is directly attributed to collisions with power lines 

(Beck, Reese, Connelly, and Lucia 2006; Flake, Connelly, Kirschenmann, and Lindbloom 2010). 

Overhead or buried power lines within sage-grouse habitat would result in habitat fragmentation. Habitat 

fragmentation causes avoidance of the area by many species of wildlife, forcing animals into lesser quality 

habitats, increasing the susceptibility of these species to predation and increased mortalities. Some 

electrocutions would occur, primarily those associated with raptors; however, through the mandatory 

application of APLIC guidelines for all newly constructed power lines and reauthorization of rights-of-ways 

(ROWs) for existing overhead power lines, should prevent most of these impacts. Nest construction on power 

line posts would endanger raptors and their young. Avian species potentially affected would include 

numerous special status species and migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

Timing restrictions from December 1 through March 31 for energy development and geophysical exploration 

within Big Game Crucial Winter Range areas would protect big game winter habitats and species only during 

the initial action year but would not provide protection during the life of the disturbance. Effects from 

development, including (but not limited to) noise, vehicle use, human presence, collisions with vehicles, and 

physical movement of structures would contribute to a decline in crucial winter ranges for wildlife. Impacts 

from oil and gas development to Big Game Crucial Winter Range would include displacement, altered 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-134

wildlife movement patterns, and habitat fragmentation, the magnitude of which would depend on the rate and 

location of development. The big game population would decrease under this alternative and the disturbed 

area would be avoided by wildlife under full-field development. In areas such as the Cedar Creek Anticline, 

oil- and gas-related activities have largely resulted in large scale displacement of wintering mule deer and 

pronghorns. Future development in other areas within the planning area would potentially lead to similar 

effects. Currently, 13 percent of the entire winter range acres are managed by the BLM (surface acres), and 

20 percent are federal oil and gas minerals. 

Habitat fragmentation, both direct and indirect, has the potential to cause the greatest impacts to wildlife and 

wildlife habitat (Hebblewhite and Merrill 2008). The magnitude of the impact would depend, at least in part, 

on the timing and nature of the disturbance, winter conditions, species and habitat type present, physiological 

status of the individual, and other disturbance factors. Controlled surface use (CSU) stipulations for oil and 

gas leasing and development, timing stipulations, and lease terms would provide for some maintenance of 

habitat and mitigate a portion of these impacts. Other activities, such as bentonite mining, uranium 

development, mineral material sales, and other locatable mineral activities would result in similar impacts. 

Oil and gas leasing would be offered with a 0.25-mile NSO stipulation around leks and a March 1 to June 15 

timing restriction within 2 miles of grouse leks. Sharp-tailed grouse would tolerate some level of 

development, including that associated with oil and gas, but a reduction or possible extirpation of sharp-tailed 

grouse populations would be expected if habitats were subjected to full field development. The ability to 

maintain leks and the associated populations would be dependent on the scale and duration of development 

and changes to habitat on adjacent non-BLM-administered lands. The timing restriction within 2 miles of a 

lek would be sufficient spatially to maintain sharp-tailed grouse habitat. However, this restriction would only 

apply to development. Once development occurred, there would be no restrictions to operation and 

maintenance activities, which would potentially result in the reduction or extirpation of populations. 

Additionally, restricting use through June 15 would protect the majority of the initial nests. However, sharptailed grouse are well known to re-nest should the first nest fail, and later clutches may not hatch until midJuly. 

Livestock grazing would impact the Bighorn Sheep Range. Effects would occur from the interaction between 

bighorn sheep and domestic sheep or goats. In general, grazing by cattle and horses would not affect bighorn 

sheep because bighorn sheep generally occupy terrain that is typically not predominately grazed by cattle or 

domestic sheep. Grazing by sheep or goats within 14.3 miles of bighorn sheep would result in a large 

reduction and potential extirpation of the bighorn sheep herd if pneumonia were introduced into the bighorn 

sheep herd. Bighorn sheep herds in other areas of Montana have been decimated as a result of this interaction. 

The use of domestic sheep and goats for the control of noxious weeds would result in improved habitat for 

many species. 

Restricting development within 0.5 miles of ferruginous hawk nests active within the 2 years from March 1 to 

August 1 and restricting all development within 0.5 miles of their nests, would likely lead to the long-term 

loss of most nest sites and a corresponding loss in raptor populations. Suitable nest sites are limited and often 

these sites have been used for many years. The 2-year window would not be adequate because many raptors 

would develop several nests within a small area and rotate among more than one of the nests. It is likely that 

some nest sites might remain viable although they have not have been used for 2 consecutive years. In 

addition, the timing would only provide protections for the time in which the birds were nesting, although the 

establishment of anthropogenic development, such as an oil and gas well, would likely preclude many raptors 

from using the nest site in subsequent years. The result would be a reduction of raptors within the area of 

disturbance, which would likely not be mitigated via increased populations in other areas. 

There is little habitat for piping plover or interior least terns on BLM-administered lands in the planning areas 

because very few islands would be administered by the BLM. Recreational use of the graveled islands within 

the Yellowstone River would potentially impact nesting least terns. During spring run-off, it is not uncommon 

for interior least terns to nest on graveled islands well into July and even August. Use of these islands by 

recreationists would potentially result in trampling of eggs or disturbance to adults incubating eggs. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-135

The BLM administers 13,000 acres of active and inactive prairie dog habitat. Although some limited 

protections may be incorporated under BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Management, disturbance 

activities would be allowed on prairie dog towns. As a result, impacts to habitat would occur and populations 

would likely be reduced. 

Since there are no known or likely populations of black-footed ferrets on BLM-administered land in the 

planning area, this species would not be affected. However, since black-footed ferrets are a species closely 

tied to prairie dogs, the loss or reduction of towns or complexes greater than 80 acres would potentially 

reduce the potential for the future reestablishment of black footed ferrets. Management of BLM-authorized 

activities within the Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction ACEC should not result in the loss of habitat. 

Sylvatic plague, which is prevalent throughout the range of the black-tailed prairie dog, would potentially 

reduce the population of prairie dogs and reduce the likelihood of future occupancy by black-footed ferrets. 

Historical concentrations of livestock near rivers and streams helped enable black-tailed prairie dogs to 

become established. Improvements in livestock grazing practices and the corresponding increase in 

vegetation would make these areas not as conducive for the establishment and maintenance of prairie dogs. 

Because sage-grouse are a landscape species with a relatively large home range, activities occurring on BLMadministered lands would affect sage-grouse populations over a large geographic area. 

Protections provided to sage-grouse under this alternative would include: 

 a 0.25-mile NSO stipulation around leks, 

 a March 1 through June 15 timing restriction within 2 miles of leks, and 

 a December 1 to March 31 timing restriction in crucial winter range. 

Impacts from oil and gas development would be largely indiscernible at well densities of less than 1 well (or 

other disturbance) per square mile. Lek losses would be expected to be 2 to 5 times greater in areas with 

development above the less than or equal to 1 well per development per square mile threshold, and abundance 

(males per lek) at the remaining leks would be expected to decline by approximately 30 to 80 percent. In 

some areas, such as in the Cedar Creek Anticline, decreased male attendance at leks has exceeded 80 percent, 

which is largely attributed to oil and gas development. The efficacy of BLM NSO stipulations for leasing and 

development within 0.25 miles of a lek would result in an estimated lek persistence (the ability of leks to 

remain on the landscape) of approximately 5 percent, while lek persistence in areas without oil and gas 

development would be expected to average approximately 85 percent. Impacts from energy development 

occur at distances between 3 and 4 miles. 

Impacts to leks caused by energy development would be most severe near the lek. Although most of the 

impacts from energy development are indirect, some direct effects, such as flying into overhead power lines 

would also result from energy development and ROWs. Lek extirpation in areas with 8 wells per section (40 

to 100 wells) within 2 miles of the lek would be 5 times more likely to occur than in areas with no wells 

within 2 miles, and male attendance at the remaining leks in these areas would be expected to decline by 

approximately 20 to 60 percent (Doherty 2008). 

The oil and gas restriction from March 1 to June 15 would be insufficient to protect breeding populations of 

sage-grouse. Although timing would provide limited protection for sage-grouse, it would only offer this 

protection during the initial nesting year. Sage-grouse, which exhibit high nest-site fidelity (they come back 

to the same area every year), would experience less nest success and brood survival in nesting habitat. As 

described above, development would potentially lead to abandonment and population loss. 

Movements associated with oil and gas wells, noise associated with disruptive activities and compressor 

stations, vehicle use, and human presence would impact numerous wildlife species indirectly, including sagegrouse. Sage-grouse numbers on leks within approximately 1 mile of compressor stations would contain 

lower numbers than leks greater than 1 mile from compressors. Male attendance at leks would be expected to 

be reduced when subjected to the current standard noise limitation of 50 decibels at the lek site. Despite the 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-136

protective measures used to prevent impacts from projects in sage-grouse habitat, there would be no 

restrictions on the total amount of habitat that could be disturbed and declines in abundance and lek losses 

would be expected. 

The oil and gas RFD for this RMP predicts development of 278 CBNG wells, which would disturb an 

estimated 134 acres. The BLM administers approximately 15 percent of the surface and 85 percent of the 

mineral estate within the PRB. The WMPP, which was included as a part of the BLM’s 2008 Final 

Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed 

Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans guides CBNG development in the 

PRB. The WMPP recognizes lease terms (60 days/200 meters) and stipulations (0.25-mile buffer from leks 

and a 2-mile timing restriction). Direct and indirect disturbances associated with the developed wells are 

managed through application of the WMPP. Reference leks are used to help assess trends in sage-grouse 

populations resulting from development. 

The BLM would manage approximately 12 percent of the BLM-administered fluid minerals throughout the 

planning area. Approximately 80,000 BLM-administered surface acres (34 wells) and 330,000 federal fluid 

mineral acres (145 wells) would be projected to be drilled within areas considered high potential for 

development. With this level of control, the BLM’s management efficacy would be limited in efforts to 

benefit sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat throughout the planning area. 

Wildfire to meet multiple objectives in areas of fuel reductions would generally result in increased growth and 

vigor of forage plants for wildlife and maintenance of open habitats. 

Prescribed fire activities and vegetation treatments, such as wood product sales, would potentially return sites to 

a desired condition in the long term or to historical fuel loading, structure, or composition. Impacts from any 

kind of vegetation treatment would displace wildlife in the short-term. Habitats would be considerably changed 

immediately after treatments and then gradually evolve over time. Specific impacts would vary considerably 

and depend on the conditions, treatments at site-specific levels, species, habitat conditions before and after 

treatments, type of treatment, details of treatment implementation, adjacent habitat types, and long-term 

management of each area following treatments. Implementation plans with wildlife goals and objectives would 

ensure that wildlife habitat conditions were improved or that impacts to wildlife habitats from commercial or 

personal use from woodland products were mitigated. Impacts to wildlife (including special status species) and 

their habitats would vary by the habitat needs of species and change over time. Although these actions would 

improve habitat for some species, particularly those that select more early seral or open forest habitats, they 

would degrade habitats for other species, particularly those preferring denser and more structurally diverse 

habitats. Treatments that altered tree species composition or stand structure would alter wildlife habitats 

immediately. 

Fuel treatments would result in either more open forested conditions, which would improve the habitat for 

species selecting those habitats (such as wild turkeys), or decreased encroachment of juniper and pine species, 

which would improve habitats for sage-grouse and other sagebrush-dependent species. Acreage of forests with 

dense multi-story cover would be reduced under these actions, which would decrease available habitat for 

species selecting this habitat and decrease thermal cover for numerous wildlife species, including big game. 

Determining livestock grazing and pasture rotations according to Standards for Rangeland Health and 

livestock grazing guidelines would provide optimal habitat conditions for a variety of wildlife and special 

status wildlife species throughout the planning area. 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout the planning area, including most of the sage-grouse range, and 

is the most widespread type of land use across the sagebrush biome (Knick et al. 2003), it would exert a more 

diffuse influence on soils and vegetation than land uses that removed or fragmented habitat. Determining 

season-of-use and livestock numbers for grazing permits on a case-by-case basis would not necessarily result 

in high quality sage-grouse habitat. The reduction in grass height caused by livestock grazing in sage-grouse 

nesting and brood-rearing areas has been shown to negatively impact nesting success when residual 

herbaceous cover was reduced below the approximately 7 inches needed for predator avoidance (Gregg, 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-137

Crawford, Drut, and DeLong 1994). Livestock grazing would potentially reduce the suitability of breeding 

and brood-rearing habitat, which would impact sage-grouse populations (USFWS 2010a). For BLMadministered lands, Standards for Rangeland Health are the “physical and biological conditions or degree of 

function required for healthy sustainable rangelands. Achieving or making significant progress towards these 

functions and conditions is required of all uses of public lands (BLM 2011f, p. 3)." Standard 5 requires the 

BLM to ensure that the environment contains all of the necessary components to support viable population of 

a sensitive, threatened, and endangered species in a given area relative to site potential. BLM Washington 

Office Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2009-018 helps ensure that land health considerations, such as 

vegetation cover for sage-grouse, are primary considerations for prioritizing the processing of grazing 

authorizations. 

Livestock grazing occurs throughout the planning area and would impact wildlife habitats, including habitats 

for numerous special status species. Managing BLM-administered lands to meet Standards for Rangeland 

Health, changing grazing seasons and livestock numbers, issuing grazing permits with specific grazing 

seasons and numbers, and using other terms and conditions designed to make progress toward meeting 

Standards for Rangeland Health would ensure some progress toward providing vegetative species diversity 

and forage for wildlife species, including special status species. Potential impacts from livestock grazing 

would include the following: 

 competition for forage, water, and space; 

 habitat alteration through changes in plant composition; 

 streambank degradation caused by compression, sloughing, and vegetation removal; 

 stimulated growth of some plant species and increased succulent vegetation; 

 overgrazing, which would decrease standing herbaceous vegetation important habitat for most wildlife, 

particularly ground-nesting birds; 

 livestock fences, which would create travel barriers and result in injury and death from entanglements, 

alter big game distribution, and create perches for predators but also improve habitat and water quality 

associated with streams; 

 expanded spatial and temporal ranges for big game and livestock; and 

 water developments, which would expand spatial and temporal ranges for big game and livestock and 

potentially result in increased competition for forage with big game but also potentially increase 

wildlife densities where livestock were absent and not in conflict with wildlife in the area. 

After a prescribed burn, deferring livestock grazing for 1 growing season or temporarily closing areas on a 

case-by-case basis would result in limited vegetative response and establishment. Without a proper rest period 

for burned areas, it would be difficult for vegetative species, particularly shrub species, to grow through the 

browse zone. Livestock grazing would slow plant growth, particularly that of sprouting species (which 

includes numerous shrub species found in the planning area). Vegetative response after prescribed fire and 

wildfires would depend greatly on fire intensity, moisture or precipitation in the area, and overall site 

conditions. 

An NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing and development within 0.25 miles of a sharp-tailed grouse lek 

would prevent direct habitat loss and indirect impacts to sharp-tailed grouse such as noise and displacement 

within 0.25 miles of the lek. However, the timing stipulation under this alternative would offer protection for 

direct and indirect impacts to habitat only during the operation and maintenance of the facility and not during 

the production of the well or other oil and gas facility. Although impacts to sharp-tailed grouse from various 

activities are not well understood, limited research indicates that disturbance of sharp-tailed grouse leks 

appears to limit reproductive opportunities for both sexes and would potentially cause loss of the lekking area 

(Baydack and Hein 1987). Subsequently, the reproductive potential of the population would be maintained 

only if females selected another lek that offered opportunities for mating. Research has also shown that 

female sharp-tailed grouse avoid disturbance consistently (Baydack and Hein 1987). 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-138

Colonial waterbirds, which inhabit secluded habitats and are wary by nature, would be vulnerable to human 

disturbances such as oil and gas exploration and development stipulated CSU. Impacts to colonial waterbirds, 

which include great blue herons and double-crested cormorants, from oil and gas development would include 

nest abandonment and potential loss of localized populations. 

Impacts from contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep or goats would include epizootic disease 

events that would potentially cause bighorn mortality and reduced future recruitment, including the loss of 

entire bighorn sheep populations. Although the complete range of mechanisms and causal agents that lead to 

epizootic disease events in bighorn sheep have not been proven conclusively, sufficient evidence exists to 

suggest that it would be prudent to prevent contact between domestic sheep or goats and bighorn sheep. 

Subsequently, allowing grazing of domestic sheep or goats for invasive species control within 14.3 miles of 

the Bighorn Sheep Range would increase the risk of population losses and reduce future recruitment in 

bighorn sheep. Separation from wild sheep should be the ultimate goal, with mitigation as addressed in the 

Fish and Wildlife Appendix. 

An NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing and development within 0.5 miles of ferruginous hawk nests 

would help to prevent impacts to nesting ferruginous hawks, a BLM Sensitive Species. However, although 

many ferruginous hawk nests would be utilized only every few years (potentially over periods greater than 2 

years) and depend on the condition of the nest site, prey base, population fluctuations, and habitat conditions, 

this action would provide protection only to those nests active within the past 2 years (see the NSO 

stipulation under Alternative A in the Minerals Appendix). Impacts to ferruginous hawks from human 

activity, including oil and gas activities, would include decreased productivity, direct mortality, and habitat 

alteration that decreased the availability of nest sites and the prey base. 

Allowing oil and gas leasing and development in black-tailed prairie dog colonies would cause direct and 

indirect habitat loss via roads, pipelines, power lines, well pad construction, and noise caused by construction 

or production of the facility. Prairie dog mortality would be expected to result from construction activities, 

installation of infrastructure that may increase predation on prairie dogs by providing raptor perches, and 

increased access for recreational shooting. All of these impacts would be expected to decrease the density and 

abundance of prairie dogs within a colony and potentially cause abandonment or displacement of the colony. 

Development would be expected to impact the majority of those species associated with prairie dogs, 

including those listed as BLM Sensitive Species (i.e., burrowing owls, ferruginous hawks), depending on the 

species’ tolerance to disturbance. However, disturbances on the periphery of colonies caused by pipeline 

ROWs and corridors would potentially increase the ability of prairie dogs to occupy habitat within the 

disturbed areas and possibly expand or redistribute the colony into these areas. 

When allowed, geophysical exploration would impact numerous wildlife species (including special status 

species such as ground-nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act) through displacement, nest 

abandonment or direct nest loss, and overall habitat fragmentation. The scale of development, location, and 

implementation measures employed would influence the magnitude of subsequent impacts. CSU stipulations 

for oil and gas leasing and development, timing stipulations, and lease terms would prevent some impacts 

from occurring and mitigate a portion of the impacts. 

Impacts to wildlife and special status wildlife species habitat from locatable minerals activities under this 

alternative (such as bentonite mining and uranium development) would include habitat loss and 

fragmentation; disturbance caused by noise; and movement caused by the exploration, construction, and 

operation of facilities and roads. 

Impacts to wildlife and special status wildlife species habitat from mineral materials activities under this 

alternative would include direct habitat loss resulting from habitat fragmentation and avoidance by wildlife. 

Implementation plans would ensure impacts to wildlife habitats and species would be mitigated under this 

alternative. 

Information regarding impacts to wildlife and special status wildlife species (including sage-grouse) caused 

by solar and wind energy projects is limited. However, wind energy activities would impact various bird and 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-139

bat species in several ways, which would include collisions with rotors, towers, and power lines; 

electrocutions; avoidance of turbines and habitat in the project area; and indirect habitat loss caused by 

turbines, roads, power lines, and associated buildings. For example, prairie grouse species have been found to 

avoid leks near wind projects (Pruett, Patten, and Wolfe 2009) and would be affected by habitat 

fragmentation. Windmills and their potential impacts on bats have also become increasingly public; for 

example, a recent court ruling in West Virginia stopped the construction of numerous wind turbines because 

it concluded that the project would have wounded, harmed, or killed the Indiana bat. 

OHV use, including use in Open (approximately 2,400 acres) and Limited use areas (2.8 million acres), 

would potentially fragment habitats, reduce wildlife security areas, and alter the home range and migration 

corridors of wildlife. On a broad general scale, roads would decrease habitat quality and potentially reduce 

populations. The magnitude of impacts would vary by the species, habitat type, size of road, amount of traffic 

on the road, and season of use. OHVs would displace and stress animals, a particularly important factor in the 

winter, and degrade wildlife habitats through surface disturbance. 

Route-specific travel planning would minimize and mitigate impacts to wildlife and special status wildlife 

species habitats with timing restrictions or other closures. 

Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas would not be designated an ACEC and would be managed 

according to actions described under Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas, which would result in 

the same impacts as described for these areas. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Prohibiting surface-disturbing activities on slopes and sensitive soils would help maintain the quantity and 

quality of vegetation and habitats from other resources and resource uses. 

Maintaining natural flow regimes and watershed functionality (which includes providing riparian vegetation 

and aquatic wildlife habitat) would ensure wildlife and special status wildlife species habitats did not decline 

in condition. Under this alternative, spring developments would be designed to ensure that riparian habitats 

were maintained and improved, which would provide additional water for wildlife and habitat for a variety of 

wildlife species. 

Although allowing nonnative or native species haying would reduce available forage and potential cover 

(depending on the vegetation condition, such as height and density), it would provide native seed collection, 

which would be needed for restoration or reclamation projects to restore important wildlife habitats throughout 

the planning area. 

Emphasizing natural recovery and implementing grazing restrictions, treatments, or seeding in hardwood 

draws would provide healthy, multiple-age, and multi-species stands of hardwood draw communities, which 

would be important in providing preferred habitats for all wildlife species, including big game and migratory 

bird species. 

Prohibiting permanent facilities, roads, and other surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in riparian areas 

(except to benefit watershed health or desired riparian vegetation) would ensure maintenance or improvement 

of high quality wildlife habitat conditions. These actions would include improvement of nonfunctional or 

functional-at risk with downward trend riparian areas. High quality riparian habitats would ensure that species 

diversity and functioning habitats were maintained for all wildlife species, including numerous migratory bird 

species. 

Designating areas containing Montana-designated invasive species as priority treatment areas would reduce 

the spread of invasive species within wildlife and special status wildlife species habitat. Prohibiting surfacedisturbing activities in areas of invasive species infestations would minimize the potential spread of these 

species. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-140

Allowing surface-disturbing or disruptive activities and oil and gas leasing within 4 miles of sharp-tailed 

grouse leks with specialized design features, which would include relocation of the activity or reclamation to 

maintain the functionality of the sharp-tailed grouse lek site and nesting habitat, would provide some 

protection for sharp-tailed grouse in the planning area. Although impacts to sharp-tailed grouse from various 

activities are not well understood, limited research indicates that disturbance of sharp-tailed grouse leks 

appears to limit reproductive opportunities for both sexes and would potentially cause loss of the lekking area 

(Baydack and Hein 1987). Subsequently, the reproductive potential of the population would be maintained 

only if females selected another lek that offered opportunities for mating. Research has also shown that 

female sharp-tailed grouse avoid disturbance consistently (Baydack and Hein 1987). 

Zeigenfuss et al. (2000) found that successful populations of transplanted bighorn sheep were an average of 

23 kilometers (14.3 miles) from domestic sheep. The potential for commingling of bighorn and domestic 

sheep and disease transmission are higher within 23 km (14.3 miles) of known domestic sheep or goat and 

bighorn sheep distribution. Impacts from contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep or goats would 

include epizootic disease events that would potentially cause bighorn mortality and reduced future 

recruitment, including the loss of entire bighorn sheep populations. Although the complete range of 

mechanisms and causal agents that lead to epizootic disease events in bighorn sheep have not been proven 

conclusively, sufficient evidence exists to suggest that it would be prudent to prevent contact between 

domestic sheep or goats and bighorn sheep. Subsequently, allowing grazing of domestic sheep or goats for 

invasive species control within 14.3 miles of the Bighorn Sheep Range would increase the risk of population 

losses and reduce future recruitment in bighorn sheep. Separation from wild sheep should be the ultimate 

goal, with mitigation as addressed in the Fish and Wildlife Appendix. 

A 0.5-mile buffer for Special Status Species Raptor nest sites would minimize potential physical harm to raptor 

species, which would include egg, young, or adult mortality; habitat alteration; and behavior disruption. These 

actions would also allow for compliance with, or mitigate potential losses or indirect impacts as addressed in, 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which protect and include all of 

the special status raptor species. The 7-year period included under this alternative would also minimize impacts 

to territorial nest species such as the bald eagle and ferruginous hawk, both of which may use multiple nests in a 

territory or abandon a nest for more than 2 years before rebuilding or reusing the nest sites. When allowed, 

geophysical exploration would impact numerous wildlife species (including special status species such as 

ground-nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act) through displacement, nest abandonment or 

direct nest loss, and overall habitat fragmentation. The scale of development, location, and implementation 

measures employed would influence the magnitude of subsequent impacts. CSU stipulations for oil and gas 

leasing and development, timing stipulations, and lease terms would prevent some impacts from occurring and 

mitigate a portion of the impacts. 

The oil and gas RFD for this RMP predicts development of 278 CBNG wells, which would disturb an 

estimated 134 acres. The BLM administers approximately 15 percent of the surface and 85 percent of the 

mineral estate within the PRB. The WMPP, which was included as a part of the BLM’s 2008 Final 

Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed 

Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans guides CBNG development in the 

PRB. The WMPP recognizes lease terms (60 days/200 meters) and stipulations (0.25-mile buffer from leks 

and a 2-mile timing restriction). Direct and indirect disturbances associated with the developed wells are 

managed through application of the WMPP. Reference leks are used to help assess trends in sage-grouse 

populations resulting from development. The BLM’s 2008 Final Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil 

and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Amendment of the Powder River and Billings 

Resource Management Plans mandates that the connectivity of habitats and the habitats themselves are 

maintained and that the development ensure that healthy sage-grouse populations are maintained to serve as 

source populations. However, since the BLM’s 2008 Final Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil and 

Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource 

Management Plans was finalized, little CBNG development has occurred and the efficacy of the WMPP 

stipulations have not been tested. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-141

Sage-grouse lek counts are used to monitor sage-grouse populations and trends and are ideally counted 

multiple times over the course of a breeding season. However, a lack of data outside of the PRB area of 

Montana and insufficient population data throughout the planning area has resulted in a lack of information 

about specific population trends. 

Because sage-grouse are a landscape species with a relatively large home range, activities occurring on and 

off BLM-administered lands would affect sage-grouse populations over a large geographic area. In some 

instances in this analysis, past studies were cited and impacts to sage-grouse within the planning area 

referenced. 

Under this alternative, Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas (14 percent would be BLM-administered 

surface and 29 percent federal oil and mineral estate), the Protection Priority Habitat ACEC (18 percent 

would be BLM-administered surface and 35 percent federal oil and mineral estate), and Restoration Habitat 

Areas (18 percent would be BLM-administered surface and 26 percent federal oil and mineral estate) would 

be designated. Although the designations themselves would provide no protection, management actions for 

each area would provide varying degrees of direction and protections. MFWP core areas (see Chapter 3 and 

Map 2), which overlap with proposed Protection Priority and Restoration Areas, include 56 percent of the 

state’s sage-grouse leks and support approximately 71 percent of the state’s sage-grouse population . Within 

this habitat, 267,000 acres of federal fluid minerals (83,000 BLM-administered surface acres) are considered 

to be high potential for oil and gas development and 718,000 acres of federal fluid minerals (370,000 BLMadministered surface acres) are in areas with medium potential for oil and gas development. 

Population responses by sage-grouse to different disturbances would depend on many factors, including but 

not limited to scale and duration of the development, West Nile virus outbreaks, and the degree to which 

adjacent habitat on non-BLM-administered lands was altered. If the BLM were capable of effectively 

restricting development activities but adjacent lands were disturbed through tillage, poor livestock grazing 

practices, or development, the effectiveness of BLM actions would be limited and decreases in sage-grouse 

populations on and off BLM-administered lands would be expected. Development could occur in such a way 

that BLM-administered lands were avoided, and, should development occur on the adjacent non-BLMadministered land, sage-grouse populations occupying BLM-administered lands would potentially be 

reduced. 

Areas proposed for coal exploration would be evaluated for their suitability for leasing through application of 

unsuitability criteria. With the emphasis of sage-grouse and their habitat, it is probable that sage-grouse 

habitat would be designated as unsuitable with or without exception. It is unlikely that existing mines, 

including adjacent areas proposed for mine expansion, would be designated as unsuitable without exception. 

Although coal companies have repeatedly demonstrated that disturbed lands can be restored to a point that 

supports a diversity of vegetative species, including big sagebrush, there is little evidence in Montana that 

sage-grouse populations have reoccupied habitat disturbed by coal mining, at least in terms of lek 

establishment. The Decker, Montana, area contains two coal mines located within areas designated as priority 

habitats (the Protection Priority ACEC and Restoration Areas). As stated previously, should development as 

proposed in the RFD occur in combination with coal development, sage-grouse populations within this area 

would be potentially reduced or would be completely eradicated. 

With the exception of bentonite mining, there has been little interest in other locatable minerals in the 

planning area; subsequently, expected impacts resulting from locatable mineral development would be largely 

associated with bentonite mining. 

In addition to protective measures used to mitigate impacts of projects in General Habitat Areas, the total 

amount of habitat that could be directly disturbed would be limited to 1 percent of the total habitat within the 

project area and no more than 5 percent of any given section. A 1:1 habitat compensation ratio would be 

required. The 1:1 habitat compensation ratio would provide incentives for proponents to develop habitat with 

a minimum of new disturbance. This action would also contribute to protection of connectivity habitat 

between the Protection Priority ACEC and Restoration Areas by conserving suitable habitat between the best 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-142

habitats. These actions, coupled with the restrictions placed within 4 miles of a lek, would potentially result in 

pushing development onto private lands. 

The South Carter Restoration Area would comprise 260,000 total acres and 64,000 BLM-administered 

surface acres in the planning area. A portion of the area is located within the Carter MLP. The South Carter 

Restoration Area is affected by bentonite mining (which results in the complete removal of habitat) that is 

expected to continue into the foreseeable future. Activities such as stockpiling of topsoil, truck traffic, and 

other activities would further reduce the functionality of the surrounding habitat. To date, approximately 

4,800 acres have been disturbed and another 13,400 total acres have been permitted. The RFD suggests that 

approximately 21,500 acres of mining permits could be acquired over the life of the plan. Under these 

predictions, less than 40,000 acres of the South Carter Restoration area would be mined for bentonite. 

However, approximately 220,000 acres would not be mined and federal fluid minerals would be subject to an 

NSO stipulation. Although restoration of disturbed areas to near pre-disturbance conditions has not occurred 

historically, more recent efforts have been directed toward restoring functional habitat. As outlined, 

reclamation should be focused on the restoration of habitats capable of supporting viable sage-grouse 

populations. Even with effective restoration, it is anticipated that over the life of this plan and beyond, 

restored areas would not support sage-grouse populations at the same level as those existing under predisturbance conditions. The remaining 190,000 BLM-administered surface acres would be associated with the 

Cedar Creek Anticline. 

Under this alternative, ROWs would be allowed as would oil and gas as long as habitat functionality could be 

maintained in sections within 1 mile of a lek with 4 or more wells per section. In a large part of the Cedar 

Creek Restoration Area, habitat functionality and the associated wildlife populations have already been lost. 

Maintaining habitat functionality would essentially manage past and future disturbances to restore disturbed 

areas to a point in which the habitats could support sage-grouse if and when development ends. 

In addition to protective measures used to mitigate impacts of projects in Restoration Areas, the total amount of 

habitat that could be disturbed would be limited to 1 percent of the project area and no more than 5 percent of 

any given section. A 5:1 habitat compensation ratio would be required. 

Habitat compensation would provide an incentive for proponents to avoid sage-grouse habitat and require 

compensation for lost habitat. Habitat compensation designed to meet the goals and objectives in Protection 

Priority ACECs and Restoration Areas would be accomplished by requiring proponents to: 

 acquire equivalent habitat on private lands and deed it to the BLM (or the BLM’s designee), 

 submit a cash payment (dollars per acre) and a 15-percent acquisition fee that would be used to acquire 

equivalent habitat, 

 purchase conservation easements that prevent future disturbance of equivalent habitat, or 

 some combination of these approaches, any of which would need to be approved by the BLM’s 

authorized representative. Deed restrictions having the same impact as conservation easements could 

also be used. 

The 1-percent cap would limit the amount of direct habitat disturbance allowed in the project area within 

General Habitat Areas. The 1-percent cap would conserve the best sage-grouse habitat by establishing a 

maximum threshold for habitat loss. This cap would protect the majority of the best sagebrush habitat from 

disturbance while providing for development that must occur. 

Although the 5-percent direct surface disturbance cap would prevent any single section from absorbing more 

than 32 acres of new disturbance, this action would have no bearing on the cumulative 1-percent cap for new 

disturbances. The 5-percent cap would also prevent the creation of sacrifice zones that would otherwise fit 

under the cumulative 1-percent cap for new disturbances. An unintended consequence of habitat compensation 

would potentially result in the deliberate location of proposed projects at the intersection of multiple sections, 

which would conceivably allow the development of up to 128 acres while still complying with the 1- and 5-

percent caps. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-143

Requiring proponents to compensate at a 1:1 ratio in General Habitat Areas and a 5:1 ratio in the Protection 

Priority ACEC and Restoration Areas would deter development of undisturbed habitat; or, if disturbing habitat 

was unavoidable, minimize the amount of disturbance. Because development for discretionary locations would 

be steered to the non-Protection Priority ACEC and non-Restoration Areas, these actions would encourage 

providing replacement habitat or otherwise protecting other habitat from future development. A 5:1 

compensation ratio would protect more habitat than was lost. Even in General Habitat Areas, the expense of 

compensating at the 1:1 ratio would likely result in locating projects to avoid creating new disturbances in 

suitable habitat. Utilizing disturbance limits and compensation would discourage the disturbance of habitats but 

not necessarily result in maintaining or improving sage-grouse populations. Simply purchasing or attaching 

conservation easements on habitat would not necessarily result in increasing sage-grouse populations to a level 

at least equal to the number of birds lost. 

Wildfire to meet multiple objectives in areas of fuel reductions and areas adjacent to other large, federally 

managed areas (such as the Custer National Forest and the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge) would 

generally result in increased growth, vigor, and recruitment of forage plants and maintenance of wildlife 

habitats, including habitats for numerous special status species. 

Prohibiting prescribed fire would not enable improvements in habitat condition and would potentially cause fuel 

loading and altered fuel structure. Impacts of this action would include encroachment and increased areas of 

monoculture. Impacts to wildlife would vary based on the habitat needs of species. Fuel treatments would result 

in either more open forested conditions (which would improve the habitat for species selecting these types of 

habitats, such as wild turkeys) or decreased encroachment of juniper and pine species, which would improve 

habitats for sage-grouse and other sagebrush-dependent species. Acreage of forest with dense multi-story cover 

would be reduced, which would decrease available habitat for species selecting those types of habitats and 

decrease thermal cover for numerous wildlife species, including big game. Short-term impacts from any kind of 

vegetation treatment would temporarily displace wildlife. Habitats would be considerably changed immediately 

after treatments and then gradually evolve over time. 

Although restricting prescribed fire would generally benefit sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat by reducing 

both direct and indirect impacts, sage-grouse would potentially benefit by treatment of areas in which Rocky 

Mountain juniper was encroaching or could be completely removed. Wyoming big sagebrush, which is the 

subspecies of sagebrush more likely to be associated with habitats supporting Rocky Mountain juniper, is not 

fire tolerant and can take many years to become reestablished following a fire. 

Emphasizing natural recovery and implementing grazing restrictions, treatments, or seeding in hardwood 

draws would provide healthy, multiple-age, and multi-species stands of hardwood draw communities, which 

would be important in providing preferred habitats for all wildlife species, including big game and migratory 

bird species. 

Because sport-fish reservoirs are important habitats for numerous wildlife species, including numerous 

migratory bird species, prohibiting livestock grazing within 0.5 miles of designated sport-fish reservoirs 

would enable improvement in species diversity, provide additional cover, potentially facilitate recovery and 

recruitment of woody species, and provide high quality habitat for all wildlife species, including a variety of 

special status species. 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout the planning area, including most of the sage-grouse range, and 

is the most widespread type of land use across the sagebrush biome (Knick et al. 2003), it would exert a more 

diffuse influence on soils and vegetation than land uses that removed or fragmented habitat. Determining 

season-of-use and livestock numbers for grazing permits on a case-by-case basis would not necessarily result 

in high quality sage-grouse habitat. The reduction in grass height caused by livestock grazing in sage-grouse 

nesting and brood-rearing areas has been shown to negatively impact nesting success when residual 

herbaceous cover was reduced below the approximately 7 inches needed for predator avoidance (Gregg et al. 

1994). Livestock grazing would potentially reduce the suitability of breeding and brood-rearing habitat, 

which would impact sage-grouse populations (USFWS 2010a). For BLM-administered lands, Standards for 

Rangeland Health are the “physical and biological conditions or degree of function required for healthy 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-144

sustainable rangelands. Achieving or making significant progress towards these functions and conditions is 

required of all uses of public lands (BLM 2011f, p. 3)." Standard 5 requires the BLM to ensure that the 

environment contains all of the necessary components to support viable population of a sensitive, threatened, 

and endangered species in a given area relative to site potential. BLM Washington Office IM 2009-018 helps 

ensure that land health considerations, such as vegetation cover for sage-grouse, are primary considerations 

for prioritizing the processing of grazing authorizations. 

Livestock grazing impacts wildlife habitats, including habitats for numerous special status species. Managing 

BLM-administered lands to meet Standards for Rangeland Health, closing areas that failed to meet these 

standards, and changing grazing seasons and livestock numbers if grazing were a causal factor in the area’s 

failure to meet Standards for Rangeland Health would minimize the potential impacts from livestock grazing, 

which would include the following: 

 competition for forage, water, and space; 

 habitat alteration through changes in plant composition; 

 streambank degradation caused by compression, sloughing, and vegetation removal; 

 stimulated growth of some plant species and increased succulent vegetation; 

 overgrazing, which would decrease standing herbaceous vegetation important habitat for most wildlife, 

particularly ground-nesting birds; 

 livestock fences, which would create travel barriers and result in injury and death from entanglements, 

alter big game distribution, and create perches for predators but also improve habitat and water quality 

associated with streams; 

 expanded spatial and temporal ranges for big game and livestock; and 

 water developments, which would expand spatial and temporal ranges for big game and livestock and 

potentially result in increased competition for forage with big game but also potentially increase 

wildlife densities where livestock were absent and not in conflict with wildlife in the area. 

From a landscape perspective within the planning area, livestock grazing would have the greatest potential to 

positively affect sage-grouse populations through good grazing management and location of range 

improvements. Good grazing practices would allow for the habitat needs of sage-grouse by providing residual 

vegetation, production and presence, and habitat to support insects. Livestock grazing and rangeland 

improvements in support of livestock grazing would impact sage-grouse habitats by reducing indirect 

impacts. Recent research has documented the importance of residual vegetation for nest success. Where BLM 

grazing authorizations do not provide for residual vegetation availability during the nesting season, 

compliance with Standards for Rangeland Health would help ensure the habitats capable of supporting viable 

sage-grouse populations were maintained or achieved. Although closing allotments would benefit sage-grouse 

habitat, in the short-term, the condition of the habitat would likely have been degraded to a level from which 

improvements would potentially take years. As a result, compliance with the Standards for Rangeland Health 

would benefit sage-grouse habitats, but closing allotments would have minimal impacts. 

Prohibiting livestock grazing until the burned or treated areas attained identified vegetative objectives would 

ensure high quality habitat conditions and provide adequate forage, nesting, and thermal cover for numerous 

wildlife species, including special status species. Deferring or temporarily closing livestock grazing for 2 

growing seasons following prescribed fire, wildfire, or vegetative treatments would also ensure a limited 

amount of vegetative response and establishment. Vegetative response following non-fire vegetative 

treatments, wildfires, and prescribed fires would depend largely on fire intensity, moisture or precipitation in 

the area, and overall site conditions. 

OHV use in Open and Limited use areas would fragment habitats, reduce wildlife security areas, and alter the 

home range and migration corridors of wildlife. On a broad general scale, roads would decrease habitat 

quality and potentially reduce populations. The magnitude of impacts would vary by the species, habitat type, 

size of road, amount of traffic on the road, and season of use. OHVs would displace and stress animals, a 

particularly important factor in the winter, and degrade wildlife habitats through surface disturbance. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-145

Completing route-specific travel planning would minimize and mitigate impacts to wildlife and special status 

wildlife species habitats with timing restrictions or other closures. 

Partial closures or timing restrictions for livestock grazing in Recreation and Special Designation Area would 

reduce impacts to overall wildlife habitat conditions, such as decreased species diversity. 

Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas would be designated an ACEC under this alternative and would 

be managed according to actions described under Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas, which 

would result in the same impacts as described for these areas. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Mitigating effects to sensitive soils and slopes would reduce impacts to quantity and quality of vegetation and 

habitats. 

Including approved mitigation with surface-disturbing or disruptive activities on floodplains and other 

waterbodies or streams would ensure that wildlife and special status wildlife species habitats did not decline in 

overall habitat condition. Under this alternative, spring developments would be designed to ensure riparian 

habitats were maintained and improved, which would provide additional water for wildlife and habitat for a 

variety of wildlife species.

Allowing nonnative hay or seed harvest outside of sage-grouse habitat and excluding livestock grazing would 

reduce impacts to nesting and brood-rearing sage-grouse and provide additional residual cover for nesting 

birds, including many special status species. 

Allowing surface-disturbing activities in areas of invasive species infestations only with an approved 

mitigation plan would minimize, but not eliminate, impacts. Overall, this action would help to mitigate direct 

and indirect impacts to sage-grouse habitats. 

Because sport-fish reservoirs are important habitats for numerous wildlife species (including numerous 

migratory bird species), prohibiting livestock grazing within 0.5 miles of designated sport-fish reservoirs 

would enable improvements in species diversity. This action would also provide additional cover and high 

quality habitat conditions for all wildlife species, which would include a variety of special status species, and 

potentially promote woody species recovery and recruitment. 

Although prohibiting aboveground power lines and requiring buried power lines would minimize impacts 

such as electrocutions, collisions, and habitat fragmentation caused by overhead power lines, a limited 

amount of habitat fragmentation (both direct and indirect) would occur with the authorization of belowground 

power lines, depending on reclamation practices. However, if burial were not technologically feasible and an 

aboveground power line authorized and constructed, impacts caused by overhead power lines would occur. 

Additionally, nest construction on power line posts would interfere with power line operation and endanger 

raptors and their young; a study in Idaho found that power line collisions caused 33 percent of juvenile sagegrouse deaths in the study area (Beck et al. 2006; Flake et al. 2010). Avian species affected would include 

special status species and numerous migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

Allowing surface-disturbing or disruptive activities with specialized design features in designated Big Game 

Crucial Winter Range areas would cause habitat fragmentation, displacement or shifts in animal distribution, 

and disturbance in general. Mitigation or specialized design features would include consideration of optimal 

location of the activity and actions to reclaim habitat, minimize direct disturbance and potential habitat loss, 

and reduce impacts to wintering big game species. 

Wildlife response to surface-disturbing activities, facilities, and oil and gas activities are complex but well 

documented (BLM 2008g). Habitat fragmentation, both direct and indirect, has the potential to cause the 

greatest impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat (Hebblewhite and Merrill 2008). For example, research 

conducted in areas of energy development in Wyoming reported shifts in mule deer distribution and 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-146

considerable declines in the Sublette mule deer population while population densities in control populations 

remained constant (Hebblewhite 2008). Additionally, although research documenting the impacts of energy 

development on pronghorn antelope is limited, a Wyoming study found that habitat fragmentation of 

previously undisturbed habitat resulted in reduced use or abandonment by pronghorn and that pronghorn 

consistently avoided (by 100 meters) producing wells located in suitable habitat (Berger et al. 2006). 

Because the majority of sharp-tailed grouse hens nest within 2 miles of a lek, allowing surface-disturbing and 

disruptive activities and oil and gas activities within 2 miles of a sharp-tailed grouse lek with specialized 

design features would provide some protection for a high percentage of nesting hens in the planning area. 

Although impacts to sharp-tailed grouse from various activities are not well understood, limited research 

indicates that disturbance of sharp-tailed grouse leks appears to limit reproductive opportunities for both 

sexes and would potentially include loss of the lekking area (Baydack and Hein 1987). Subsequently, the 

reproductive potential of the population would be maintained only if females selected another lek that offered 

opportunities for mating. Research has also shown that female sharp-tailed grouse avoid disturbance 

consistently (Baydack and Hein 1987). 

Effects to colonial waterbirds from minimal surface-disturbing activities, disruptive activities, and oil and gas 

leasing with specialized design features would include nest abandonment or potential loss of production. The 

effects would be mitigated (e.g., alternate siting or noise reduction of construction or operational activities). 

Allowing surface-disturbing and disruptive activities with specialized design features and prohibiting the 

renewal and approval of grazing permits for domestic sheep or goats within the Bighorn Sheep Range would 

mitigate impacts such as direct and indirect habitat loss. Elevated stress levels in sheep have been linked to 

depressed immune response, loss of condition, reduced lamb survival, and elevated mortality rates; 

subsequently, bighorn sheep would be much more susceptible to stress caused by these actions than most 

other ungulates. 

Allowing surface-disturbing activities and oil and gas leasing with specialized design features within 0.5 

miles of Special Status Species Raptor nest sites would minimize potential physical harm to raptor species, 

which would include egg, young, or adult mortality; habitat alteration; and behavior disruption. Timing 

restrictions, optimal location, and other alternative methods would be used to mitigate potential impacts to 

raptors. Mitigation would provide some protection for the nest sites but would not ultimately ensure 

compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The 7-year 

period included in these actions would also minimize impacts to territorial nest species such as the bald eagle 

and ferruginous hawk, both of which may use multiple nests in a territory or abandon a nest for more than 2 

years before rebuilding or reusing the nest sites. 

Prohibiting surface-disturbing and disruptive activities and oil and gas leasing or development within 0.25 

miles of black-tailed prairie dog colonies would result in indirect impacts to prairie dog colonies, which 

would include recruitment or expansion of colonies. Road and well pad construction and noise from facility 

construction or production would cause indirect habitat loss. Impacts would potentially include anthropogenic 

disturbances (such as noise and human activity), improved access for recreational shooting, and the 

establishment of raptor perches, which may increase mortality of prairie dogs. This alternative would also 

help maintain habitat for numerous other wildlife species associated with prairie dog towns, including 

burrowing owls and other migratory bird species. 

The oil and gas RFD for this RMP predicts development of 278 CBNG wells, which would disturb an 

estimated 134 acres. The BLM administers approximately 15 percent of the surface and 85 percent of the 

mineral estate within the PRB. The WMPP, which was included as a part of the BLM’s 2008 Final 

Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed 

Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans guides CBNG development in the 

PRB. The WMPP recognizes lease terms (60 days/200 meters) and stipulations (0.25-mile buffer from leks 

and a 2-mile timing restriction). Direct and indirect disturbances associated with the developed wells are 

managed through application of the WMPP. Reference leks are used to help assess trends in sage-grouse 

populations resulting from development. The BLM’s 2008 Final Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-147

and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Amendment of the Powder River and Billings 

Resource Management Plans mandates that the connectivity of habitats and the habitats themselves are 

maintained and that the development ensure that healthy sage-grouse populations are maintained to serve as 

source populations. However, since the BLM’s 2008 Final Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil and 

Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource 

Management Plans was finalized, little CBNG development has occurred and the efficacy of the WMPP 

stipulations have not been tested. 

Areas proposed for coal exploration would be evaluated for their suitability for leasing through application of 

unsuitability criteria. With the emphasis of sage-grouse and their habitat, it is probable that sage-grouse 

habitat would be designated as unsuitable with or without exception. It is unlikely that existing mines, 

including adjacent areas proposed for mine expansion, would be designated as unsuitable without exception. 

Although coal companies have repeatedly demonstrated that disturbed lands can be restored to a point that 

supports a diversity of vegetative species, including big sagebrush, there is little evidence in Montana that 

sage-grouse populations have reoccupied habitat disturbed by coal mining, at least in terms of lek 

establishment. The Decker, Montana, area contains two coal mines located within areas designated as priority 

habitats (Protection Priority and Restoration). As stated previously, should development as proposed in the 

RFD occur in combination with coal development, sage-grouse populations within this area would be 

potentially reduced or would be completely eradicated. 

With the exception of bentonite mining, there has been little interest in other locatable minerals in the 

planning area; subsequently, expected impacts resulting from locatable mineral development would be largely 

associated with bentonite mining. 

The BLM would manage 13 percent of the surface (1.7 million acres) and 27 percent of the federal oil and 

gas mineral estate (3.7 million acres) in General Habitat Areas throughout the planning area. These numbers 

include 492,000 acres of federal fluid minerals and 158,000 acres of BLM-administered surface within high 

potential development areas; 898,000 acres of federal fluid minerals and 307,000 acres of BLM-administered 

surface within medium potential areas; and 2.3 million acres of federal fluid minerals and 1.2 million acres of 

BLM-administered surface within low potential areas. 

Avoiding surface-disturbing and disruptive activities such as ROWs or geophysical exploration, within 3.1 

miles of leks would provide protections to maintain viable populations of sage-grouse in these areas by 

protecting approximately 70 percent of nesting hens. The efficacy of BLM CSU stipulations for leasing and 

development within 3.1 miles of a lek would result in an estimated increase in the ability of leks to remain on 

the landscape if the BLM administered the surface. Impacts of energy development occur at distances of 

between 3 and 4 miles (including within brood or winter habitat). This action would likely maintain sagegrouse distribution (but with a reduced abundance of sage-grouse) and increase the likelihood of successful 

restoration of sage-grouse populations following various activities, such as energy development. 

In addition to protective measures used to mitigate impacts of projects in General Habitat Areas, the total 

amount of habitat that could be directly disturbed would be limited to 1 percent of the total habitat within the 

project area and no more than 3 percent of any given section. A 1:1 habitat compensation ratio would be 

required. The 1:1 habitat compensation ratio would provide incentives for proponents to develop habitat with 

a minimum of new disturbance. This action would also contribute to protection of connectivity habitat 

between Protection Priority Areas and Restoration Areas by conserving suitable habitat between the best 

habitats. 

The BLM would manage 27 percent of the surface (44,000 acres) and 48 percent of the federal oil and gas 

mineral estate (102,000 acres) in Protection Priority Areas throughout the planning area. Surface-disturbing 

and disruptive activities, such as ROWs and geophysical exploration, within Protection Priority Areas under 

this alternative would be subject to limits of one disturbance per 640 acres with a cumulative direct and 

indirect disturbance of no more than 3 percent of the sagebrush habitat, and maintenance of functional habitat 

and associated populations. Impacts to sage-grouse or their habitats would depend on the type and duration of 

the development. However, by limiting direct and indirect disturbance to 3 percent of the sagebrush habitat 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-148

within a section, sage-grouse objectives should be met but is highly dependent on actions occurring on 

private lands. 

Because it would take 4 or more years from the initiation of disturbance to noticeable population responses, 

impacts may not be known at or prior to the project initiation stage. If population decreases were identified, it 

is likely that the disturbance feature would already be in place, increasing the difficulty of removing or 

modifying the structure or increasing the difficulty of reversing impacts that have already occurred. A 3-

percent limit per section would largely limit development. 

In addition, requiring disturbed sites to be fully reclaimed before additional disturbance could be disturbed 

would prevent additional disturbance for many years. Using trend areas as a measure of the effectiveness of 

management actions would provide a challenge since trend leks may or may not occur on similar habitats and 

may be affected by other stressors. 

In addition to protective measures to mitigate impacts of projects in Protection Priority Areas, the total amount 

of habitat that could be disturbed would be limited to 1 percent of the total habitat and no more than 3 percent of 

any given section. A 5:1 habitat compensation ratio would be required. 

The South Carter Restoration Area would comprise 260,000 total acres and 64,000 BLM-administered 

surface acres in the planning area. The area is affected by bentonite mining (which results in the complete 

removal of habitat) that is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. Activities such as stockpiling of 

topsoil, truck traffic, and other activities would further reduce the functionality of the surrounding habitat. To 

date, approximately 4,800 acres have been disturbed and another 13,400 total acres have been permitted. The 

RFD suggests that approximately 21,500 acres of mining permits could be acquired over the life of the plan. 

Under these predictions, less than 40,000 acres of the South Carter Restoration area would be mined for 

bentonite. However, approximately 220,000 acres would not be mined and federal fluid minerals would be 

subject to an NSO stipulation. Although restoration of disturbed areas to near pre-disturbance conditions has 

not occurred historically, more recent efforts have been directed toward restoring functional habitat. As 

outlined, reclamation should be focused on the restoration of habitats capable of supporting viable sagegrouse populations. Even with effective restoration, it is anticipated that over the life of this plan and beyond, 

restored areas would not support sage-grouse populations at the same level as those existing under predisturbance conditions. 

In a large part of the Cedar Creek Restoration Area, habitat functionality and the associated wildlife 

populations have already been lost. Maintaining habitat functionality would essentially manage past and 

future disturbances to restore disturbed areas to a point in which the habitats could support sage-grouse when 

development ends. The Cedar Creek Anticline is heavily linked to the North Dakota population. As a direct 

result of oil and gas development in both North Dakota and the Cedar Creek Anticline, sage-grouse 

populations would be expected to decline further. Extirpation of these sage-grouse would also be possible. 

In addition to protective measures used to mitigate impacts of projects in Restoration Areas, the total amount 

of habitat that could be disturbed would be limited to 1 percent of the Restoration Area polygon and no more 

than 3 percent of any given section. A 5:1 habitat compensation ratio would be required. 

Habitat compensation would provide an opportunity for proponents to mitigate necessary surface disturbance in 

sage-grouse habitat by requiring compensation for lost habitat. Habitat compensation designed to meet the goals 

and objectives in Protection Priority and Restoration Areas would be accomplished by requiring proponents to: 

 acquire equivalent habitat on private lands and deed it to the BLM (or the BLM’s designee), 

 submit a payment (dollars per acre) that would be used to acquire or improve equivalent habitat, 

 purchase conservation easements that prevent future disturbance of equivalent habitat, or 

 some combination of these approaches, any of which would need to be approved by the BLM’s 

authorized representative. Deed restrictions having the same impact as conservation easements could 

also be used. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-149

The 1-percent cap would limit the amount of direct habitat disturbance allowed in the project area within 

General Habitat. The 1-percent cap would conserve the best sage-grouse habitat by establishing a maximum 

threshold for habitat loss. This cap would protect the majority of the best sagebrush habitat from disturbance 

while providing for development that must occur. 

Although the 5-percent direct surface disturbance cap would prevent any single section from absorbing more 

than 32 acres of new disturbance, this action would have no bearing on the cumulative 1-percent cap for new 

disturbances. The 5-percent cap would also prevent the creation of sacrifice zones that would otherwise fit 

under the cumulative 1-percent cap for new disturbances. An unintended consequence of habitat compensation 

would potentially result in the deliberate location of proposed projects at the intersection of multiple sections, 

which would conceivably allow the development of up to 128 acres while still complying with the 1- and 5-

percent caps. The disturbance caps coupled with the restrictions placed within the Restoration Areas would 

potentially result in development being located onto private lands. 

Requiring proponents to compensate at a 1:1 ratio in General Habitat Areas and a 5:1 ratio in Protection Priority 

and Restoration Areas would deter development of undisturbed habitat; or, if disturbing habitat was 

unavoidable, minimize the amount of disturbance. Because development for discretionary locations would be 

steered to non-Protection Priority Areas and non-Restoration Areas, these actions would encourage a selfcorrecting process by providing replacement habitat or otherwise protecting other habitat from future 

development. A 5:1 compensation ratio would protect more habitat than was lost. Even in General Habitat 

Areas, the expense of compensating at the 1:1 ratio would likely result in locating projects to avoid creating 

new disturbances in suitable habitat. Utilizing disturbance limits and compensation would discourage the 

disturbance of habitats but would not necessarily result in maintaining or improving sage-grouse populations. 

Simply purchasing or attaching conservation easements on habitat would not necessarily result in increasing 

sage-grouse populations to a level at least equal to the number of birds lost. 

Although allowing prescribed fire would reduce sage-grouse and their habitat, sage-grouse would potentially 

benefit by treatment of areas in which Rocky Mountain juniper was encroaching or could be completely 

removed. Wyoming big sagebrush, which is the subspecies of sagebrush more likely to be associated with 

habitats supporting Rocky Mountain juniper, is not fire tolerant and can take many years to become 

reestablished following a fire. 

Within the Carter MLP area, oil and gas development would be issued with a CSU stipulation, geophysical 

exploration would be allowed on existing road or trails, mineral material sales would be open, ROWs would 

be avoided, and OHV use would be limited to existing roads and trails. Since none of the area would be 

designated Protection Priority Areas, the area would be subject to CSU stipulation for General Habitat Areas 

within 2 miles of leks. The MLP area has an RFD estimate of 75 oil wells and 13 gas well drilled during the 

life of the plan. Should oil or gas be developed in this area, the 2-mile CSU stipulation would only provide 

some protection adjacent to the lek. Important wintering, brood-rearing, or nesting habitat occurring further 

from the leks than 2 miles would receive no protection under this alternative. As a result, should oil and gas 

development occur, some declines in sage-grouse habitat and the associated sage-grouse populations would 

be expected, depending on the spacing location and associated development; however, the area would be 

expected to support viable populations. 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout the planning area, including most of the sage-grouse range, and 

is the most widespread type of land use across the sagebrush biome (Knick et al. 2003), it would exert a more 

diffuse influence on soils and vegetation than land uses that removed or fragmented habitat. Determining 

season-of-use and livestock numbers for grazing permits on a case-by-case basis would not necessarily result 

in high quality sage-grouse habitat. The reduction in grass height caused by livestock grazing in sage-grouse 

nesting and brood-rearing areas has been shown to negatively impact nesting success when residual 

herbaceous cover was reduced below the approximately 7 inches needed for predator avoidance (Gregg et al. 

1994). Livestock grazing would potentially reduce the suitability of breeding and brood-rearing habitat, 

which would impact sage-grouse populations (USFWS 2010a). For BLM-administered lands, Standards for 

Rangeland Health are the “physical and biological conditions or degree of function required for healthy 

sustainable rangelands. Achieving or making significant progress towards these functions and conditions is 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-150

required of all uses of public lands (BLM 2011f, p. 3)." Standard 5 requires the BLM to ensure that the 

environment contains all of the necessary components to support viable population of a sensitive, threatened, 

and endangered species in a given area relative to site potential. BLM Washington Office IM 2009-018 helps 

ensure that land health considerations, such as vegetation cover for sage-grouse, are primary considerations 

for prioritizing the processing of grazing authorizations. 

Livestock grazing occurs throughout the planning area and would impact wildlife habitats, including habitats 

for numerous special status species. Managing BLM-administered lands to meet Standards for Rangeland 

Health, changing grazing seasons and livestock numbers, issuing grazing permits with specific grazing 

seasons and numbers, and using other terms and conditions designed to make progress toward meeting 

Standards for Rangeland Health would ensure some progress toward providing vegetative species diversity 

and forage for wildlife species, including special status species. Potential impacts from livestock grazing 

would include the following: 

 competition for forage, water, and space; 

 habitat alteration through changes in plant composition; 

 streambank degradation caused by compression, sloughing, and vegetation removal; 

 stimulated growth of some plant species and increased succulent vegetation; 

 overgrazing, which would decrease standing herbaceous vegetation important habitat for most wildlife, 

particularly ground-nesting birds; 

 livestock fences, which would create travel barriers and result in injury and death from entanglements, 

alter big game distribution, and create perches for predators but also improve habitat and water quality 

associated with streams; 

 expanded spatial and temporal ranges for big game and livestock; and 

 water developments, which would expand spatial and temporal ranges for big game and livestock and 

potentially result in increased competition for forage with big game but also potentially increase 

wildlife densities where livestock were absent and not in conflict with wildlife in the area. 

From a landscape perspective within the planning area, livestock grazing would have the greatest potential to 

positively affect sage-grouse populations through good grazing management and location of range 

improvements. Good grazing practices would allow for the habitat needs of sage-grouse (in comparison to 

other grazing practices that have been shown to negatively impact residual vegetation), production and 

presence, and habitat to support insects. Livestock grazing and rangeland improvements in support of 

livestock grazing would impact sage-grouse habitats by reducing indirect impacts. Recent research has 

documented the importance of residual vegetation for nest success. Some BLM grazing authorizations do not 

provide for residual vegetation availability during the nesting season; however, for the most part, these 

authorizations are for allotments in which the BLM has little ability to effectively manage grazing. 

Compliance with Standards for Rangeland Health would help ensure that habitats capable of supporting 

viable sage-grouse populations were maintained or achieved. Although closing allotments would benefit 

sage-grouse habitat, in the short-term, the condition of the habitat would likely have been degraded to a level 

from which improvements would potentially take years. As a result, compliance with the Standards for 

Rangeland Health would benefit sage-grouse habitats, but closing allotments would have minimal impacts. 

Range improvements would potentially result in the overuse of important areas by livestock. For example, 

development of springs would generally result in changes in vegetative composition from a high diversity of 

grasses and forbs, important to broods, to one dominated by grasses, while in areas in which livestock use 

was not well managed, invasive forbs such as dandelion and curly-cup gumweed would rise in prevalence. 

Concentrated livestock use would remove standing vegetation and subsequently reduce associated insects and 

forbs, both of which are important to sage-grouse broods. Allowing spring developments along ephemeral 

streams and wetlands and allowing livestock watering tanks would decrease sage-grouse habitat. Springs or 

seeps and wetland areas are vitally important to sage-grouse broods, and allowing spring developments under 

this alternative would potentially benefit some resources, but not sage-grouse. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-151

Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas would not be designated an ACEC and would be managed 

according to actions described under Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas, which would result in 

the same impacts as described for these areas. 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Avoiding surface-disturbing activities or implementing approved mitigation on sensitive soils and slopes 

would reduce impacts to quantity and quality of vegetation and habitats. 

Including approved mitigation with surface-disturbing or disruptive activities on floodplains and other 

waterbodies or streams would ensure wildlife and special status wildlife species habitats did not decline in 

overall habitat condition. Under this alternative, spring developments would be designed to ensure riparian 

habitats were maintained and improved, which would provide additional water for wildlife and habitat for a 

variety of wildlife species. 

Allowing harvesting of nonnative hay or seed when consistent with resource management objectives would 

reduce impacts to wildlife and special status wildlife species habitats, such as the reduction of nesting cover and 

forage. Resource objectives would include providing for plant species diversity, multiple age-class and 

structure, and overall vegetative health and vigor. The option of reducing AUMs during the year of hay harvest 

would offset residual and overall cover loss and forage for wildlife and numerous special status wildlife species. 

Allowing oil and gas leasing, development, and exploration near designated sport-fish reservoirs would 

impact wildlife habitats (including special status species habitats) through the loss of important riparian 

habitats, including species diversity and structure. 

Burying power lines (unless not technologically feasible) within a 2-mile buffer area would protect sagegrouse leks, winter occurrence points, winter concentration areas, and approximately 60 percent of nesting 

sage-grouse in the vicinity of the leks in these areas but facilitate more habitat fragmentation, both direct and 

indirect. Although prohibiting aboveground power lines and requiring buried power lines would minimize 

impacts such as electrocutions, collisions, and habitat fragmentation caused by overhead power lines, a 

limited amount of habitat fragmentation (both direct and indirect) would occur with the authorization of 

belowground power lines, depending on reclamation practices. However, if burial were not technologically 

feasible and an aboveground power line authorized and constructed, impacts caused by overhead power lines 

would occur. Additionally, nest construction on power line posts would interfere with power line operation 

and endanger raptors and their young; a study in Idaho found that power line collisions caused 33 percent of 

juvenile sage-grouse deaths in the study area (Beck et al. 2006; Flake et al. 2010). Avian species affected 

would include special status species and numerous migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act. 

Allowing surface-disturbing or disruptive activities with specialized design features in designated Big Game 

Crucial Winter Range areas would cause habitat fragmentation, displacement or shifts in animal distribution, 

and disturbance in general. Mitigation or specialized design features would include consideration of optimal 

location of the activity and actions to reclaim habitat, minimize direct disturbance and potential habitat loss, 

and reduce impacts to wintering big game species. 

Wildlife response to surface-disturbing activities, facilities, and oil and gas activities are complex but well 

documented (BLM 2008g). Habitat fragmentation, both direct and indirect, has the potential to cause the 

greatest impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat (Hebblewhite and Merrill 2008). For example, research 

conducted in areas of energy development in Wyoming reported shifts in mule deer distribution and 

considerable declines in the Sublette mule deer population while population densities in control populations 

remained constant (Hebblewhite 2008). Additionally, although research documenting the impacts of energy 

development on pronghorn antelope is limited, a Wyoming study found that habitat fragmentation of 

previously undisturbed habitat resulted in reduced use or abandonment by pronghorn and that pronghorn 

consistently avoided (by 100 meters) producing wells located in suitable habitat (Berger et al. 2006). 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-152

Because the majority of hens nest within 2 miles of a lek, allowing surface-disturbing and disruptive activities 

and oil and gas activities within 2 miles of a sharp-tailed grouse lek with specialized design features would 

provide some protection for a high percentage of nesting hens in the planning area. Although impacts to 

sharp-tailed grouse from various activities are not well understood, limited research indicates that disturbance 

of sharp-tailed grouse leks appears to limit reproductive opportunities for both sexes and would potentially 

include loss of the lekking area (Baydack and Hein 1987). Subsequently, the reproductive potential of the 

population would be maintained only if females selected another lek that offered opportunities for mating. 

Research has also shown that female sharp-tailed grouse avoid disturbance consistently (Baydack and Hein 

1987). 

Minimizing surface-disturbing activities, disruptive activities, and oil and gas leasing with specialized design 

feature to minimize disturbance to colonial waterbirds would include mitigation (such as alternate siting or 

noise reduction of construction or operational activities) to reduce impacts, which would include 

abandonment or potential loss of production. 

Allowing surface-disturbing activities with specialized design features and prohibiting the renewal and 

approval of grazing permits for domestic sheep or goats within the Bighorn Sheep Range would mitigate 

impacts, including direct and indirect habitat loss. Elevated stress levels in sheep have been linked to 

depressed immune response, loss of condition, reduced lamb survival, and elevated mortality rates; 

subsequently, bighorn sheep would be much more susceptible to stress caused by these actions than most 

other ungulates. 

Zeigenfuss et al. (2000) found successful populations of transplanted bighorn sheep were an average of 23 

kilometers (14.3 miles) from domestic sheep. The potential for commingling of bighorn and domestic sheep 

and disease transmission are higher within 23 km (14.3 miles) of known domestic sheep or goat and bighorn 

sheep distribution. Impacts from contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep or goats would include 

epizootic disease events that would potentially cause bighorn mortality and reduced future recruitment, 

including the loss of entire bighorn sheep populations. Although the complete range of mechanisms and 

causal agents that lead to epizootic disease events in bighorn sheep have not been proven conclusively, 

sufficient evidence exists to suggest that it would be prudent to prevent contact between domestic sheep or 

goats and bighorn sheep. Subsequently, allowing grazing of domestic sheep or goats for invasive species 

control within 14.3 miles of the Bighorn Sheep Range would increase the risk of population losses and reduce 

future recruitment in bighorn sheep. Separation from wild sheep should be the ultimate goal, with mitigation 

as addressed in the Fish and Wildlife Appendix. 

Allowing surface-disturbing activities and oil and gas leasing with specialized design features near Special 

Status Species Raptor nest sites would minimize potential physical harm to raptor species, which would 

include egg, young, or adult mortality; habitat alteration; and behavior disruption. Timing restrictions, 

optimal location, and other alternative methods would be used to mitigate potential impacts to raptors. 

Mitigation would provide some protection for the nest sites but would not ultimately ensure compliance with 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The 2-year period included in 

these actions would not minimize impacts to territorial nest species such as the bald eagle and ferruginous 

hawk, both of which may use multiple nests in a territory or abandon a nest for more than 2 years before 

rebuilding or reusing the nest sites. 

Restricting surface-disturbing or disruptive impacts in piping plover and interior least tern habitat with a 

habitat functionality stipulation would minimize impacts to those species, including direct and indirect habitat 

loss. Because the USFWS has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and endangered species (piping 

plover are classified as threatened and least terns are classified as endangered), consultation with the USFWS 

Ecological Services Section would be required to identify threatened, endangered, or candidate species that 

may be present in areas of proposed activities and to determine additional protection and mitigation measures 

that may be needed prior to certain activities. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-153

Allowing surface-disturbing or disruptive activities and oil and gas leasing with specialized design features in 

black-tailed prairie dog colonies would minimize impacts to black-tailed prairie dogs, which would include 

direct and indirect habitat loss. Although impacts (such as noise and habitat fragmentation) would still occur, 

they would be mitigated under this alternative. However, these actions would impact numerous other wildlife 

species, including burrowing owls and ferruginous hawks, both of which depend on prairie dog colonies for 

survival. 

Allowing surface-disturbing activities in areas of invasive species infestations only with an approved 

mitigation plan would minimize, but not eliminate, impacts. Overall, this action would help to mitigate direct 

and indirect impacts to sage-grouse habitats. 

Although allowing prescribed fire would reduce sage-grouse and their habitat, sage-grouse would potentially 

benefit by treatment of areas in which Rocky Mountain juniper was encroaching or could be completely 

removed. Wyoming big sagebrush, which is the subspecies of sagebrush more likely to be associated with 

habitats supporting Rocky Mountain juniper, is not fire tolerant and can take many years to become 

reestablished following a fire. 

From a landscape perspective within the planning area, livestock grazing would have the greatest potential to 

positively affect sage-grouse populations through good grazing management and location of range 

improvements. Good grazing practices would allow for the habitat needs of sage-grouse (in comparison to 

other grazing practices that have been shown to negatively impact residual vegetation), production and 

presence, and habitat to support insects. Livestock grazing and rangeland improvements in support of 

livestock grazing would impact sage-grouse habitats by reducing indirect impacts. Recent research has 

documented the importance of residual vegetation for nest success. Some BLM grazing authorizations do not 

provide for residual vegetation availability during the nesting season; however, for the most part, these 

authorizations are for allotments in which the BLM has little ability to effectively manage grazing. Mandatory 

compliance with Standards for Rangeland Health would help ensure that habitats capable of supporting viable 

sage-grouse populations were maintained or achieved. Although closing allotments would benefit sage-grouse 

habitat, in the short-term, the condition of the habitat would likely have been degraded to a level from which 

improvements would potentially take years. As a result, compliance with the Standards for Rangeland Health 

would benefit sage-grouse habitats, but closing allotments would have minimal impacts. 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout the planning area, including most of the sage-grouse range, and 

is the most widespread type of land use across the sagebrush biome (Knick et al. 2003), it would exert a more 

diffuse influence on soils and vegetation than land uses that removed or fragmented habitat. Determining 

season-of-use and livestock numbers for grazing permits on a case-by-case basis would not necessarily result 

in high quality sage-grouse habitat. The reduction in grass height caused by livestock grazing in sage-grouse 

nesting and brood-rearing areas has been shown to negatively impact nesting success when residual 

herbaceous cover is reduced below the approximately 7 inches needed for predator avoidance (Gregg et al. 

1994). Livestock grazing would potentially reduce the suitability of breeding and brood-rearing habitat, 

which would impact sage-grouse populations (USFWS 2010a). For BLM-administered lands, Standards for 

Rangeland Health are the “physical and biological conditions or degree of function required for healthy 

sustainable rangelands. Achieving or making significant progress towards these functions and conditions is 

required of all uses of public lands (BLM 2011f, p. 3)." Standard 5 requires the BLM to ensure that the 

environment contains all of the necessary components to support viable population of a sensitive, threatened, 

and endangered species in a given area relative to site potential. BLM Washington Office Instruction 

Memorandum (IM) 2009-018 helps ensure that land health considerations, such as vegetation cover for sagegrouse, are primary considerations for prioritizing the processing of grazing authorizations. 

Livestock grazing occurs throughout the planning area and would impact wildlife habitats, including habitats 

for numerous special status species. Managing BLM-administered lands to meet Standards for Rangeland 

Health, changing grazing seasons and livestock numbers, issuing grazing permits with specific grazing 

seasons and numbers, and using other terms and conditions designed to make progress toward meeting 

Standards for Rangeland Health would ensure some progress toward providing vegetative species diversity 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-154

and forage for wildlife species, including special status species. Potential impacts from livestock grazing 

would include the following: 

 competition for forage, water, and space; 

 habitat alteration through changes in plant composition; 

 streambank degradation caused by compression, sloughing, and vegetation removal; 

 stimulated growth of some plant species and increased succulent vegetation; 

 overgrazing, which would decrease standing herbaceous vegetation important habitat for most wildlife, 

particularly ground-nesting birds; 

 livestock fences, which would create travel barriers and result in injury and death from entanglements, 

alter big game distribution, and create perches for predators but also improve habitat and water quality 

associated with streams; 

 expanded spatial and temporal ranges for big game and livestock; and 

 water developments, which would expand spatial and temporal ranges for big game and livestock and 

potentially result in increased competition for forage with big game but also potentially increase 

wildlife densities where livestock were absent and not in conflict with wildlife in the area. 

Range improvements would potentially result in changes in vegetative composition from a high diversity of 

grasses and forbs, which are important to broods, to one dominated by grasses. Concentrated livestock use 

would remove standing vegetation and subsequently reduce associated insects and forbs, both of which are 

important to sage-grouse broods. Allowing spring developments along ephemeral streams and wetlands and 

allowing livestock watering tanks would decrease sage-grouse habitat. Springs or seeps and wetland areas are 

vitally important to sage-grouse broods, and allowing spring developments under this alternative would 

potentially benefit some resources, but not sage-grouse. 

The oil and gas RFD for this RMP predicts development of 278 CBNG wells, which would disturb an 

estimated 134 acres. The BLM administers approximately 15 percent of the surface and 85 percent of the 

mineral estate within the PRB. The WMPP, which was included as a part of the BLM’s 2008 Final 

Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed 

Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans guides CBNG development in the 

PRB. The WMPP recognizes lease terms (60 days/200 meters) and stipulations (0.25-mile buffer from leks 

and a 2-mile timing restriction). Direct and indirect disturbances associated with the developed wells are 

managed through application of the WMPP. Reference leks are used to help assess trends in sage-grouse 

populations resulting from development. The BLM’s 2008 Final Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil 

and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Amendment of the Powder River and Billings 

Resource Management Plans mandates that the connectivity of habitats and the habitats themselves are 

maintained and that the development ensure that healthy sage-grouse populations are maintained to serve as 

source populations. However, since the BLM’s 2008 Final Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil and 

Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource 

Management Plans was finalized, little CBNG development has occurred and the efficacy of the WMPP 

stipulations have not been tested. 

Areas proposed for coal exploration would be evaluated for their suitability for leasing through application of 

unsuitability criteria. With the emphasis of sage-grouse and their habitat, it is probable that sage-grouse 

habitat would be designated as unsuitable with or without exception. It is unlikely that existing mines, 

including adjacent areas proposed for mine expansion, would be designated as unsuitable without exception. 

Although coal companies have repeatedly demonstrated that disturbed lands can be restored to a point that 

supports a diversity of vegetative species, including big sagebrush, there is little evidence in Montana that 

sage-grouse populations have reoccupied habitat disturbed by coal mining, at least in terms of lek 

establishment. The Decker, Montana, area contains two coal mines located within areas designated as priority 

habitats (Protection Priority and Restoration). As stated previously, should development as proposed in the 

RFD occur in combination with coal development, sage-grouse populations within this area would potentially 

be reduced or would be completely eradicated. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-155

With the exception of bentonite mining, there has been little interest in other locatable minerals in the 

planning area; subsequently, expected impacts resulting from locatable mineral development would be largely 

associated with bentonite mining. 

Habitat compensation would provide an incentive for proponents to avoid sage-grouse habitat and require 

compensation for lost habitat. Habitat compensation designed to meet the goals and objectives in Protection 

Priority and Restoration areas would be accomplished by requiring proponents to: 

 acquire equivalent habitat on private lands and deed it to the BLM (or the BLM’s designee), 

 submit a cash payment (dollars per acre) and a 15-percent acquisition fee that would be used to acquire 

equivalent habitat, 

 purchase conservation easements that prevent future disturbance of equivalent habitat, or 

 some combination of these approaches, any of which would need to be approved by the BLM’s 

authorized representative. Deed restrictions having the same impact as conservation easements could 

also be used. 

The 1-percent cap would limit the amount of direct habitat disturbance allowed in the project area within 

General Habitat. The 1-percent cap would demonstrate the BLM’s commitment to conserve the best sagegrouse habitat by establishing a maximum threshold for habitat loss. This cap would protect the majority of the 

best sagebrush habitat from disturbance while providing for development that must occur. 

Although the 10-percent direct surface disturbance cap would prevent any single section from absorbing more 

than 64 acres of new disturbance, this action would have no bearing on the cumulative 1-percent cap for new 

disturbances. The 10-percent cap would also prevent the creation of sacrifice zones that would otherwise fit 

under the cumulative 1-percent cap for new disturbances. An unintended consequence of habitat compensation 

would potentially result in the deliberate location of proposed projects at the intersection of multiple sections, 

which would conceivably allow the development of up to 256 acres while still complying with the 1- and 10-

percent caps. The disturbance caps coupled with the restrictions placed within the Restoration Areas would 

potentially result in development being located onto private lands. For almost any activity occurring on BLMadministered land (with the possible exception of bentonite or coal development), direct disturbance of 10 

percent of the land within a section is rare. If this level of disturbance were to be scattered throughout any given 

sections or sections, there would be a high probability that this landscape would no longer support anything 

more than a transient population of sage-grouse. 

Requiring proponents to compensate at a 1:1 ratio in General Habitat Areas and a 5:1 ratio in Protection Priority 

and Restoration Areas would deter development of undisturbed habitat; or, if disturbing habitat was 

unavoidable, minimize the amount of disturbance. Because development for discretionary locations would be 

steered to non-Protection Priority Areas and non-Restoration Areas, these actions would encourage a selfcorrecting process by providing replacement habitat or otherwise protecting other habitat from future 

development. A 5:1 compensation ratio would protect more habitat than was lost. Even in General Habitat 

Areas, the expense of compensating at the 1:1 ratio would likely result in locating projects so as not to create 

new disturbances in suitable habitat. Utilizing disturbance limits and compensation would discourage the 

disturbance of habitats, but would not necessarily result in maintaining or improving sage-grouse populations. 

Simply purchasing or attaching conservation easements on habitat would potentially not result in increasing 

sage-grouse populations to a level at least equal to the number of birds lost. 

In addition to protective measures used to mitigate impacts of projects in General Habitat Areas, the total 

amount of habitat that could be directly disturbed would be limited to 1 percent of the total habitat within the 

project area and no more than 10 percent of any given section. A 1:1 habitat compensation ratio would be 

required. The 1:1 habitat compensation ratio would provide incentives for proponents to develop habitat with 

a minimum of new disturbance. This action would also contribute to protection of connectivity habitat 

between Protection Priority Areas and Restoration Areas by conserving suitable habitat between the best 

habitats. These actions, coupled with the restrictions placed within 3.1 miles of a lek, would potentially result 

in pushing development onto private lands. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-156

If 10 percent of a section in General Habitat Areas was disturbed directly, sage-grouse would potentially be 

unable to remain in the areas of direct and indirect disturbance. If the scope and duration of disturbance was 

such that the disturbance was consolidated on lesser quality habitat, impacts to habitats would potentially be 

minimized. However, if the 10-percent disturbance were distributed throughout a section, it would be likely 

that this level of development would, at a minimum, result in decreased populations; in the event the 

disturbance was associated with a ROW or oil and gas field, extirpation of sage-grouse would also be 

possible. The 1:1 habitat compensation ratio would provide incentives for proponents to develop habitat with 

a minimum of new disturbance. This action would also contribute to protection of connectivity habitat 

between Protection and Restoration Areas by conserving suitable habitat between the best habitats. These 

actions, coupled with the restrictions placed within 2 miles of a lek, would potentially result in pushing 

development onto private lands. 

The BLM would manage 34 percent of the surface (497,000 acres) and 64 percent of the federal oil and gas 

mineral estate (950,000 acres) in Protection Priority Areas throughout the planning area. Surface-disturbing 

and disruptive activities, such as ROWs and geophysical exploration, within Protection Priority Areas under 

this alternative would be limited to no more than 10 percent disturbance per 640 acres and maintenance of 

functional habitat and associated populations. Impacts to sage-grouse or their habitats would depend on the 

type and duration of the development. It would be unlikely that functional habitat and associated populations 

could be maintained if a 10 percent disturbance were to occur. Numerous studies have documented 

population losses when development is well below the 10-percent level. Depending on the magnitude and 

placement of the oil and gas facilities, permitting activities under the 2-mile CSU stipulation would 

potentially be possible. However, there would be no stipulations for oil and gas leasing and development in 

habitats greater than 2 miles from leks, which would contain nesting habitat for 44 percent of sage-grouse 

hens, so decreases in sage-grouse populations would be expected under this alternative. It would become 

difficult to permit activities under these actions if oil and gas development were to occur at levels greater than 

one well per square mile. 

Because it would take 4 or more years from the initiation of disturbance to noticeable population responses, 

impacts may not be known at or prior to the project initiation stage. If population decreases were identified, it 

is likely that the disturbance feature would already be in place, increasing the difficulty of removing or 

modifying the structure or increasing the difficulty of reversing impacts that have already occurred. 

In addition, requiring disturbed sites to be fully reclaimed before additional disturbance could be disturbed 

would prevent additional disturbance for many years. With the goal of maintaining and increasing 

populations in Protection Priority Areas, using trend areas as a measure of the effectiveness of management 

actions would be difficult since trend leks may or may not occur on similar habitats and may be affected by 

other stressors. As a result of other activities or disease (West Nile virus) populations would potentially 

decline in Protection Priority Areas. Because of the intermingled land pattern, actions occurring on nonBLM-administered lands would potentially offset some benefits. MFWP core areas (see Chapter 3 and Map 

2), which overlap with proposed Protection Priority and Restoration Areas, in Montana support 

approximately 71 percent of the total sage-grouse population, and, although BLM actions would be expected 

to maintain viable populations of sage-grouse within these BLM-administered habitats, support of these 

populations would depend chiefly on activities on non-BLM-administered land. 

In addition to protective measures to mitigate impacts of projects in Protection Priority Areas, the total amount 

of habitat that could be disturbed would be limited to 1 percent of the total habitat within the project area and no 

more than 3 percent of any given section. A 1:1 habitat compensation ratio would be required. The disturbance 

caps coupled with the restrictions placed within the Protection Priority Areas would potentially result in 

development being located onto private lands. 

The South Carter Restoration Area would comprise 260,000 total acres and 64,000 BLM-administered 

surface acres in the planning area. The area is affected by bentonite mining (which results in the complete 

removal of habitat) that is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. Activities such as stockpiling of 

topsoil, truck traffic, and other activities would further reduce the functionality of the surrounding habitat. To 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-157

date, approximately 4,800 acres have been disturbed and another 13,400 total acres have been permitted. The 

RFD suggests that approximately 21,500 acres of mining permits could be acquired over the life of the plan. 

Under these predictions, less than 40,000 acres of the South Carter Restoration area would be mined for 

bentonite. However, approximately 220,000 acres would not be mined and federal fluid minerals would be 

subject to an NSO stipulation. Although restoration of disturbed areas to near pre-disturbance conditions has 

not occurred historically, more recent efforts have been directed toward restoring functional habitat. As 

outlined, reclamation should be focused on the restoration of habitats capable of supporting viable sagegrouse populations. Even with effective restoration, it is anticipated that over the life of this plan and beyond, 

restored areas would not support sage-grouse populations at the same level as those existing under predisturbance conditions. 

The remaining 37,000 BLM-administered surface acres would be associated with the Cedar Creek Anticline. 

Because the area has an intermingled land ownership pattern in the source population area (the BLM 

administers approximately 45 percent of the surface and fluid minerals), actions occurring on private lands 

would potentially result in the extirpation of sage-grouse regardless of BLM-authorized actions. 

In a large part of the Cedar Creek Restoration Area, habitat functionality and the associated wildlife 

populations have already been lost. Maintaining habitat functionality would essentially manage past and 

future disturbances to restore disturbed areas to a point in which the habitats could support sage-grouse if and 

when development ends. 

In addition to protective measures used to mitigate impacts of projects in Restoration Areas, the total amount 

of habitat that could be disturbed would be limited to 1 percent of the Restoration Area polygon and no more 

than 10 percent of any given section. A 5:1 habitat compensation ratio would be required. 

Prescribed fire activities and vegetation treatments (such as post and pole, firewood, sawtimber, and Christmas 

tree sales) would potentially return sites to a desired condition or to historical fuel loading, structure, or 

composition in the long term. Impacts to wildlife (including special status species) and their habitats would vary 

by the habitat needs of species and change over time. Treatments that altered tree species composition or stand 

structure would alter wildlife habitats immediately. Although these actions would improve habitat for some 

species, particularly those selecting more early seral or open forest habitats, they would degrade habitats for 

other species, particularly those preferring denser and more structurally diverse habitats. 

Livestock grazing occurs throughout the sage-grouse range and planning area and is the most widespread type 

of land use across the sagebrush biome (Knick et al. 2003). The reduction in grass height caused by livestock 

grazing in sage-grouse nesting and brood-rearing areas has been shown to negatively impact nesting success 

when residual herbaceous cover is reduced below the approximately 7 inches needed for predator avoidance 

(Gregg et al. 1994). Livestock grazing would potentially reduce the suitability of breeding and brood-rearing 

habitat, which would negatively impact sage-grouse populations (USFWS 2010a). 

Impacts to wildlife and special status wildlife species habitat from locatable minerals activities under this 

alternative (such as bentonite mining and uranium development) would include habitat loss and 

fragmentation; disturbance caused by noise; and movement caused by the exploration, construction, and 

operation of facilities and roads. 

Impacts to wildlife and special status wildlife species habitat from mineral materials activities under this 

alternative would include direct habitat loss resulting from habitat fragmentation and avoidance by wildlife. 

Implementation plans would ensure impacts to wildlife habitats and species would be mitigated under this 

alternative. 

Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas would not be designated an ACEC and would be managed 

according to actions described under Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas, which would result in 

the same impacts as described for these areas. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-158

ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Avoiding surface-disturbing activities or implementing approved mitigation on sensitive soils and slopes 25 

percent or greater would reduce impacts to vegetation and habitats. 

Including approved mitigation with surface-disturbing or disruptive activities on floodplains and other 

waterbodies or streams would ensure fish and wildlife, including special status species, habitats did not 

decline in overall condition. 

Under this alternative, spring developments would be designed to ensure riparian habitats were maintained 

and improved, which would provide additional water for wildlife and habitat for a variety of wildlife species. 

Although allowing haying of nonnative or native species for fuels reduction would reduce available forage and 

potential cover, it would also provide a source of native plant seed, which would be needed for restoration or 

reclamation of important wildlife habitats. 

Haying or seed collection within sage-grouse habitat for improving wildlife habitat, fuels reduction, or to 

collect seed for reclamation or restoration projects would benefit sage-grouse minimally. Little hay cutting or 

seed collection would be anticipated. 

Although specialized design features for power lines (e.g., burying or line location) or burying in and within 2 

miles of a lek (Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas) throughout the planning area would minimize 

impacts such as electrocutions, collisions, and habitat fragmentation, habitat fragmentation would occur with 

buried power lines. The fragmentation would be short or long term, depending on reclamation practices. If 

burying power lines were not technologically feasible and aboveground power lines authorized, impacts 

would still occur. Nest construction on power line poles would potentially interfere with power line operation 

and endanger raptors and their young; a study in Idaho found that power line collisions resulted in 33 percent 

of juvenile sage-grouse deaths in the study area (Beck et al. 2006; Flake et al. 2010). Collisions by songbirds 

also occur and electrocutions of songbirds have been observed, particularly when flocks create arcs between 

individuals in the flock and the phase conductor of the power line (Naugle et al. 2011). Avian species affected 

would include special status species and numerous migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act. 

Allowing surface-disturbing activities with specialized design features in Big Game Crucial Winter Range 

areas would result in habitat fragmentation and displacement or shifts in animal distribution, ultimately 

resulting in population declines. Mitigation or specialized design features would include consideration of 

location of the activity and actions to reclaim habitat, minimize direct and indirect disturbance and potential 

habitat loss, and reduce impacts to big game species; however, even with the application of specialized design 

features, impacts to big game populations would occur. The extent of these impacts would depend on the 

quality of the habitat, severity of the winter conditions, and effectiveness of the mitigation and specialized 

design features. 

Wildlife response to a wide array of surface-disturbing activities and facilities are complex but well 

documented (BLM 2008g). Habitat fragmentation (both direct and indirect) has the potential to cause the 

greatest impacts to wildlife and their habitats (Hebblewhite and Merrill 2008). For example, research 

conducted in areas of energy development in Wyoming reported shifts in mule deer distribution and 

considerable declines in the Sublette mule deer population while population densities in control populations 

remained constant (Hebblewhite 2008). Additionally, although research documenting the impacts of energy 

development on pronghorn antelope is limited, a Wyoming study found habitat fragmentation of previously 

undisturbed habitat resulted in reduced use or abandonment of the habitat and pronghorn consistently avoided 

(by 100 meters) producing wells located in suitable habitat (Berger et al. 2006). Although this research was 

specific to oil and gas development, impacts resulting from other surface-disturbing activities proposed under 

this alternative would be comparable. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-159

Allowing surface-disturbing and disruptive activities within 2 miles of sharp-tailed grouse leks with 

specialized design features would provide some protection for a high percentage of nesting hens in the 

planning area because the majority of sharp-tailed grouse hens nest within 2 miles of a lek. Although impacts 

to sharp-tailed grouse from various activities are not well understood, limited research indicates that 

disturbance of sharp-tailed grouse leks appears to limit reproductive opportunities for both sexes and can 

include loss of the lekking area. Subsequently, the reproductive potential of the population would be 

maintained only if females were to select another lek that offered opportunities for mating. Research has also 

shown female sharp-tailed grouse avoid disturbance consistently (Baydack and Hein 1987). Some hens would 

nest at distances greater than 2 miles from the lek, and these nesting hens and nests would potentially be lost 

through activities proposed under this alternative. 

A CSU stipulation requiring a plan that demonstrated how oil and gas activities would minimize impacts 

within 0.25-miles of colonial waterbirds would provide some protection for these birds. Colonial waterbirds, 

which inhabit secluded habitats and are wary by nature, would be vulnerable to human disturbances such as 

oil and gas exploration and development. Impacts to colonial waterbirds, which include great blue herons and 

double-crested cormorants, from disturbance and disruption would include nest abandonment and potential 

loss of localized populations. 

Allowing surface-disturbing and disruptive activities with specialized design features and renewing and 

approving grazing permits for domestic sheep or goats within the Bighorn Sheep Range would mitigate 

impacts, such as direct and indirect habitat loss. Elevated stress levels resulting from disturbance and 

disruption in bighorn sheep have been linked to depressed immune response, loss of body condition, reduced 

lamb survival, and elevated mortality rates. Subsequently, bighorn sheep would be more susceptible to stress 

caused by these actions than other ungulates in the planning area. Specialized design features to maintain 

habitat for bighorn sheep would potentially include required herding of domestic sheep and goats, exclusion 

of domestic sheep and goats in certain areas, timing restrictions, or other actions. 

Zeigenfuss et al. (2000) found that successful populations of transplanted bighorn sheep were an average of 

23 kilometers (14.3 miles) from domestic sheep. The potential for commingling of bighorn and domestic 

sheep and disease transmission are higher within 23 km (14.3 miles) of known domestic sheep or goat and 

bighorn sheep distribution. Impacts from contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep or goats would 

include epizootic disease events that would potentially cause bighorn mortality and reduced future 

recruitment, including the loss of entire bighorn sheep populations. Although the complete range of 

mechanisms and causal agents that lead to epizootic disease events in bighorn sheep have not been proven 

conclusively, sufficient evidence exists to suggest that it would be prudent to prevent contact between 

domestic sheep or goats and bighorn sheep. Subsequently, allowing grazing of domestic sheep or goats for 

invasive species control within 14.3 miles of the Bighorn Sheep Range would increase the risk of population 

losses and reduce future recruitment in bighorn sheep. Separation from wild sheep should be the ultimate 

goal, with mitigation as addressed in the Fish and Wildlife Appendix. 

Allowing surface-disturbing and disruptive activities and oil and gas leasing with specialized design features 

within 0.5 miles of nest sites of special status species raptors and prairie falcons would minimize potential 

disturbance to raptor species, including a reduction in nest success, direct mortalities, habitat alteration, and 

behavior disruption (such as avoidance of preferred nesting areas because of noise). Examples of specialized 

design features include timing restrictions, facility location, and other disturbance or disruption mitigation to 

reduce impacts to raptors. Mitigation would provide some protection for the nest sites but may not ultimately 

ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The 7-

year period included in this alternative would minimize impacts to territorial nest species such as the bald 

eagle and ferruginous hawk, both of which may use multiple nests in a territory for more than 2 years before 

rebuilding or reusing nest sites. 

Prohibiting surface-disturbing and disruptive activities and offering oil and gas leasing with a CSU stipulation 

within piping plover habitat (unless the habitat was maintained) would minimize impacts to those species. 

Because the USFWS has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and endangered species, consultation 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-160

with the USFWS would be required to determine if additional protection and mitigation measures were 

needed prior to certain activities. 

There is little habitat for piping plover or interior least terns on BLM-administered lands in the planning areas 

because very few islands would be administered by the BLM. Although potentially susceptible to 

development, the 0.25-mile NSO would be adequate to provide needed protections. Recreational use of the 

graveled islands within the Yellowstone River would potentially impact nesting least terns. During spring 

run-off, it is not uncommon for interior least terns to nest on graveled islands well into July and even August. 

Use of these islands by recreationists would potentially result in trampling of eggs or in disturbance of adults 

incubating eggs. The extent of this use is not well known. 

Allowing surface-disturbing or disruptive activities and oil and gas leasing with specialized design features in 

black-tailed prairie dog colonies (active and inactive colonies) would minimize impacts to black-tailed prairie 

dogs and prairie dog town obligate species. Although impacts (such as noise and habitat fragmentation) 

would still occur, they would be mitigated under this alternative. 

Allowing surface-disturbing activities in areas of invasive species infestations only with an approved 

mitigation plan would minimize, but not eliminate, impacts. Overall, this action would help to mitigate direct 

and indirect impacts to sage-grouse habitats. 

Although allowing prescribed fire would reduce sage-grouse and their habitat, sage-grouse would potentially 

benefit by treatment of areas in which Rocky Mountain juniper was encroaching or could be completely 

removed. Wyoming big sagebrush, which is the subspecies of sagebrush more likely to be associated with 

habitats supporting Rocky Mountain juniper, is not fire tolerant and can take many years to become 

reestablished following a fire. Prescribed fires targeting sagebrush habitat would reduce or eliminate the 

associated sage-grouse population. 

From a landscape perspective within the planning area, livestock grazing would have the greatest potential to 

positively affect sage-grouse populations through good grazing management and location of range 

improvements. Good grazing practices would allow for the habitat needs of sage-grouse (in comparison to 

other grazing practices that have been shown to negatively impact residual vegetation), production and 

presence, and habitat to support insects. Livestock grazing and rangeland improvements in support of 

livestock grazing would impact sage-grouse habitats by reducing indirect impacts. Recent research has 

documented the importance of residual vegetation for nest success. Some BLM grazing authorizations do not 

provide for residual vegetation availability during the nesting season; however, for the most part, these 

authorizations are for allotments in which the BLM has little ability to effectively manage grazing. Mandatory 

compliance with Standards for Rangeland Health would help ensure that habitats capable of supporting viable 

sage-grouse populations were maintained or achieved. Although closing allotments would benefit sage-grouse 

habitat, in the short-term, the condition of the habitat would likely have been degraded to a level from which 

improvements would potentially take years. As a result, compliance with the Standards for Rangeland Health 

would benefit sage-grouse habitats, but closing allotments would have minimal impacts. 

Although livestock grazing occurs throughout the planning area, including most of the sage-grouse range, and 

is the most widespread type of land use across the sagebrush biome (Knick et al. 2003), it would exert a more 

diffuse influence on soils and vegetation than land uses that removed or fragmented habitat. Determining 

season-of-use and livestock numbers for grazing permits on a case-by-case basis would not necessarily result 

in high quality sage-grouse habitat. The reduction in grass height caused by livestock grazing in sage-grouse 

nesting and brood-rearing areas has been shown to negatively impact nesting success when residual 

herbaceous cover was reduced below the approximately 7 inches needed for predator avoidance (Gregg et al. 

1994). Livestock grazing would potentially reduce the suitability of breeding and brood-rearing habitat, 

which would impact sage-grouse populations (USFWS 2010a). For BLM-administered lands, Standards for 

Rangeland Health are the “physical and biological conditions or degree of function required for healthy 

sustainable rangelands. Achieving or making significant progress towards these functions and conditions is 

required of all uses of public lands (BLM 2011f, p. 3)." Standard 5 requires the BLM to ensure that the 

environment contains all of the necessary components to support viable population of a sensitive, threatened, 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-161

and endangered species in a given area relative to site potential. BLM Washington Office IM 2009-018 helps 

ensure that land health considerations, such as vegetation cover for sage-grouse, are primary considerations 

for prioritizing the processing of grazing authorizations. 

Livestock grazing occurs throughout the planning area and would impact wildlife habitats, including habitats 

for numerous special status species. Managing BLM-administered lands to meet Standards for Rangeland 

Health, changing grazing seasons and livestock numbers, issuing grazing permits with specific grazing 

seasons and numbers, and using other terms and conditions designed to make progress toward meeting 

Standards for Rangeland Health would ensure some progress toward providing vegetative species diversity 

and forage for wildlife species, including special status species. Potential impacts from livestock grazing 

would include the following: 

 competition for forage, water, and space; 

 habitat alteration through changes in plant composition; 

 streambank degradation caused by compression, sloughing, and vegetation removal; 

 stimulated growth of some plant species and increased succulent vegetation; 

 overgrazing, which would decrease standing herbaceous vegetation important habitat for most wildlife, 

particularly ground-nesting birds; 

 livestock fences, which would create travel barriers and result in injury and death from entanglements, 

alter big game distribution, and create perches for predators but also improve habitat and water quality 

associated with streams; 

 expanded spatial and temporal ranges for big game and livestock; and 

 water developments, which would expand spatial and temporal ranges for big game and livestock and 

potentially result in increased competition for forage with big game but also potentially increase 

wildlife densities where livestock were absent and not in conflict with wildlife in the area. 

Range improvements would potentially result in the overuse of important areas by livestock. For example, 

development of springs would generally result in changes in vegetative composition from a high diversity of 

grasses and forbs, important to broods, to one dominated by grasses, while in areas in which livestock use 

was not well managed, invasive forbs such as dandelion and curly-cup gumweed would rise in prevalence. 

Concentrated livestock use would remove standing vegetation and subsequently reduce associated insects and 

forbs, both of which are important to sage-grouse broods. Allowing spring developments along ephemeral 

streams and wetlands and allowing livestock watering tanks would decrease sage-grouse habitat. Springs or 

seeps and wetland areas are vitally important to sage-grouse broods, and allowing spring developments under 

this alternative would potentially benefit some resources, but not sage-grouse. 

The oil and gas RFD for this RMP predicts development of 278 CBNG wells, which would disturb an 

estimated 134 acres. The BLM administers approximately 15 percent of the surface and 85 percent of the 

mineral estate within the PRB. The WMPP, which was included as a part of the BLM’s 2008 Final 

Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed 

Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans guides CBNG development in the 

PRB. The WMPP recognizes lease terms (60 days/200 meters) and stipulations (0.25-mile buffer from leks 

and a 2-mile timing restriction). Direct and indirect disturbances associated with the developed wells are 

managed through application of the WMPP. Reference leks are used to help assess trends in sage-grouse 

populations resulting from development. The BLM’s 2008 Final Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil 

and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Amendment of the Powder River and Billings 

Resource Management Plans mandates that the connectivity of habitats and the habitats themselves are 

maintained and that the development ensure that healthy sage-grouse populations are maintained to serve as 

source populations. However, since the BLM’s 2008 Final Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil and 

Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource 

Management Plans was finalized, little CBNG development has occurred and the efficacy of the WMPP 

stipulations have not been tested. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-162

Areas proposed for coal development would be evaluated for their suitability for leasing through application 

of unsuitability criteria. With the emphasis of sage-grouse and their habitat, it is probable that sage-grouse 

habitat would be designated as unsuitable with or without exception. It is unlikely that existing mines, 

including adjacent areas proposed for mine expansion, would be designated as unsuitable without exception. 

Although coal companies have repeatedly demonstrated that disturbed lands can be restored to a point that 

supports a diversity of vegetative species, including big sagebrush, there is little evidence in Montana that 

sage-grouse populations have reoccupied habitat disturbed by coal mining, at least in terms of lek 

establishment. The Decker, Montana, area contains two coal mines located within areas designated as priority 

habitats (Restoration). As stated previously, should development as proposed in the RFD occur in 

combination with coal development, sage-grouse populations within this area would be potentially reduced or 

would be completely eradicated. 

With the exception of bentonite mining, there has been little interest in other locatable minerals in the 

planning area; subsequently, expected impacts resulting from locatable mineral development would be largely 

associated with bentonite mining. 

Habitat compensation would not be required under this alternative. There would be little incentive for 

operators to consider compensation. 

Sage-grouse lek counts are used to monitor sage-grouse populations and trends and are ideally counted 

multiple times over the course of a breeding season. However, a lack of data outside of the PRB area of 

Montana and insufficient population data throughout the planning area has resulted in a lack of information 

about specific population trends. 

Because it would take 4 or more years from the initiation of disturbance to noticeable population responses, 

impacts may not be known at or prior to the project initiation stage. If population decreases were identified, it 

is likely that the disturbance feature would already be in place, increasing the difficulty of removing or 

modifying the structure or increasing the difficulty of reversing impacts that have already occurred. 

Although avoiding surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in Protection Priority Areas and offering oil 

and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation in these areas would result in sustainable sage-grouse populations, 

impacts to these areas would also depend greatly on activities occurring on private lands because only 39 

percent of the Protection Priority Areas would be administered by the BLM. 

The BLM would manage 19 percent of the surface (128,000 acres) and 52 percent of the federal oil and gas 

mineral estate throughout Sage-grouse Habitat – Restoration Areas in the planning area. A CSU stipulation 

that allowed activities in a manner that provided for sage-grouse movement and genetic exchange, maintained 

leks, and ensured restoration of altered habitat would be ineffective in protecting sage-grouse and their 

habitats. 

The South Carter Restoration Area would comprise 260,000 total acres and 64,000 BLM-administered 

surface acres in the planning area. The area is affected by bentonite mining (which results in the complete 

removal of habitat) that is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. Activities such as stockpiling of 

topsoil, truck traffic, and other activities would further reduce the surrounding habitat. To date approximately 

4,800 acres have been disturbed and another 13,400 total acres have been permitted. The RFD suggests that 

approximately 21,500 acres of mining permits could be acquired over the life of the plan. Under these 

predictions, less than 40,000 acres of the South Carter Restoration area would be mined for bentonite. 

However, approximately 220,000 acres would not be mined and federal fluid minerals would be subject to an 

NSO stipulation in Restoration Areas. Although restoration of disturbed areas to near pre-disturbance 

conditions has not occurred historically, more recent efforts have been directed toward restoring habitat. As 

outlined, reclamation should be focused on the restoration of habitats capable of supporting viable sagegrouse populations. Even with effective restoration, it is anticipated that over the life of this plan and beyond, 

restored areas would not support sage-grouse populations at the same level as those existing under predisturbance conditions. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-163

The remaining 64,000 BLM-administered surface acres would be associated with the Cedar Creek Anticline. 

Although most of the Anticline area has been developed to a point in which the survival of the current level of 

sage-grouse populations would be unlikely, a small area referred to as a source population area, which 

contains a total of 17,900 total acres and 8,015 BLM-administered surface acres, has been identified. This 

area provides the best opportunity for maintaining sage-grouse in the area. 

Throughout the source population area, an NSO stipulation would be required for oil and gas development 

and leasing and ROWs would be avoided. In a large part of the Cedar Creek Restoration Area, habitat and the 

associated wildlife populations have already been lost. Maintaining habitat would essentially manage past and 

future disturbances to restore disturbed areas to a point in which the habitats could support sage-grouse if and 

when development ceases. 

Within the Carter MLP area, oil and gas development would be issued with an NSO stipulation within the 

Protection Priority Areas, a CSU stipulation for Restoration and General Habitat Areas, geophysical 

exploration would be allowed, mineral material sales would be open, ROWs would be allowed, and OHV use 

would be open. The MLP area is within the MFWP core areas and supports some of the highest densities of 

sage-grouse in Montana. The MLP area has a RFD estimate of 75 oil wells and 13 gas well drilled during the 

life of the plan. Should oil or gas be developed in this area, the 2-mile CSU stipulation would only provide 

some protection adjacent to the lek. Important wintering, brood-rearing, or nesting habitat occurring further 

from the leks than 2 would receive no protections. Projected oil and gas development would cause relatively 

insignificant consequences to sage-grouse habitat and associated populations, and the area would be expected 

to support viable populations, but at a level below total potential. 

Impacts to wildlife throughout the planning area, including special status species habitat, from locatable 

minerals activities under this alternative, such as bentonite mining and uranium development, would include 

habitat loss and fragmentation, disturbance caused by noise, human presence, construction and production 

related activities, traffic, and other activities. 

Impacts to wildlife throughout the planning area, including special status species habitat, from mineral materials 

activities under this alternative would include avoidance by wildlife and direct habitat loss resulting from 

habitat fragmentation. Implementation plans would mitigate most impacts to wildlife habitats and species. 

Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas would not be designated an ACEC and would be managed 

according to actions described under Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas, which would result in 

the same impacts as described for these areas. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Wildlife, including the wolf, grizzly bear, and prairie dog were reduced or eliminated because they were 

viewed as impediments to human progress. Millions of acres of habitat in the United States were altered, not 

because the wildlife occupying these acres was necessarily undesirable, but because the habitat was desired 

for other uses, such as urbanization, cropland, or industrial use. Since the turn of the century, the overall 

condition of most wildlife habitats have changed and, in many instances, declined. While this is generally 

true, habitats for many species, such as white-tailed deer, wild turkeys, ring-necked pheasants, and Canada 

geese have expanded due to a combination of habitat alterations (creation of native habitat to croplands) and 

the introduction of these species into areas in which they may not have existed previously. This trend of 

conversion of native habitats to other uses, such as urban, industrial, or agricultural would continue as long as 

the human population expands and demands for these uses remain. Although BLM-administered land is not 

farmed and habitat conversion is primarily limited to private land, some BLM-administered land has been 

converted to tame pasture (mainly crested wheatgrass) for the sole benefit of livestock. In addition, the 

planning area contains a large amount of Bankhead-Jones land use lands that were at one time farmed, 

reacquired by the federal government, and largely replanted to crested wheatgrass. Some private lands are 

crucial to wildlife that utilized BLM-administered lands. Converting these habitats to nonnative habitats can 

impact the number of animals occupying BLM-administered lands. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-164

Migratory bird populations have generally declined nationally, the result of many stressors. The major drivers 

of this loss are long-term and continued habitat loss, which is the result of urbanization of native habitats, 

changes in native habitats to crops, and use of and improper disposal of deadly toxins in countries outside of the 

United States in which many of these species winter. Executive Order 13186 (January 10, 2001) requires that 

the BLM ensures compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Executive Order 13186 also directs 

the BLM to identify where the unintentional take of migratory birds is reasonably attributable to BLM actions. 

Projects designed to improve habitats, such as invasive species (weeds) and fuel reduction treatments would 

likely result in the unintentional take of some individuals. The BLM recognized that, although losses to 

individual migratory birds may occur, long-term benefits would result. 

In the past, buffalo and livestock were restricted to those areas with a permanent water source, such as rivers 

and streams or, in some cases, natural springs. As such, millions of acres were unavailable to livestock but 

available to more mobile wildlife. With fences and mechanized equipment capable of providing water to arid 

areas by the early to mid-1900s, wildlife habitat decreased or changed when areas previously unavailable to 

livestock became suitable for domestic animals, including many areas within the planning area (such as green 

ash draws). Although water developments would continue to be added to the landscape to benefit livestock, 

increasing the availability of areas currently unavailable for livestock use available would not occur on a large 

scale across the planning area. 

Management of riparian habitats historically focused on providing water, cover, and shade for livestock. Not 

until the mid-1980s was the importance of riparian zones recognized for wildlife habitat and hydrological 

function. Since this time, emphasis on riparian health is a priority on BLM-administered and private lands. 

However, as a result of long-term use, many riparian areas function below their potential. The BLM has 

emphasized improvement of riparian health in recent years. 

Haying of public lands has been authorized at some level for many years. Since the adoption of the Big Dry 

RMP, haying on BLM-administered lands was essentially restricted to nonnative grass, primarily crested 

wheatgrass, if and when it was allowed. The limited amount of haying occurring on BLM-administered lands 

has had minimal impacts on even local populations of wildlife. 

Invasive vegetation species control has occurred for many years throughout the planning area and is expected 

to continue into the future. Overall, native habitats support a greater diversity and abundance of wildlife. 

Weed control would potentially disturb wildlife and remove native plants when herbicides are carelessly 

applied but is more of an issue on non-BLM-administered lands. BMPs would minimize impacts detrimental 

to wildlife. 

Colonial waterbird habitat on BLM-administered land is limited to a few colonies in the planning area. 

Because of the scattered land pattern of BLM-administered lands, colonial waterbirds would potentially be 

affected by activities over which the BLM has no control. 

Piping plovers and interior least terns are limited to the saline wetlands in northeastern Montana and graveled 

islands associated with the Yellowstone and Missouri rivers. The greatest impacts to both species are 

fluctuating water levels and recreational use of the graveled islands, occurrences over which the BLM has 

essentially no management control. As a result, they are minimally affected by BLM-authorized activities. 

The Bighorn Sheep Range in the planning area comprises a mixture of BLM and other managed lands. Past 

stressors have been limited, primarily because of the habitat these animals inhabit. Although domestic sheep 

grazing was at one time more prevalent, it has been reduced in recent years and interaction with domestic 

sheep has not been an issue. Most domestic sheep grazing in the bighorn sheep habitat is associated with 

invasive vegetation species control, which contains strict guidelines required by the BLM. 

Past actions in the planning area affected habitat for wildlife now classified as federally endangered or 

threatened, including the piping plover, least tern, black-footed ferret, and pallid sturgeon. With the possible 

exception of the black-footed ferret, BLM actions have had little impact on the decline or recovery of these 

species. Largely due to the ESA, these species are adequately protected and, in areas in which habitat can be 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-165

improved and the species protected or stressors reduced, many of the threatened or endangered species are 

recovering. 

Black-tailed prairie dog habitat, which is also critical for the black-footed ferret, historically occupied 

thousands of acres in Montana before reductions pushed black-footed ferrets beyond population viability. 

Historical records suggested prairie dogs were continuous all along the Yellowstone River in the planning 

area and beyond, largely a result of large herds of grazers, such as buffalo concentrating in areas with 

available water. Historically, the prairie dog was viewed as a rodent and its eradication considered favorable. 

In the early years, the BLM contributed to this eradication. The past and future control of prairie dogs on 

nonfederal lands may eliminate opportunities to reestablish the black-footed ferret and limit the expansion of 

obligate species. Because prairie dog colonies expand with drought, fire, and excessive grazing, improved 

grazing management practices would provide more vegetation or cover, which would reduce the suitability of 

these areas for prairie dogs and associated species, such as the black-footed ferret. 

Sage-grouse have experienced declines in populations for nearly 100 years, the result of many factors, 

including the loss of sagebrush habitats due to cultivation, spraying, conversion to other uses, unregulated 

livestock grazing, and industrial use. Historically (prior to the mid-1980s), the BLM authorized the 

conversion of sagebrush to crested wheatgrass or native grasses in the belief that wildlife and livestock would 

both benefit. Since the mid-1980s, the BLM has not been involved in projects designed at eliminating 

sagebrush and efforts have been made in recent years to reestablish sagebrush. Conversion of sagebrush on 

non-BLM-administered lands occurs today, and most of the conversion is attributable to industrial use or 

conversion to grain fields. 

Naugle et al. (2010) found impacts of West Nile virus on sage-grouse in a study conducted in the PRB. This 

relatively new stressor can have detrimental impacts to sage-grouse populations. With the many livestock 

reservoirs on private and BLM-administered lands (and likely more in the future) that support the mosquito 

that is the carrier of the West Nile virus, the BLM can only speculate about future impacts to sage-grouse. 

Tillage coupled with West Nile virus can also have a major impact on sage-grouse populations. Absent a 

West Nile virus outbreak, 2-percent tillage within 0.6 miles of Haxby leks would decrease counts to 91 

percent of current numbers, but an outbreak of West Nile virus would reduce counts to 42 percent of current 

numbers, resulting in the disappearance of all large leks (more than 25 males) (Taylor et al. 2010). Current 

levels of tillage in the planning area result in localized effects that, alone, are unlikely to extirpate 

populations. 

The degree to which sage-grouse populations decrease would depend on many factors including, but not 

limited to, scale and duration of development, West Nile virus outbreaks, and the degree to which adjacent 

habitat on non-BLM-administered lands was altered. If the BLM were capable of effectively restricting 

development activities but adjacent lands were disturbed through tillage, poor livestock grazing practices, or 

development, the effectiveness of BLM actions would be limited and decreases in sage-grouse populations on 

and off BLM-administered lands would be expected. 

Large leks (more than 25 males) continue to be the best indicator of population status and their abundance is 

an important measure for prioritizing management strategies to maintain populations. For example, with 10-

percent tillage in the Haxby area, 3 of 5 large (more than 25 male) leks would be maintained even with a 

West Nile virus outbreak (Taylor et al. 2010). Conversely, 20-percent tillage coupled with a West Nile 

outbreak would cause large leks to disappear (Taylor et al. 2010). 

Areas of development in which 8 or more well pads per section were allowed, in combination with the 

existing and proposed development occurring across the Montana border in Wyoming, would potentially 

result in the complete loss of sage-grouse in these areas. However, some areas of development are in the 

process of being reclaimed. If development in these areas was halted; overhead power lines removed; and 

roads, flow lines, and well pads reclaimed to mimic pre-disturbance conditions, sage-grouse populations 

should be able to remain on the landscape. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-166

Sharp-tailed grouse, found throughout the planning area, generally tend to be more tolerant of disturbance and 

habitat changes than sage-grouse; however recent information suggests that sharp-tailed grouse would 

potentially be affected by development. When the balance between native habitats needed for nesting, 

wintering, and brood rearing are out of balance with the number of grain fields, populations would suffer. 

BLM-administered lands would continue to provide these non-agricultural components. 

The loss of sagebrush steppe across the western states approaches or even exceeds 50 percent in some areas 

(USFWS 2010a; Knick et al. 2003) and is considered to be a primary factor in long-term declines in sagegrouse abundance across their historical range (USFWS 2010a). Although sagebrush habitat losses in 

Montana may not have been as high as losses in other states, it has been significant enough in portions of the 

state to influence sage-grouse population trends (Walker et al. 2007). The best available information for 

Montana suggests breeding populations have declined by as much as 30 percent (USFWS 2010a). It is 

predicted that this trend of sagebrush loss would continue under stressors such as urbanization and habitat 

conversion and result in habitat losses (although not to the same level as the past 50 years). 

Disturbance- and disruption-related activities (such as energy development, some ROWs, and other surfacedisturbing or disruptive activities) would potentially have a pronounced impact on wildlife species and their 

habitats. This impact is expected to carry forward into the future any number of authorizations granted on and 

off BLM-administered lands. Long-term disturbance and structures have the potential to erode otherwise 

suitable habitat. Rarely are impacts to wildlife neutral or positive. Some habitats such as big game winter 

ranges, sage-grouse habitat, and raptor nest sites are altered beyond functionality. Other wildlife seem to 

adapt readily to these surface-disturbing or disruptive activities. By and large, these wildlife species receive 

no special state or federal protection and, as such, are rarely considered when considering the location of 

disturbance or disruption. 

Historically, habitat for waterfowl was limited to major streams and rivers, such as the Yellowstone, Powder, 

Missouri, and Tongue rivers, and the prairie pothole region in the very northeastern corner of the planning 

area. Water-related habitat improvement projects (e.g., reservoir construction) have provided habitat for 

numerous wildlife species, including migratory birds. With the continued maintenance and construction of 

livestock reservoirs under Management Common to All Alternatives, it is expected that migratory bird habitat 

would continue to be created or enhanced in the long term. This increase in new reservoir construction would 

be authorized when hydrologic functions could be maintained. Sites for new reservoirs are less available than 

in previous periods, and this, coupled with the fact that wells and pipelines provide a more stable source of 

livestock water and allow more strategic placement of water, has increased the emphasis on wells and 

pipelines in recent years. In addition, with the new knowledge related to impacts of West Nile virus on sagegrouse, the probability of constructing new reservoirs in high quality sage-grouse habitat would likely be 

limited. 

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities allowed under Management Common to All Alternatives would 

contribute to impacts wildlife habitat and likely result in some loss of wildlife habitat. 

Climate change is likely to affect wildlife breeding patterns, water and food supply, and habitat availability to 

some degree. Sensitive species in the planning area, such as sage-grouse, which are already stressed by 

declining habitat, increased development, and other factors, could experience additional pressures as a result of 

climate change. With potential decreased snowpack, winter flooding, and reduced summer river and stream 

flows, effects to wildlife habitat could include decreased vegetative species diversity, including numerous grass 

and forbs, thus affecting wildlife production, recruitment, and survival rates in general. Waterfowl and other 

migratory bird species dependent on wetlands could also be impacted by decreasing the health of these 

important habitats and impacts could include the drying up of reservoirs and wetlands in general. 

Climate change in conjunction with other human–induced stressors further increases invasive and pest species 

and could cause additional losses of native wildlife species such as neo-tropical migrant bird species and other 

non-game wildlife species. Increases in summer temperatures are also expected to increase the risk of wildfires, 

which would cause an increase in native wildlife habitats depending on intensity and location. This in turn has 

effects to populations by decreasing species health and could cause decreases in carrying capacities. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-167

Temperature increases may also reduce available water for wildlife species such as big game and could impact 

wildlife forage availability. 

Climate change could also cause changes in phenology. This could include a change in spring events and could 

cause earlier flowering and budding of plants, causing an earlier arrival of migrant bird species which could 

potentially disrupt predator-prey interaction causing a potential decrease in food availability. Ultimately, this 

would potentially impact various bird species by lowering chick survival and causing population declines. 

Alternative A 

Wildlife habitat conditions would slowly degrade in the future, which would result in long-term declines in a 

number of wildlife populations, including special status species. This decline would be a result of direct habitat 

loss and fragmentation, displacement, and wildlife avoidance of impacted areas that were previously quality 

wildlife habitat. BLM actions authorized under Alternative A would contribute to long-term declines in 

sagebrush habitats, which would result in declines to sagebrush obligates, including sage-grouse, and big game 

populations. In some instances, BLM actions would lead to the extirpation of sage-grouse in some areas. BLM 

actions would benefit waterfowl habitat, raptors, and sharp-tailed grouse and those species dependent on 

riparian habitats. BLM management would have little impact on endangered and threatened species habitats 

because it would slow degradation, ensure protection, and possibly enhance important habitats for these species. 

In general, BLM actions would have overall detrimental effects to wildlife and their habitats. 

NSO and CSU stipulations would provide maintenance to 4,323,000 acres of wildlife habitats by not allowing 

or restricting oil and gas activities on BLM-administered lands (Table 4-47). The closed for leasing areas would 

also provide for maintenance of approximately 970,000 acres of wildlife habitat. 

Managing water 

developments to 

reduce the spread of 

West Nile virus 

would potentially 

benefit sage-grouse, 

including areas 

largely devoid of 

impoundments 

(which are rare). 

Because 

impoundments are 

prevalent across the landscape and because the mosquito that carries West Nile virus (Culex tarsalis) can 

move many miles in one night, the benefits of this action would have little impact in limiting the spread of 

West Nile virus. 

Inclement weather, predation, and other factors may cause sage-grouse to either initiate nesting later or re-nest 

with completion of nesting often extending well into July. The degree to which sage-grouse populations would 

decrease would depend on many factors, including but not limited to scale and duration of the development, 

West Nile virus outbreaks, and the degree to which adjacent habitat on non-BLM-administered lands was 

altered. If the BLM were capable of effectively restricting development activities but adjacent lands were 

disturbed through tillage, poor livestock grazing practices, or development, the effectiveness of BLM actions 

would be limited and decreases in sage-grouse populations on and off BLM-administered lands would be 

expected. 

Effects from development, including (but not limited to) noise, vehicle use, human presence, collisions with 

vehicles, and physical movement of structures would contribute to a decline in crucial winter ranges for 

wildlife. Impacts from oil and gas development to Big Game Crucial Winter Range would include 

displacement, altered wildlife movement patterns, and habitat fragmentation, the magnitude of which would 

depend on the rate and location of development. The big game population would decrease under this alternative 

TABLE 4-47. 

CUMULATIVE OIL AND GAS RESTRICTIONS PER ALTERNATIVE

Stipulation 

or Action

BLM-administered Surface and Mineral Acres

A B C D E

NSO 304,000 2,025,000 150,000 1,119 1,373,000 

CSU 4,019,000 963,000 4,404,000 4,374,000 3,110,000 

Lease 

Terms 968,000 185,000 737,000 916,000 808,000 

Closed 0 2,119,000 0 0 0
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-168

and the disturbed area would be avoided by wildlife under full-field development. In areas such as the Cedar 

Creek Anticline, oil and gas development related activities have largely resulted in large scale displacement of 

wintering mule deer and pronghorns. Future development in other areas within the planning area would 

potentially lead to similar effects. Currently, 13 percent of the entire winter range acres are managed by the 

BLM (surface acres), and 20 percent are federal oil and gas minerals. 

Sylvatic plague, which is prevalent throughout the range of the black-tailed prairie dog would potentially reduce 

the population of prairie dogs and reduce the likelihood of future occupancy by black-footed ferrets. 

Alternative B 

Wildlife habitat conditions, depending on actions that occurred on private lands, would improve with 

exception of sage-grouse habitats under this alternative. Future actions would ensure that prairie dog colonies 

were maintained or expanded within the planning area. Alternative B would provide protection of sagegrouse habitats through habitat compensation actions, restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, improved 

grazing management, and leasing restrictions. Sage-grouse population responses to different disturbances 

would depend on many factors including scale and duration of development, West Nile virus outbreaks and 

the degree to which adjacent habitat on non-BLM-administered lands was altered. If the BLM were capable 

of effectively restricting development activities but adjacent lands were disturbed through tillage, poor 

livestock grazing practices, or development, the effectiveness of BLM actions would be limited and decreases 

in sage-grouse populations on and off BLM-administered lands would be expected. Development could occur 

in such a way that BLM-administered lands were avoided, and, should development occur on the adjacent 

non-BLM-administered land, sage-grouse populations occupying BLM-administered lands would potentially 

be reduced. It should be noted that the BLM would manage an average of 30 percent of the surface and 

mineral acreages in all sage-grouse areas (General Habitat Areas, the Protection Priority ACECs and 

Restoration Areas) cumulatively, which reduces potential protection for a landscape-level dependent species 

such as the sage-grouse. 

Because sage-grouse are a landscape species with a relatively large home range, activities occurring on BLMadministered lands would affect sage-grouse populations over a large geographic area. In some instances in 

this analysis, past studies were cited and impacts to sage-grouse within the planning area referenced. 

Under this alternative, Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas (14 percent would be BLM-administered 

surface and 29 percent federal oil and mineral estate), the Protection Priority Habitat ACEC (18 percent 

would be BLM-administered surface and 35 percent federal oil and mineral estate), and Restoration Habitat 

Areas (18 percent would be BLM-administered surface and 26 percent federal oil and mineral estate) would 

be designated. Although the designations themselves would provide no protection, management actions for 

each area would provide varying degrees of direction and protections. MFWP core areas (see Chapter 3 and 

Map 2), which overlap with proposed Protection Priority and Restoration Areas, include 56 percent of the 

state’s sage-grouse leks and support approximately 71 percent of the state’s sage-grouse population. Within 

this habitat, 267,000 acres of federal fluid minerals (83,000 BLM-administered surface acres) are considered 

to be high potential for oil and gas development and 718,000 acres of federal fluid minerals (370,000 BLMadministered surface acres) are in areas with medium potential for oil and gas development. 

The Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas would include 360,000 acres of federal fluid minerals and 

123,000 acres of BLM-administered surface within high potential development; 549,000 acres of federal fluid 

minerals and 156,000 acres of BLM-administered surface within medium potential; and 1.8 million acres of 

federal fluid minerals and 951,000 acres of BLM-administered surface within low potential. Prohibiting direct 

surface-disturbing and disruptive activities (such as ROWs or geophysical exploration) within 4 miles of leks 

would provide protections to maintain viable populations of sage-grouse through these areas by protecting 

approximately 90 percent of nesting hens. The efficacy of BLM CSU stipulations for leasing and development 

within 4 miles of a lek under this alternative would result in an increased lek persistence (the ability of leks to 

remain on the landscape) if the BLM controlled the surface. Impacts of energy development occur at distances 

of between 3 and 4 miles. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-169

The BLM would manage 18 percent of the surface (253,000 acres) and 26 percent of the federal oil and gas 

mineral estate throughout Restoration Areas in the planning area. Oil and gas stipulations under this 

alternative would provide limited protection on 56,000 BLM-administered surface acres. Although it would 

potentially be possible to maintain functional habitat, it would not be likely to be maintained at the level that 

existed prior to the development. A decrease of sage-grouse populations under either situation is probable. 

Research has indicated impacts from oil and gas development are largely indiscernible at densities of less 

than 1 well per square mile but the loss of leks is expected to be 2 to 5 times greater in areas with 

development above the 1 well per square mile thresholds. Habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from 

development would be partially mitigated by ensuring maintenance of existing habitat functionality. As a 

result of other activities or disease (West Nile virus), populations would potentially decline further. Because 

of the intermingled land ownership patterns and ongoing or imminent surface-disturbing activities, actions 

occurring on non-BLM-administered lands would potentially offset any of the derived benefits. The BLM’s 

lack of administrative authority would limit the BLM’s ability to effectively manage these habitats; 

subsequently, because of factors over which the BLM has little or no control, extirpation of sage-grouse 

populations within areas of disturbance (such as the Cedar Creek Anticline and South Carter Restoration 

Area) would be possible. 

As a result of other activities or disease (West Nile virus) on or off BLM-administered lands, populations 

would potentially decline in General Habitat Areas. Because of the intermingled land pattern, actions 

occurring on non-BLM-administered lands would potentially offset any benefits derived as a result of this 

action. Approximately 30 percent of the sage-grouse population in Montana resides on General Habitat Areas 

throughout the state. Although not the most important habitat, this area does provide important movement 

corridors between the Protection Priority ACEC and provides for genetic diversity for the species. 

Managing water developments to reduce the spread of West Nile virus would potentially benefit sage-grouse, 

including areas largely devoid of impoundments (which are rare). Because impoundments are prevalent 

across the landscape and because the mosquito that carries West Nile virus (Culex tarsalis) can move many 

miles in one night, the benefits of this action would have little impact in limiting the spread of West Nile 

virus. 

Areas of development in which 8 or more well pads per section were allowed, in combination with the 

existing and proposed development occurring across the Montana border in Wyoming, would potentially 

result in the complete loss of sage-grouse in these areas. However, some areas of development are in the 

process of being reclaimed. If development in these areas was halted; overhead power lines removed; and 

roads, flow lines, and well pads reclaimed to mimic pre-disturbance conditions, sage-grouse populations 

should be able to remain on the landscape. 

Energy development on BLM-administered and private lands in combination with other factors (such as 

agricultural tillage and disease) would have the potential to impact sage-grouse populations. In the Cedar 

Creek Anticline and a portion of the proposed South Carter Restoration Area, Taylor et al. (2010) found that 

existing energy development could be expected to result in a decline of 62 percent in sage-grouse populations 

when subject to an outbreak of West Nile virus. The highest quality sage-grouse habitat in the Cedar Creek 

Anticline exists in areas in which development exceeds 3 wells per section. This study area included 

approximately 9 miles around each lek and an average of 1 well per 364 acres. If the study area were 

developed to 160-acre spacing (4 wells per section) within 9 miles of leks, which occurs within portions of 

the Cedar Creek Restoration Area, an outbreak of West Nile virus would be expected to result in a 95-percent 

reduction in male attendance at leks. West Nile virus outbreaks in less developed areas would also impact 

sage-grouse. This same study predicted that male sage-grouse attendance at leks in relatively intact 

landscapes would drop by approximately 25 percent when subject to outbreaks of West Nile virus. 

Prohibiting surface-disturbing or disruptive activities and oil and gas leasing and development within 0.5 

miles of black-tailed prairie dog colonies would not be expected to cause direct impacts to prairie dog 

colonies. However, some limited indirect impacts to associated species would potentially occur through 

adjacent development, depending on the species’ tolerance to disturbance. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-170

Prohibiting surface-disturbing and disruptive activities (such as ROWs and geophysical exploration) within 

the Protection Priority ACEC would provide protections needed to maintain viable populations of sagegrouse through these areas on BLM-administered lands only. As a result of other activities or disease (West 

Nile virus) populations would potentially decline. Because of the intermingled land pattern and the fact that 

the BLM administers a small percentage of actions occurring in these areas, activities occurring on nonBLM-administered lands could offset some benefits. MFWP core areas (see Chapter 3 and Map 2), which 

overlap with the proposed Protection Priority ACEC and Restoration Areas, support approximately 71 

percent of the total sage-grouse population. The Protection Priority ACEC in the planning area comprises 

approximately 35 percent BLM minerals ownership. If management as identified under this alternative were 

applied to all lands within the Protection Priority ACEC (which includes no surface-disturbing and disruptive 

activities and an NSO stipulation for oil and gas), viable populations of sage-grouse within these BLMadministered habitats would be expected to be maintained. However, since what actions occurring on nonBLM-administered lands cannot be predicted, impacts that would occur throughout the Protection Priority 

ACEC are unknown. The remaining 190,000 BLM-administered surface acres would be associated with the 

Cedar Creek Anticline. Because the area has an intermingled land ownership pattern in the source population 

area (the BLM administers approximately 45 percent of the surface and fluid minerals), actions occurring on 

private lands would potentially result in the extirpation of sage-grouse regardless of BLM-authorized actions. 

Under this alternative, there would be an NSO stipulation on BLM-administered surfaces and minerals, and 

ROWs would be prohibited in sections within 1 mile of a lek with 3 or fewer wells in Restoration Areas. 

ROWs would be allowed as would oil and gas as long as habitat functionality could be maintained in sections 

within 1 mile of a lek with 4 or more wells per section. In a large part of the Cedar Creek Restoration Area, 

habitat functionality and the associated wildlife populations have already been lost. Maintaining habitat 

functionality would essentially manage past and future disturbances to restore disturbed areas to a point in 

which the habitats could support sage-grouse if and when development ends. The Cedar Creek Anticline is 

heavily linked to the North Dakota population. As a direct result of oil and gas development in both North 

Dakota and the Cedar Creek Anticline, sage-grouse populations would be expected to decline further. 

Extirpation of these sage-grouse would also be possible. 

Under this alternative, BLM management would have little impact on endangered and threatened species 

habitats because it would slow degradation, ensure protection, and potentially enhance important habitats for 

these species. Surface-disturbing and disruptive actions would contribute to degradation of wildlife habitats. 

Creation of waterfowl habitat would not be enhanced under this alternative. In general, BLM actions would 

have the most benefit to wildlife and their habitats on BLM-administered lands. 

NSO and CSU stipulations would provide protection to 3.0 million acres of wildlife habitats by not allowing or 

restricting oil and gas activities on BLM-administered lands (Table 4-47). The closed for leasing areas would 

also provide protection for wildlife habitats on over 2.1 million acres. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C, depending on private lands actions throughout the planning area, would result in long-term 

maintenance and improvements in a number of wildlife habitats with exception of sage-grouse. Future actions 

would ensure prairie dog colonies were maintained or expanded within the planning area. Alternative C 

would provide protection in sage-grouse habitats through habitat compensation actions, restrictions for 

surface-disturbing activities, improved grazing management, and leasing restrictions. This protection would 

be most important in the Sage-grouse Habitat – General and Protection Priority Areas and much less 

important in Restoration Area habitats. BLM management would have little impact on endangered and 

threatened species habitats because it would slow degradation, ensure protection, and potentially enhance 

important habitats for these species. Surface-disturbing and disruptive actions would contribute to 

degradation of wildlife habitats. Waterfowl would receive minimal benefits from this alternative, as few new 

reservoirs would likely be constructed. In general, BLM actions would have some benefit to wildlife and their 

habitats on public lands and would not contribute to the large-scale declines in populations under this 

alternative. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-171

Because sage-grouse are a landscape species with a relatively large home range, activities occurring on and 

off BLM-administered lands can and would affect sage-grouse populations over a large geographic area. In 

some instances in this analysis, past studies were cited and impacts to sage-grouse within the planning area 

referenced. 

Under this alternative, Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas (13 percent would be BLM-administered 

surface and 27 percent federal oil and mineral estate), Protection Priority Habitat Areas (27 percent would be 

BLM-administered surface and 48 percent federal oil and mineral estate), and Restoration Habitat Areas (19 

percent would be BLM-administered surface and 35 percent federal oil and mineral estate) would be 

designated. MFWP core areas (see Chapter 3 and Map 2), which overlap with proposed Protection Priority 

and Restoration Areas, include 56 percent of the state’s sage-grouse leks and support approximately 71 

percent of the state’s sage-grouse population . Within this habitat, 135,000 acres of federal fluid minerals 

(49,000 BLM-administered surface acres) would be considered to have high potential for oil and gas 

development and 369,000 acres of federal fluid minerals (218,000 BLM-administered surface acres) would be 

considered to have medium potential for oil and gas development. Although the designations themselves 

would provide no protection, management actions for each area would provide varying degrees of direction 

and protections. 

As a result of other activities or disease (West Nile virus) on or off BLM-administered lands, populations 

would potentially decline in General Habitat Areas. Because of the intermingled land pattern, actions 

occurring on non-BLM-administered lands would potentially offset any benefits derived as a result of this 

action. Approximately 30 percent of the sage-grouse population in Montana resides on General Habitat Areas 

throughout the state. Although not the most important habitat, this area does provide important movement 

corridors between Protection Priority Areas and provides for genetic diversity for the species. 

Managing water developments to reduce the spread of West Nile virus would potentially benefit sage-grouse, 

including areas largely devoid of impoundments (which are rare). Because impoundments are prevalent 

across the landscape and because the mosquito that carries West Nile virus (Culex tarsalis) can move many 

miles in one night, the benefits of this action would have little effect impact in limiting the spread of West 

Nile virus. 

Harvesting native hay fenced into private lands would decrease potential nesting cover, forage, and wildlife 

habitat in general, which would include habitat for special status species. 

Energy development in combination with other factors (such as agricultural tillage and disease) would have 

the potential to impact sage-grouse populations. In the Cedar Creek Anticline and a portion of the proposed 

South Carter Restoration Area, Taylor et al. (2010) found that existing energy development could be expected 

to result in a decline of 62 percent in sage-grouse populations when subject to an outbreak of West Nile virus. 

The highest quality sage-grouse habitat in the Cedar Creek Anticline exists in areas in which development 

exceeds 3 wells per section. This study area included approximately 9 miles around each lek and an average 

of 1 well per 364 acres. If the study area were developed to 160-acre spacing (4 wells per section) within 9 

miles of leks, which occurs within portions of the Cedar Creek Restoration Area, an outbreak of West Nile 

virus would be expected to result in a 95-percent reduction in male attendance at leks. West Nile virus 

outbreaks in less developed areas would also impact sage-grouse. This same study predicted that male sagegrouse attendance at leks in relatively intact landscapes would drop by approximately 25 percent when 

subject to outbreaks of West Nile virus. Because the area has an intermingled land ownership pattern in the 

source population area (the BLM administers approximately 45 percent of the surface and fluid minerals), 

actions occurring on private lands would potentially result in the extirpation of sage-grouse regardless of 

BLM-authorized actions. 

Population responses by sage-grouse to different disturbances would depend on many factors, including but 

not limited to scale and duration of the development, West Nile virus outbreaks, and the degree to which 

adjacent habitat on non-BLM-administered lands was altered. If the BLM were capable of effectively 

restricting development activities but adjacent lands were disturbed through tillage, poor livestock grazing 

practices, or development, the effectiveness of BLM actions would be limited and decreases in sage-grouse 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-172

populations on and off BLM-administered lands would be expected. Development could occur in such a way 

that BLM-administered lands were avoided, and, should development occur on the adjacent non-BLMadministered land, sage-grouse populations occupying BLM-administered lands would potentially be 

reduced. 

The BLM would manage 19 percent of the surface (5,000 acres) and 35 percent of the federal oil and gas 

mineral estate (33,000 acres) throughout Restoration Areas in the planning area. CSU stipulations for oil and 

gas and actions restricting other surface-disturbing activities would be subject to habitat functionality 

requirements in Restoration Areas under this alternative. Although it would potentially be possible to 

maintain functional habitat, it would not be likely to be maintained at the level that existed prior to the 

development. A decrease of sage-grouse populations under either situation is probable. Research has 

indicated impacts from oil and gas development are largely indiscernible at densities of less than 1 well per 

square mile but the loss of leks is expected to be 2 to 5 times greater in areas with development above the 1 

well per square mile thresholds. Habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from development would be 

partially mitigated by ensuring maintenance of existing habitat functionality. As a result of other activities or 

disease (West Nile virus), populations would potentially decline further. Because of the intermingled land 

ownership patterns and ongoing or imminent surface-disturbing activities, actions occurring on non-BLMadministered lands would potentially offset any of the derived benefits. The BLM’s lack of administrative 

authority would limit the BLM’s ability to effectively manage these habitats; subsequently, because of factors 

over which the BLM has little or no control, extirpation of sage-grouse populations within areas of 

disturbance (such as the Cedar Creek Anticline and South Carter Restoration Area) would be possible. 

NSO and CSU stipulations would provide protection to 4.5 million acres of wildlife habitats by not allowing or 

restricting oil and gas activities on BLM-administered lands (Table 4-47). The closed for leasing areas would 

also provide protection for wildlife habitats on approximately 737,000 acres. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D would contribute to long-term declines in sage-grouse abundance in the Sage-grouse Habitat – 

General and Restoration Areas. Within Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas, management actions, 

including habitat compensation would benefit sage-grouse. There would be limited protection for prairie dogs, 

and prairie dogs and associated species would decline. Bighorn sheep populations could be lost if diseases from 

domestic sheep were transmitted to the wild populations. Waterfowl would receive minimal benefits from this 

alternative because few new reservoirs would likely be constructed. In general, BLM actions would benefit 

some habitats, depending on the types of authorizations provided by the BLM. See Table 4-47 for total 

stipulation acres under this alternative. 

Because sage-grouse are a landscape species with a relatively large home range, activities occurring on and 

off BLM-administered lands can and would affect sage-grouse populations over a large geographic area. In 

some instances in this analysis, past studies were cited and impacts to sage-grouse within the planning area 

referenced. 

Under this alternative, Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas (13 percent would be BLM-administered 

surface and 26 percent federal oil and mineral estate), Protection Priority Habitat Areas (34 percent would be 

BLM-administered surface and 64 percent federal oil and mineral estate), and Restoration Habitat Areas (27 

percent would be BLM-administered surface and 54 percent federal oil and mineral estate) would be 

designated. MFWP core areas (see Chapter 3 and Map 2), which overlap with proposed Protection Priority 

and Restoration Areas, include 56 percent of the state’s sage-grouse leks and support approximately 71 

percent of the state’s sage-grouse population . Within this habitat, 120,000 acres of federal fluid minerals 

(43,000 BLM-administered surface acres) would occur in high development potential areas for oil and gas 

and 204,000 acres of federal fluid minerals (122,000 BLM-administered surface acres) would occur in 

medium development potential areas for oil and gas. Although the designations themselves would provide no 

protection, management actions for each area would provide varying degrees of direction and protections. 

More acres of General Habitat Areas and fewer acres of Protection Priority and Restoration Areas would be 

designated under this alternative, which would impact sage-grouse since protections are generally greater for 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-173

Priority habitats than those for General Habitat Areas. Although the percentage of BLM-administered land 

would increase under this alternative, this increase would not necessarily equate to greater or more effective 

management; in reality, the opposite is true because more BLM-administered acres receive reduced 

protections under this alternative. 

In consideration of the RFD predictions and with 15 percent of the surface administered by the BLM, sagegrouse populations would likely continue to decline. Areas of development in which 8 or more well pads per 

section were allowed, in combination with the existing and proposed development occurring across the 

Montana border in Wyoming, would potentially result in the complete loss of sage-grouse in these areas. 

However, some areas of development are in the process of being reclaimed. If development in these areas 

was halted; overhead power lines removed; and roads, flow lines, and well pads reclaimed to mimic predisturbance conditions, sage-grouse populations should be able to remain on the landscape. 

Allowing surface-disturbing and disruptive activities, such as ROWs and geophysical exploration, within 

Protection Priority Areas as long as sage-grouse populations were supported or increased and offering oil and 

gas leasing with an NSO stipulation would result in sustainable sage-grouse populations but is highly 

dependent on private lands actions because 39 percent of the Protection Priority Areas would be administered 

by the BLM. 

Energy development in combination with other factors (such as agricultural tillage and disease) would have 

the potential to impact sage-grouse populations. In the Cedar Creek Anticline and a portion of the proposed 

South Carter Restoration Area, Taylor et al. (2010) found that existing energy development could be expected 

to result in a decline of 62 percent in sage-grouse populations when subject to an outbreak of West Nile virus. 

The highest quality sage-grouse habitat in the Cedar Creek Anticline exists in areas in which development 

exceeds 3 wells per section. This study area included approximately 9 miles around each lek and an average 

of 1 well per 364 acres. If the study area were developed to 160-acre spacing (4 wells per section) within 9 

miles of leks, which occurs within portions of the Cedar Creek Restoration Area, an outbreak of West Nile 

virus would be expected to result in a 95-percent reduction in male attendance at leks. West Nile virus 

outbreaks in less developed areas would also impact sage-grouse. This same study predicted that male sagegrouse attendance at leks in relatively intact landscapes would drop by approximately 25 percent when 

subject to outbreaks of West Nile virus. 

Population responses by sage-grouse to different disturbances would depend on many factors, including but 

not limited to scale and duration of the development, West Nile virus outbreaks, and the degree to which 

adjacent habitat on non-BLM-administered lands was altered. If the BLM were capable of effectively 

restricting development activities but adjacent lands were disturbed through tillage, poor livestock grazing 

practices, or development, the effectiveness of BLM actions would be limited and decreases in sage-grouse 

populations on and off BLM-administered lands would be expected. Development could occur in such a way 

that BLM-administered lands were avoided, and, should development occur on the adjacent non-BLMadministered land, sage-grouse populations occupying BLM-administered lands would potentially be 

reduced. 

The BLM would manage 13 percent of the surface (1.8 million acres) and 26 percent of the federal oil and 

gas mineral estate (3.9 million acres) in General Habitat Areas throughout the planning area. These numbers 

include 491,000 acres of federal fluid minerals and 157,000 acres of BLM-administered surface within high 

potential development areas; 994,000 acres of federal fluid minerals and 335,000 acres of BLM-administered 

surface within medium potential areas; and 2.4 million acres of federal fluid minerals and 1.3 million acres of 

BLM-administered surface within low potential areas. Prohibiting surface-disturbing and disruptive activities, 

such as ROWs or geophysical exploration, and requiring a CSU stipulation for oil and gas within 2 miles of 

leks would provide protections to maintain viable populations of sage-grouse by protecting 560,000 BLMadministered surface and 1.0 million oil and gas acres. The efficacy of BLM CSU stipulations for leasing and 

development within 2 miles of a lek would result in estimated lek persistence (the ability of leks to remain on 

the landscape) of between 30 and 85 percent if the BLM administered the surface. Impacts of energy 

development occur at distances of between 3 and 4 miles (including within brood or winter habitat). 

Depending on actions occurring on private lands, these actions would likely maintain sage-grouse distribution 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-174

(but with a reduced abundance of sage-grouse) and increase the likelihood of successful restoration of sagegrouse populations following various activities, such as energy development. 

However, because 56 percent of hens nest within 2 miles of a lek, actions under this alternative would leave 

44 percent of nesting hens vulnerable, since would be little protections afforded in habitat greater than 2 miles 

from leks. Decreases in sage-grouse would be expected in areas with development, the magnitude of which 

would depend on the scope and duration of development. Because the BLM would only administer 13 percent 

of the surface in General Habitat Areas, the ability to ensure maintenance of sage-grouse throughout these 

areas would be limited. 

As a result of other activities or disease (West Nile virus) on or off BLM-administered lands, populations 

would potentially decline in General Habitat Areas. Because of the intermingled land pattern, actions 

occurring on non-BLM-administered lands would potentially offset any benefits derived as a result of this 

action. Approximately 30 percent of the sage-grouse population in Montana resides on General Habitat Areas 

throughout the state. Although not the most important habitat, this area does provide important movement 

corridors between Protection Priority Areas and provides for genetic diversity for the species. 

The BLM would manage 27 percent of the surface (101,000 acres) and 54 percent of the federal oil and gas 

mineral estate (215,000 acres) throughout Restoration Areas in the planning area. Approximately 195,000 

fluid mineral acres (98,000 BLM-administered surface acres) would be in high and medium oil and gas 

development potential areas. Lease terms (60 days/200 meters) would be applied for oil and gas leases and 

other surface-disturbing activities would also be restricted to 60 days/200 meters. These protective measures 

would provide essentially no meaningful protections for sage-grouse because there would be the potential to 

impact essentially all of the federal oil and gas minerals and BLM-administered surface. Maintaining 

functional habitats and viable populations would be difficult to achieve in development areas, decreases in 

sage-grouse populations would be probable, and extirpation of sage-grouse in the Cedar Creek Anticline 

would be possible as a result of past, current and future actions. Research has indicated impacts from oil and 

gas development are largely indiscernible at densities of less than one well per square mile. Loss of leks 

would be expected to be 2 to 5 times greater in areas with development above the one well per square mile 

thresholds and a decline of male attendance of 30 to 80 percent or greater would be expected at the remaining 

leks. 

As a result of other activities or disease (West Nile virus), populations in Restoration Areas would potentially 

decline further. Because of the intermingled land ownership patterns and ongoing or imminent surfacedisturbing activities, actions occurring on non-BLM-administered lands would potentially offset any of the 

derived benefits. The BLM’s lack of administrative authority would limit the BLM’s ability to effectively 

manage these habitats; subsequently, because of factors over which the BLM has little or no control, 

extirpation of sage-grouse populations within areas of disturbance (such as the Cedar Creek Anticline and 

South Carter Restoration Area) would be possible and probable. Goals in Restoration Areas, which include 

maintaining viable sage-grouse populations, would not be achieved through the application of lease terms. 

Managing water developments to reduce the spread of West Nile virus would potentially benefit sage-grouse, 

including areas largely devoid of impoundments (which are rare). Because impoundments are prevalent 

across the landscape and because the mosquito that carries West Nile virus (Culex tarsalis) can move many 

miles in one night, the benefits of this action would have little impact in limiting the spread of West Nile 

virus. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Depending on actions occurring on private lands throughout the planning area and depending which wildlife 

habitat type is addressed, wildlife habitat conditions would generally improve under Alternative E. Alternative 

E would provide protection of certain sage-grouse habitats through restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, 

grazing management, and leasing. BLM management would have little impact on endangered and threatened 

species habitats because Alternative E actions would potentially enhance important habitats for these species 

and would ensure that habitats were protected. Big game winter range and riparian, sage-grouse, colonial 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-175

waterbird, piping plover, and interior least tern habitat would all benefit under actions under this alternative. 

However, prairie dog, waterfowl, and bighorn sheep habitat would potentially decline under this alternative. See 

Table 4-47 for total stipulation acres under this alternative.

Because sage-grouse are a landscape species with a relatively large home range, activities occurring on and 

off BLM-administered lands can and would affect sage-grouse populations over a large geographic area. In 

some instances in this analysis, past studies were cited and impacts to sage-grouse within the planning area 

referenced. 

Under this alternative, Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas (14 percent would be BLM-administered 

surface and 28 percent federal oil and mineral estate), Protection Priority Habitat Areas (22 percent would be 

BLM-administered surface and 39 percent federal oil and mineral estate), and Restoration Habitat Areas (19 

percent would be BLM-administered surface and 52 percent federal oil and mineral estate) would be 

designated. MFWP core areas (see Chapter 3 and Map 2), which overlap with proposed Protection Priority 

and Restoration Areas, include 56 percent of the state’s sage-grouse leks and support approximately 71 

percent of the state’s sage-grouse population . Within this habitat, 147,000 acres of federal fluid minerals 

would occur in high development potential areas for oil and gas and 435,000 acres of federal fluid minerals 

would occur in medium development potential areas for oil and gas. Although the designations themselves 

would provide no protection, management actions for each area would provide varying degrees of direction 

and protections. More acres of General Habitat Areas and fewer acres of Protection Priority and Restoration 

Areas would be designated under this alternative, which would impact sage-grouse since protections are 

generally greater for priority habitats than those for General Habitat Areas. Although the percentage of BLMadministered land would increase under this alternative, this increase would not necessarily equate to greater 

or more effective management. Fewer acres of Protection Priority and Restoration Areas under this 

alternative would potentially compromise sage-grouse protections and subsequent maintenance or 

enhancement of sage-grouse population. 

Under the RFD prediction and with 15 percent of the surface administered by the BLM, sage-grouse 

populations would likely continue to decline. Areas of development in which 8 or more well pads per section 

were allowed, in combination with the existing and proposed development occurring across the Montana 

border in Wyoming, would potentially result in the complete loss of sage-grouse in these areas. However, 

some areas of development are in the process of being reclaimed. If development in these areas was halted; 

overhead power lines removed; and roads, flow lines, and well pads reclaimed to mimic pre-disturbance 

conditions, sage-grouse populations should be able to remain on the landscape. 

The BLM would manage 14 percent of the surface (1.7 million acres) and 28 percent of the federal oil and 

gas mineral estate (3.6 million acres) in General Habitat Areas throughout the planning area. These numbers 

include 492,000 acres of federal fluid minerals and 158,000 acres of BLM-administered surface within high 

potential development areas; 882,000 acres of federal fluid minerals and 294,000 acres of BLM-administered 

surface within medium potential areas; and 2.2 million acres of federal fluid minerals and 1.2 million acres of 

BLM-administered surface within low potential areas. Avoiding surface-disturbing and disruptive activities, 

such as ROWs or geophysical exploration, and requiring a CSU stipulation for oil and gas within 2 miles of 

leks would maintain most leks on BLM-administered surfaces and maintain viable populations of sage-grouse 

by protecting 56 percent of nesting sage-grouse. 

The efficacy of BLM CSU stipulations for leasing and development within 2 miles of a lek would result in an 

estimated lek persistence (the ability of leks to remain on the landscape) of 30 to 85 percent, depending on 

actions occurring on private lands. The percentage of land administered by the BLM (14 percent) would also 

affect the BLM’s ability to effectively manage disturbance. Impacts of energy development occur at distances 

of between 3 and 4 miles. 

These actions would likely maintain sage-grouse distribution (but with a reduced abundance of sage-grouse) 

and increase the likelihood of successful restoration of sage-grouse populations following various activities, 

such as energy development, in General Habitat Areas. Overall, between potential enhancing of sage-grouse 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-176

habitats and minimizing impacts from authorized development, this habitat would be expected to continue to 

support viable populations of sage-grouse under this alternative, albeit at a reduced level. 

As a result of other activities or disease (West Nile virus) on or off BLM-administered lands, populations 

would potentially decline in General Habitat Areas and Protection Priority Areas. Because of the intermingled 

land pattern, actions occurring on non-BLM-administered lands would potentially offset any benefits derived 

through these actions. Approximately 30 percent of the sage-grouse population in Montana resides on 

General Habitat Areas throughout the state. Although not the most important habitat, this area does provide 

important movement corridors between Protection Priority Areas and provides for genetic diversity for the 

species. 

The BLM would manage 19 percent of the surface (128,000 acres) and 52 percent of the federal oil and gas 

mineral estate throughout Restoration Areas in the planning area. A CSU stipulation that allowed activities in 

a manner that provided for sage-grouse movement and genetic exchange, maintained leks, and ensured 

restoration of altered habitat would be ineffective in protecting sage-grouse and their habitats. Even with no 

further development, this action would potentially already be exceeded, depending on location. With 

development above one well per square mile, decreases in sage-grouse populations would be probable, and 

extirpation of sage-grouse in the Cedar Creek Anticline would be possible as a result of past, current and 

future actions. Research has indicated impacts from oil and gas development are largely indiscernible at 

densities of less than 1 well per square mile. Loss of leks is expected to be 2 to 5 times greater in areas with 

development above the one well per square mile thresholds. 

The remaining 64,000 BLM-administered surface acres would be associated with the Cedar Creek Anticline. 

Although most of the Anticline area has been developed to a point in which the survival of the current level of 

sage-grouse populations would be unlikely, a small area referred to as a source population area, which 

contains a total of 17,900 total acres and 8,015 BLM-administered surface acres, has been identified. This 

area provides the best opportunity for maintaining sage-grouse in the area. However, because the area has an 

intermingled land ownership pattern in the source population area (the BLM administers approximately 45 

percent of the surface and fluid minerals), actions occurring on private lands would potentially result in the 

extirpation of sage-grouse regardless of BLM-authorized actions. 

Throughout the source population area, an NSO stipulation would be required for oil and gas leasing and 

development and ROWs would be avoided. In a large part of the Cedar Creek Restoration Area, habitat and 

the associated wildlife populations have already been lost. Maintaining habitat would essentially manage past 

and future disturbances to restore disturbed areas to a point in which the habitats could support sage-grouse if 

and when development ends. The Cedar Creek Anticline is heavily linked to the North Dakota population. As 

a direct result of oil and gas development in both North Dakota and the Cedar Creek Anticline, sage-grouse 

populations would be expected to decline further. Extirpation of these sage-grouse would also be possible. If 

sage-grouse are to maintain a viable population in the source population area, an NSO stipulation would 

provide the best opportunity. 

Energy development in combination with other factors (such as agricultural tillage and disease) would have 

the potential to impact sage-grouse populations. In the Cedar Creek Anticline and a portion of the proposed 

South Carter Restoration Area, Taylor et al. (2010) found that existing energy development could be expected 

to result in a decline of 62 percent in sage-grouse populations when subject to an outbreak of West Nile virus. 

The highest quality sage-grouse habitat in the Cedar Creek Anticline exists in areas in which development 

exceeds 3 wells per section. This study area included approximately 9 miles around each lek and an average 

of 1 well per 364 acres. If the study area were developed to 160-acre spacing (4 wells per section) within 9 

miles of leks, which occurs within portions of the Cedar Creek Restoration Area, an outbreak of West Nile 

virus would be expected to result in a 95-percent reduction in male attendance at leks. West Nile virus 

outbreaks in less developed areas would also impact sage-grouse. This same study predicted that male sagegrouse attendance at leks in relatively intact landscapes would drop by approximately 25 percent when 

subject to outbreaks of West Nile virus. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

4-177

Population responses by sage-grouse to different disturbances would depend on many factors, including but 

not limited to scale and duration of the development, West Nile virus outbreaks, and the degree to which 

adjacent habitat on non-BLM-administered lands was altered. If the BLM were capable of effectively 

restricting development activities but adjacent lands were disturbed through tillage, poor livestock grazing 

practices, or development, the effectiveness of BLM actions would be limited and decreases in sage-grouse 

populations on and off BLM-administered lands would be expected. Development could occur in such a way 

that BLM-administered lands were avoided, and, should development occur on the adjacent non-BLMadministered land, sage-grouse populations occupying BLM-administered lands would potentially be 

reduced. 

Managing water developments to reduce the spread of West Nile virus would potentially benefit sage-grouse, 

including areas largely devoid of impoundments (which are rare). Because impoundments are prevalent 

across the landscape and because the mosquito that carries West Nile virus (Culex tarsalis) can move many 

miles in one night, the benefits of this action would have little impact in limiting the spread of West Nile 

virus. 

Because of the intermingled land pattern in the planning area, actions occurring on non-BLM-administered 

lands would potentially offset some benefits. MFWP core areas (see Chapter 3 and Map 2), which overlap 

with proposed Protection Priority and Restoration Areas, support approximately 71 percent of the total sagegrouse population, and, although BLM actions would be expected to maintain viable populations of sagegrouse within these BLM-administered habitats, impacts would be largely dependent on activities on nonBLM-administered land. 

With intermingled land ownership patterns and ongoing 

or imminent surface-disturbing activities, actions 

occurring on non-BLM-administered lands would 

potentially offset any of the derived benefits. The BLM’s 

lack of administrative authority would limit the BLM’s 

ability to effectively manage these habitats; subsequently, 

because of factors over which the BLM has little or no 

control, extirpation of sage-grouse populations within 

areas of disturbance (such as the Cedar Creek Anticline 

and South Carter Restoration Area) would be possible 

and probable. 

Unique landforms in the planning area. 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGY 

PRESCRIBED FIRE AND FUELS MANAGEMENT 

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 

Prescribed fire (caused by management and natural ignitions) areas would typically range from 10 to 10,000 

acres in size. Fire management, including prescribed fire, would treat 17,500 acres in the short term and 70,000 

in the long term. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Prescribed fire and vegetation manipulations that reduced accumulated hazardous fuels and provided a 

functioning and sustainable range of variation for key ecosystem components such as vegetation 

characteristics (species composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Wildland Fire Management and Ecology 

4-178

composition; and fire frequency, severity, and pattern would benefit successful fuels management. Future 

treatments of forest and rangelands would improve health, species composition, and stand densities. 

Prohibiting or limiting surface-disturbing activities within the planning area under Management Common to 

all Alternatives would result in changes to key ecosystem components such as vegetation characteristics 

(species composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; and 

fire frequency, severity, and pattern. 

Allowing vegetation and forestry product management activities would contribute to a successful fuels 

management program by enabling the improvement and maintenance of ecosystem functionality. 

ALTERNATIVE A 

Management actions under Alternative A would result in changes to key ecosystem components such as 

vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic 

pattern); fuel composition; and fire frequency, severity, and pattern. As fires continued to be suppressed, 

vegetation and hazardous fuels would continue to increase. Although buildup of fuels would contribute to the 

creation of large, high-intensity fires, future treatments of forests and rangelands would improve health, 

species composition, and stand density. However, because these areas are small in relation to the remainder of 

vegetation in the planning area, impacts would be confined to a small area. 

Prohibiting or limiting surface-disturbing activities within the planning area under Alternative A would result 

in changes to key ecosystem components such as vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural 

stage, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; and fire frequency, severity, and 

pattern. 

Allowing vegetation and forestry product management activities would contribute to a successful fuels 

management program by enabling the improvement and maintenance of ecosystem functionality. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Management actions under Alternative B would result in changes to key ecosystem components such as 

vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic 

pattern); fuel composition; and fire frequency, severity, and pattern. As fires continued to be suppressed, 

vegetation and hazardous fuels would continue to increase. Although buildup of fuels would contribute to the 

creation of large, high-intensity fires, future treatments of forests and rangelands would improve health, 

species composition, and stand density. However, because these areas are small in relation to the remainder of 

vegetation in the planning area, impacts would be confined to a small area. 

Prohibiting or limiting surface-disturbing activities within the planning area, (including no prescribed fire on 

2.5 million acres in the planning area) would result in changes to key ecosystem components such as 

vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic 

pattern); fuel composition; and fire frequency, severity, and pattern. 

Allowing vegetation and forestry product management activities would enable the improvement and 

maintenance of ecosystem functionality. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Management actions under Alternative C would result in changes to key ecosystem components such as 

vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic 

pattern); fuel composition; and fire frequency, severity, and pattern. As fires continued to be suppressed, 

vegetation and hazardous fuels would continue to increase. Although buildup of fuels would contribute to the 

creation of large, high-intensity fires, future treatments of forests and rangelands would improve health, 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Wildland Fire Management and Ecology 

4-179

species composition, and stand density. However, because these areas are small in relation to the remainder of 

vegetation in the planning area, impacts would be confined to a small area. 

Mitigation measures required for project planning and implementation under this alternative would reduce 

fuels management activities effective in reducing hazardous fuels or improving wildlife habitat and cause 

resource competition and stress vegetation across the landscape. 

Prohibiting or limiting surface-disturbing activities within the planning area under this alternative would 

result in changes to key ecosystem components such as vegetation characteristics (species composition, 

structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; and fire frequency, 

severity, and pattern. 

Allowing vegetation and forestry product management activities would enable the improvement and 

maintenance of ecosystem functionality. 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Management actions under Alternative D would result in changes to key ecosystem components such as 

vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic 

pattern); fuel composition; and fire frequency, severity, and pattern. As fires continued to be suppressed, 

vegetation and hazardous fuels would continue to increase. Although buildup of fuels would contribute to the 

creation of large, high-intensity fires, future treatments of forests and rangelands would improve health, 

species composition, and stand density. However, because these areas are small in relation to the remainder of 

vegetation in the planning area, impacts would be confined to a small area. 

Mitigation measures required for project planning and implementation would reduce fuels management 

effective in reducing hazardous fuels or improving wildlife habitat and cause competition for resources and 

stress vegetation across the landscape. 

Prohibiting or limiting surface-disturbing activities within the planning area would result in changes to key 

ecosystem components such as vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stage, stand age, 

canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; and fire frequency, severity, and pattern. 

Allowing vegetation and forestry product management activities would enable the improvement and 

maintenance of ecosystem functionality. 

ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Management actions under Alternative E would result in changes to key ecosystem components such as 

vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic 

pattern); fuel composition; and fire frequency, severity, and pattern. As fires continued to be suppressed, 

vegetation and hazardous fuels would continue to increase. Although buildup of fuels would contribute to the 

creation of large, high-intensity fires, future treatments of forests and rangelands would improve health, 

species composition, and stand density. However, because these areas are small in relation to the remainder of 

vegetation in the planning area, impacts would be confined to a small area. 

Mitigation measures required for project planning and implementation under this alternative would reduce 

fuels management activities effective in reducing hazardous fuels or improving wildlife habitat and cause 

competition for resources and stress vegetation across the landscape. 

Prohibiting or limiting surface-disturbing activities within the planning area under this alternative would 

result in changes to key ecosystem components such as vegetation characteristics (species composition, 

structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; and fire frequency, 

severity, and pattern. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Wildland Fire Management and Ecology 

4-180

Allowing vegetation and forestry product management activities would enable the improvement and 

maintenance of ecosystem functionality. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Historically (pre-European settlement), many forest stands were open, park-like stands of ponderosa pine and 

juniper (generally less than 40 percent canopy cover) intermixed with hardwood draws. Mature stands were 

dominated by large ponderosa pine with an understory of native bunchgrasses and low shrubs. Rangelands 

were a mosaic of grasses, forbs, and a variety of sagebrush. Prior to European settlement, fires ignited by 

lightning and American Indians burned frequently throughout the planning area. Frequent, low-intensity fires 

that thinned stands and eliminated the majority of tree regeneration (fire interval 15 to 20 years) maintained 

forested stands. (Remnant stands of large, mature ponderosa pine continue to occur in open rocky areas and in 

the bottom of draws.) Infrequent, mixed-severity fires that created mosaic patterns of varying age classes and 

species of sagebrush maintained rangelands. Impacts of past actions, natural events, and region-wide 

decisions (e.g., fire, logging, insect and disease, or road construction) that affected forests and rangelands are 

described in Chapter 3, Affected Environment. 

Naturally occurring wildfire existed on the landscape and kept vegetated ecosystems in a continual cycle of 

disturbance and growth. Under decades of fire suppression, these ecosystems have changed: species diversity 

is declining, native vegetation is disappearing, the density of encroaching tree species (such as juniper) is 

increasing, and fire regimes have departed from their typical ranges. Treatments in fire regime and condition 

class (FR/CC) 2 and 3 areas would improve forest health, species composition, and stand densities and 

decrease numbers of insect and disease-affected trees. Treatments that would restore FR/CC 1 areas would 

increase resiliency of forests and, over time, allow fire to play a more natural role. 

As wildfires continued to be suppressed, vegetation and hazardous fuels would continue to increase. Buildup 

of fuels would contribute to the creation of large, high-intensity fires but future treatments of forest and 

rangelands would improve health, species composition, and stand density. However, because these areas are 

small in relation to the remainder of vegetation in the planning area, impacts would be confined to a small 

area. 

Alternative A 

Alternative A would contribute to the anticipated impacts of vegetation removal from natural ranges, which 

would cause declines in species diversity, reductions in native vegetation, and increases in tree density. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B would contribute to the anticipated impacts of vegetation removal from natural ranges, which 

would cause declines in species diversity, reductions in native vegetation, and increases in tree density. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C would contribute to the anticipated impacts of vegetation removal from natural ranges, which 

would cause declines in species diversity, reductions in native vegetation, and increases in tree density. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D would contribute to the anticipated impacts of vegetation removal from natural ranges, which 

would cause declines in species diversity, reductions in native vegetation, and increases in tree density. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative E would contribute to the anticipated impacts of vegetation removal from natural ranges, which 

would cause declines in species diversity, reductions in native vegetation, and increases in tree density. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Wildland Fire Management and Ecology 

4-181

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 

The methodology to determine annual fire occurrence is derived from the Wildland Fire Management 

Information (WFMI) program. Data derived from this with 465 occurring on BLM–administered lands. 

Wildland fire burned a cumulative total of 908,054 acres (432,556 of which were BLM-administered surface 

acres). Based on these data, there would be an average of 96 fires annually, 22 of which would occur on BLMadministered surfaces. Wildfires occurring in the planning area can range from 0.1 acres to over 100,000 acres, 

incorporating multi-agency land jurisdictions. Wildfire size and duration is dependent on weather conditions, 

terrain and topography, and the fuel type. Wildfires will continue to be caused primarily by natural ignition 

sources such as lightning, although humans and spontaneous coal seam outcrop fires will continue to be an 

ignition source to vegetation on the surface. 

Based on the data obtained, it is assumed that Class B (0.3 to 9.9 acres in size) fires would continue to be the 

typical size class of fires occurring, however, fires of all size classes would continue to occur during any given 

fire season. The BLM could expect an average of 6,300 acres of BLM-administered surface burned annually 

during any typical wildland fire season (April 15 to September 15). 

The BLM would expect to conduct wildfire suppression activity damage repair, emergency stabilization and 

rehabilitation and burned area rehabilitation actions on 1,000 acres in the short term and 10,000 acres in the 

long term. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Mitigation actions considered under all alternatives would include allowing fires to burn to natural barriers, 

allowing wildfire to meet multiple objectives where pre-identified containment areas were planned, and using 

existing roads and previous prescribed or wildland fire areas for containment areas (where the previous fire 

would have removed fuels). 

Wildland fire management that would be considered to avoid surface-disturbing activities under Management 

Common to all Alternatives would include allowing fires to burn to natural barriers, allowing wildfire to meet 

multiple objectives where pre-identified containment areas were planned, and using existing roads and 

previous prescribed or wildland fire areas to serve as containment areas (because fuels would have been 

removed by the previous fire event). If the proposed actions were deemed unsuitable in these areas or if the 

soil-disturbing action could not be mitigated, relocation to an area where soil disturbance would be allowed 

would lead to larger fires, fires that entered areas of high resource value (such as sage-grouse habitat) that 

may not benefit from a wildfire, or fires that damaged or destroyed adjacent private property. 

Management actions or policies that allowed vegetation manipulation or treatment (including habitat 

improvements, livestock grazing, approximation of natural disturbance regimes, thinning, fuel treatments or 

management, biomass removal, forest health restoration projects, wood sales, invasive species reductions, 

natural or prescribed fire, and salvage of dead and dying timber) or implemented proactive management for 

threatened and endangered species habitat would enhance wildland fire management. These actions would 

contribute to reductions of hazardous fuels on the landscape and help reduce risks to the public and 

firefighters. Reducing volume of burnable biomass and vegetation on the landscape would help reduce 

wildfire severity and intensity, fire behavior, the impacts of wildfire on other resources, and the need to 

conduct emergency stabilization and burned area rehabilitation. Reducing the severity of these impacts would 

reduce the need to conduct aggressive wildfire suppression tactics and subsequently reduce the need for 

wildfire suppression activity damage repair activities. Removal of fine flashy fuels through domestic cattle 

grazing would provide fuel breaks and reduce available fuels, which would create opportunities to contain 

wildfires. In recreation areas, less fuel would be available for human-caused fires adjacent to the area. 

Additionally, continued reductions in vegetation and biomass would reduce costs of wildfire suppression 

activities. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Wildland Fire Management and Ecology 

4-182

Fire is an important part of the ecosystem and would potentially be used to restore habitats to native 

components if applied during the appropriate season. Management actions that allowed the use of wildfire 

would increase the use of wildland fire (prescribed and naturally occurring) to achieve desired resource 

conditions of native plant communities. 

Any management actions that required protective management or stipulations, restricted ROWs or restrictions 

to tactical fire suppression actions, required extra actions (such as washing equipment prior to leaving 

invasive-species-infested areas) or mitigation, or implemented designations that would require protective 

management or stipulations would delay or reduce efficiency on a wildfire response. Time efficiency and 

prompt response would be critical to reduce acres burned, reduce vegetative habitat losses, and ensure 

successful wildfire response and engagement. Delayed responses or restrictions to suppression tactics would 

result in larger fires, increased habitat loss, increased cost to suppress the fire, and increased risk to the 

firefighter and public. 

Depending on the site-specific plant community types in particular areas, utilizing prescribed or naturally 

occurring wildfire as treatments to promote sprouting would increase the BLM’s ability to control or 

manipulate vegetation and contribute to attainment of wildland fire management and ecology objectives. 

Actions to manage and replace nonnative plant communities would increase the use of wildland fire 

(prescribed and naturally occurring) to achieve desired resource conditions with native plant communities. 

These management actions would add requirements to manage invasive vegetation species (weeds) on all 

suppression activity damage repair actions, which would increase short-term project costs through added 

tasks but reduce costs in the long term through the successful control of wildfires. 

Management actions that required restrictions and policies for special designation areas, riparian and wetland 

areas, water resources, and WSAs would reduce impacts from wildfire suppression actions. Actions taken to 

manage wildfires in these areas would be designed to maintain the qualities that prompted special 

designation, maintenance of these qualities would reduce the need for wildfire suppression damage repair and 

rehabilitation activities. 

Prioritizing wildland fire management activities or wildfires according to potential risks to life and property 

across the planning area would reduce private property losses and risks to human life. 

Allowing fertilizer use on BLM-administered lands to accomplish natural vegetation community restoration 

would increase fuels available to burn and the quantity (tons per acre) of fuels burned. Fertilizer use would 

promote faster vegetative growth and greater vegetative volume. Once cured, wildfires would be more 

intense, which would increase risks and suppression costs. 

Use of approved aerially applied fire retardant for wildfire suppression would allow effective and efficient 

suppression of wildfires to occur at fewer acres. Use of aerially applied fire retardant would contribute to the 

protection of human life and property and the conservation of critical wildlife habitats and cultural and natural 

resources. Misapplication (applying where not intended) would contribute to the effects and mitigation efforts 

in aquatic habitats, riparian habitats, water resources, and in culturally sensitive locations. 

Conducting wildfire suppression activities, wildfire suppression activity damage repair activities, and 

emergency stabilization and burned area rehabilitation actions in accordance with BLM national, state, and 

local policies, regulations, and guidance would contribute to the success of maintaining safe, cost-efficient, 

and authorized wildland fire management actions. 

Facilities management actions under Management Common to all Alternatives (including maintenance of 

administration, recreation, and communication sites, buildings, and dams) would contribute to successful 

wildland fire management. Under these management actions, upgraded or improved fire facilities would be 

constructed to meet higher energy efficiency standards and reduce energy use. Maintained or improved 

communication sites would result in safer wildfire suppression operations. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Wildland Fire Management and Ecology 

4-183

Managing subsurface fires (coal seams or coal outcrops) to protect cultural and historic resources; prevent the 

spread of fire onto private property; and minimize fire suppression costs and the loss of natural resource 

losses and improvements would reduce suppression actions needed for an aboveground fire and the 

subsequent need to conduct wildfire suppression damage repair activities. Prioritizing wildfire management 

activities for wildfires (surface) and subsurface (coal seam) fires would reduce private property losses and 

reduce risks to human life. 

Depending on the authorizations provided in specific guidance, applying special management to protect 

public safety in the face of natural hazards or in areas or periods in which standard or routine management 

would be inadequate to protect resource values from risks of damage or degradation would result in more 

successful wildland fire management to achieve desired resource conditions in these areas. 

ALTERNATIVE A 

Management actions that restricted noise and, subsequently, certain types of suppression equipment under 

this alternative would result in increased fire perimeters, increased fire suppression costs, and a greater need 

to rehabilitate burned areas. 

Management actions that required mitigation during suppression actions would decrease the need for 

rehabilitation or suppression activity damage repair actions. Management actions that required avoidance of 

specific areas would increase land rehabilitation needs (for lands affected by wildland fire); reduce wildfire 

suppression activity damage repair needs, and increase emergency stabilization and rehabilitation and burned 

area rehabilitation needs. 

Management actions that allowed the use of ground-based harvest and slash-treating equipment would 

contribute to wildfire suppression efforts, suppression damage repair activities, fuels reduction and biomass 

removal, and emergency stabilization and burned area rehabilitation efforts by allowing unrestricted use of 

heavy equipment for harvest or slash removal. 

Allowing surface water impoundments would provide water sources for aerial fire suppression resources and 

ground resources. Actions that increased the availability of water for wildland fire suppression activities 

would reduce risks and exposure for firefighters and contribute to rapid wildland fire suppression. Less 

aggressive suppression actions would be required on some areas of the fire perimeter, which would decrease 

the total wildland fire suppression activity damage and repair activities needed. 

Actions or policies that allowed vegetation manipulation or treatment (including range improvements, 

livestock grazing, haying, and vegetation sales) would contribute to the success of wildfire management 

activities. Any reduction in burnable vegetation would decrease risks and increase the success of wildland fire 

suppression through decreased fire behavior and reduced fuel loadings. Subsequently, forage removal via 

grazing (which would remove fine, flashy fuels) and range improvements that removed potential fuels would 

reduce risk, intensity, fire behavior, and fire suppression costs. Allowing haying would provide fuel breaks 

and an economical and effective method to remove fine flashy fuels from the landscape or along ROWs. 

Resource damage from wildfire suppression actions would be reduced, which would also reduce the need for 

wildfire suppression damage repair activities. 

Conversely, management actions that restricted vegetation manipulation or treatment (including haying; 

forest product sales, salvage, and harvest; cottonwood harvest; range improvements; and livestock grazing) or 

required management of forestlands for the enhancement of other resources would increase the probability of 

wildfires that exhibited more severe or extreme fire behavior by increasing the volume of available fuels. 

Increased fuel loadings would increase fire intensity and behavior, wildfire suppression costs, and risks for 

the wildland firefighter. As fuel loads increased over time, the size and extent of fires under extreme weather 

conditions would also increase. As forests continued to grow, fuels available to burn and large trees (both live 

and dead), the risk of large, high intensity wildfires, and the likelihood of increased insect and disease 

outbreaks would also increase. Increased fire severity would increase fire rehabilitation costs. Suppression 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Wildland Fire Management and Ecology 

4-184

efficacy would be decreased under these management actions, (particularly in areas with conifer 

encroachment adjacent to wildland-urban interfaces), which would increase risks to communities in areas of 

wildland-urban interfaces. Extreme fire behavior would require more aggressive suppression actions, which 

would create a greater need for suppression activity damage repair actions. Costs associated with suppression 

actions would increase. 

Allowing surface water impoundments would reduce costs of the suppression event. Increasing water 

availability for wildland fire suppression would reduce risks and exposure for firefighters and contribute to 

rapid wildland fire suppression. Decreased fire exposure and fire duration would reduce the costs of the 

suppression event. Less aggressive suppression actions would be required if water were used instead of heavy 

mechanized equipment. This action would also reduce the need for wildfire suppression activity damage and 

landscape repair actions. 

If commercial or pre-commercial material could not be removed (through timber sale or mechanical 

treatment), management actions that required the removal or treatment of pre-commercial and commercial 

material for sites in Condition Class 3 (53,000 acres) prior to prescribed fire activities would indirectly 

increase the risk of larger and more intense or more severe wildland fires. The timber and biomass market 

would determine the viability of selling or removing the materials through agreement; subsequently, these 

materials would be retained on the landscape if they could not be sold, such as during a period with a low or 

non-existent market demand for these materials. Additionally, because this action would require two separate 

treatments (the initial removal of material and the planned prescribed fire), requiring the material to be precommercially treated prior to prescribed fire would increase human presence in the treatment areas, cause a 

temporal lag between treatments, and increase costs of the entire treatment. 

Allowing prescribed fire in Fire Management Categories B and C would reduce fuels available to burn, fire 

intensities and severity, and the risks and costs of wildland fire suppression in these areas. 

Management actions that continued to implement a management response consistent with Fire Management 

Categories A through D to all human-caused and natural fires would result in all wildfires being suppressed in 

the planning area. Management actions that retained current fire management zones and categories delineated 

and managed in the Miles City Field Office Fire Management Plan (BLM 2004g) would restrict and prohibit 

any wildland fire management strategy other than immediate full suppression of wildfire. Because of fire 

management categories identified in the BLM 2004 Miles City Field Office Fire Management Plan,

continuing with current management under both of these management actions would not allow the use of 

wildfire to meet multiple objectives. Vegetation and fuels would continue to increase, which would increase 

risks to firefighters and the cost of the fire suppression. 

Visual resource management (VRM) actions that required special design (including location, painting, and 

camouflage) would increase design and construction costs for any fire management facilities located in VRM 

Class II areas. 

Management actions that allowed commercial camping and casual recreational shooting opportunities would 

increase risks of human-caused wildland fire within those designated use areas. The damage resulting from 

human-caused fire and actions to suppress the fire would increase as human use of designated commercial 

camping and authorized shooting increased. Conversely, management actions that did not allow these 

activities would reduce risks of human-caused wildfire within those designated areas. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Actions or policies that allowed vegetation manipulation or treatment (including haying, biomass sales, 

livestock grazing, or range improvements) would contribute to the success of wildland fire management 

activities. Any reduction in burnable vegetation and hazardous fuel would decrease risks and overall costs of 

the wildfire suppression event and increase the success of wildfire suppression through decreased fire 

behavior, severity, and intensity and reduced fuel loadings. Fire suppression damage would be reduced, which 

would reduce fire suppression activity damage repair needs. Subsequently, forage removal via grazing (which 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Wildland Fire Management and Ecology 

4-185

would remove fine, flashy fuels) and range improvements that removed potential fuels would reduce risks, 

intensity, fire behavior, and fire suppression costs. Allowing haying would provide fuel breaks and an 

economical and effective method to remove fine flashy fuels from the landscape or along ROWs. Wildfire 

suppression damage would be reduced, which would also reduce the need for wildfire suppression activity 

damage repair. 

Conversely, management actions that restricted vegetation manipulation or treatment (including haying; 

cottonwood harvest; range improvements; prescribed fires or projects; forestland product sales, salvage, or 

harvest; or livestock grazing) or required management of forestlands for the enhancement of other resources 

would contribute to a gradual increase of fuels available to burn. Increased fuel loadings would increase fire 

intensity and behavior, wildfire suppression costs, and risks for the firefighter. As fuel loads increased over 

time, the size and extent of fires under extreme weather conditions would also increase. As forests continued 

to grow, fuels available to burn and large trees (both live and dead), the risk of large, high intensity wildfires, 

and the likelihood of increased insect and disease outbreaks would also increase. Increased fire severity 

would increase fire rehabilitation costs. Suppression efficacy would be decreased under these management 

actions, (particularly in areas with conifer encroachment adjacent to wildland-urban interfaces), which would 

increase risks to communities in areas of wildland-urban interfaces. Fires occurring in these untreated areas 

(and timbered habitat types) would be larger, more costly fires to suppress and increase risks to the 

firefighters and public. Naturally occurring wildfire in untreated areas would result in damage to other 

resources through of suppression actions, which would subsequently increase wildfire suppression activity 

damage repair needs. Suspending or temporarily restricting livestock grazing would increase fine fuels during 

the typical fire season of May to September. Actions that deferred grazing to ensure the presence of adequate 

fuel to carry a prescribed fire would improve the success and likelihood of achieving desired vegetation 

management objectives during a prescribed fire action. Retaining fine, flashy fuels would increase risks to the 

public and the firefighter in the event wildfires would need to be controlled in these areas. 

Allowing harvesting of native seed would add to the success of wildfire suppression activity damage repair 

actions by providing native sources of seeds for wildland fire rehabilitation and increasing the success of the 

rehabilitation effort. 

Requiring habitat compensation under this alternative would increase landscape rehabilitation costs (through 

burned area rehabilitation or emergency stabilization actions or wildland fire management). During a wildfire 

event, the caps would be exceeded during the most extreme fire weather days because these conditions would 

be conducive to extreme fire behavior and carry the most risk for suppression activities. Increased 

suppression efforts and resources would be required during attempts to meet these caps, which would increase 

costs and surface disturbances over both the short and long term. 

If commercial or pre-commercial material could not be removed (through timber sale or mechanical 

treatment), management actions that required the removal or treatment of pre-commercial and commercial 

material for sites in Condition Class 3 (53,000 acres) prior to prescribed fire activities would indirectly 

increase the risk of larger and more intense or more severe wildland fires. The timber and biomass market 

would determine the viability of selling or removing the materials through agreement; subsequently, these 

materials would be retained on the landscape if they could not be sold, such as during a period with a low or 

non-existent market demand for these materials. Additionally, because this action would require two separate 

treatments (the initial removal of material and the planned prescribed fire), requiring the material to be precommercially treated prior to prescribed fire would increase human presence in the treatment areas, cause a 

temporal lag between treatments, and increase costs of the entire treatment. 

Wildland Fire Management actions under this alternative would result in more effective wildfire fire 

suppression strategies and tactics designed to meet resource management goals and objectives through the use 

of naturally occurring fire on the landscape. Allowing the use of wildfire to meet multiple resource objectives

would reduce the costs of fire suppression in some cases and result in an increased number of acres of treated 

vegetation and an increased number of acres converted back to their natural, historical fire regimes, which 

would result in a Condition Class of 1 or 2.
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Wildland Fire Management and Ecology 

4-186

Requiring wildfire management implementation plans (natural ignitions to meet multiple objectives) for areas 

identified to benefit from fire would provide clear resource management goals and objectives. 

Management actions that required the use of minimal impact suppression tactics (MIST) would restrict 

aggressive suppression tactics in these areas, result in larger fire perimeters, and increase the possibility of 

increased suppression costs. However, because these tactics restrict mechanized equipment and its subsequent 

impacts on the landscape, the use of MIST would decrease the need for wildfire suppression activity damage 

repair. 

Because specialized equipment would be required to blend the disturbance with the natural surroundings, 

management actions that required a special design for VRM would result in greater fire suppression activity 

damage repair and rehabilitation costs. 

Removing Howrey Island from ACEC designation would decrease restrictions on wildland fire management 

activities and result in greater opportunities to manage wildland fires in this area with reduced costs and 

burned areas. 

Management actions that allowed commercial camping and casual recreational shooting opportunities would 

increase opportunities for human-caused wildland fire within those designated use areas. The resource 

damage resulting from human-caused wildfire and actions to suppress the wildfire would increase as use of 

designated commercial camping and authorized shooting increased. Conversely, management actions that did 

not allow these activities would reduce risks of human-caused wildfire within those designated areas. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Actions or policies that allowed vegetation manipulation or treatment (including haying or seed harvesting; 

biomass treatment, manipulation, or sales; livestock grazing; range improvements; or prescribed fire) and 

required management of forestlands for a diversity of forest product production, sustainable yields, and 

enhancement of resources would contribute to the success of wildland fire management activities. Any 

reduction in burnable vegetation would decrease risks and increase the success of wildland fire suppression 

through decreased fire behavior and reduced fuel loadings. Wildfire suppression damage would be reduced, 

which would reduce wildfire suppression activity damage repair activities needed to mitigate impacts to other 

resources. Reducing biomass and tons per acre of hazardous fuels on the ground or treating fuels according to 

their capacity to burn would provide opportunities for successful suppression actions and reduce risks to 

firefighters. Treated areas would experience less severe and intense wildfires, which would reduce the need 

for wildfire suppression activity damage repair and burned area rehabilitation actions. Wildfire suppression, 

management, and mitigation costs would be reduced in these healthier environments. In some areas, humancaused wildfire would increase during the drier months (spring and fall), when wood-product gathering would 

typically occur. Allowing harvest of dead cottonwoods would reduce instances of fire in standing dead 

cottonwood trees would be reduced in managed cottonwood stands, which would reduce the risk and 

complexity of any suppression effort through the management of the stability and soundness of the stand. 

Forage removal via grazing (which would remove fine, flashy fuels) and range improvements that removed 

potential fuels would reduce fire risks, intensity, fire behavior, and wildfire suppression costs. Livestock 

grazing would provide opportunities to increase fuel breaks and reduce fuel loadings. 

The cumulative reduction of hazardous fuels located in timbered habitat types would reduce the risk of highseverity wildfires in these areas. Managing forested habitats through timber and biomass removal and regular 

return intervals of prescribed fire (to maintain the resiliency of the stand) would result in a landscape where 

naturally occurring wildfires would be controlled more easily, at reduced costs, and with reduced risks to the 

firefighter and the public. Forestland management under this alternative would indirectly result in a safer and 

more manageable fire environment. Forest fuel and biomass removal would result in less intense and less 

severe fires. Wildfire suppression, management, and mitigation costs would be reduced in these healthier 

environments. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Wildland Fire Management and Ecology 

4-187

Allowing haying would provide fuel breaks and an economical and effective method to remove fine flashy 

fuels from the landscape or along ROWs. Wildfire suppression damage would be reduced, which would also 

reduce the need for wildfire suppression activity damage repair.

Management actions that restricted vegetation manipulation or treatment (including livestock grazing and hay 

and seed harvesting) would increase fine fuels or vegetation available to burn at greater intensities, with 

greater severity and with increased fire behavior, all of which would increase the risk and cost of the wildfire 

suppression activities. Increased fuel loadings would also increase risks for the firefighter and communities in 

areas of wildland-urban interfaces. As fuel loads increased over time, the size of fires under extreme weather 

conditions would increase. Under this alternative, additional wildfire suppression activity damage repair 

would be needed to mitigate impacts to other resources. Suppression actions used for naturally occurring 

wildfire on these acres would cause damage to other resources, which would result in more wildfire 

suppression activity damage repair activities. Fire behavior characteristics in harvested hay grounds would 

not be reduced. 

Requiring disturbed areas to be fully reclaimed to pre-disturbance conditions or to a desired plant community 

would increase the costs of wildfire suppression activity damage repair and burned area rehabilitation 

activities. 

Requiring habitat compensation under this alternative would increase landscape rehabilitation costs (burned 

area rehabilitation activities, emergency stabilization activities, or wildland fire management). During a 

wildfire event, the caps would be exceeded during the most extreme fire weather days because these 

conditions would include extreme fire behavior and carry the most risk for suppression activities. Increased 

suppression efforts and resources would be required during attempts to meet these caps, which would increase 

costs and surface disturbances over the short and long term. 

Evaluating areas in Condition Class 3 (53,000 acres) on a site-specific basis to determine if mechanical 

treatments or pre-commercial or commercial thinnings were necessary to remove merchantable forest 

products or reduce heavy fuel loadings prior to prescribed fire activity would ensure attainment of wildfire 

management goals to sustain the ecological health and function of fire-adapted ecosystems. Overstocked and 

insect-affected forests and woodlands would provide opportunities to treat areas of timber and biomass with 

prescribed fire as conditions and funding would allow, which would reduce biomass and hazardous fuels. 

Less severe and less intense wildland fires would occur in areas treated with prescribed fires and the need for 

wildfire suppression activity damage repair and burned area rehabilitation activities would decrease. 

Wildland Fire Management actions under this alternative would result in more effective wildfire suppression 

strategies and tactics designed to meet resource management goals and objectives. These actions would 

include management of wildland fires to reduce landscape damage and suppression actions, which would 

reduce damage to resources and require fewer wildland fire management and burned area rehabilitation 

activities. Wildfires of reduced severity and intensity would result in areas treated with naturally occurring 

wildland fire, which would result in a reduced need for fire suppression activity damage repair and burned 

area rehabilitation activities. 

Less severe and less intense wildland fires would occur in areas treated with prescribed fires and the need for 

wildfire suppression activity damage repair, and emergency stabilization and burned area rehabilitation would 

decrease. Evaluating areas in Condition Class 3 (53,000 acres) on a site-specific basis to determine if 

mechanical treatments or pre-commercial or commercial thinnings were necessary to remove merchantable 

forest products or reduce heavy fuel loadings prior to prescribed fire activity would ensure that wildland fire 

management goals to sustain the ecological health and function of fire-adapted ecosystems would be 

achieved. Overstocked and insect-affected forests and woodlands would provide opportunities to treat areas 

of timber and biomass with prescribed fire as conditions and funding allowed, which would reduce biomass 

and hazardous fuels. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Wildland Fire Management and Ecology 

4-188

Management actions that required the use of MIST would restrict aggressive suppression tactics in these 

areas, result in larger fire perimeters, and increase the possibility of greater suppression costs. However, 

because MIST would restrict mechanized equipment and its subsequent impacts on the landscape, the use of 

these tactics would decrease the need for wildfire suppression activity damage repair actions. 

Because specialized equipment would be required to blend the disturbance with the natural surroundings, 

management actions that required a special design for VRM would result in greater fire suppression activity 

damage repair and rehabilitation costs. Costs to construct facilities to meet these requirements would also 

increase. 

Allowing management of cottonwood stands would contribute to the reduction of dead cottonwood trees, 

which would reduce the risk and complexity for any suppression effort by ensuring cottonwood stands 

remained stable and sound. 

Actions that deferred grazing to ensure the presence of adequate fuel to carry a prescribed fire would improve 

the success and likelihood of achieving desired vegetation management objectives during a prescribed fire 

action. If the fire occurred during the most severe or extreme environmental conditions (high temperatures 

and low humidity) in a typical fire season, impacts from a naturally occurring wildfire would likely be 

undesirable. Retaining fine, flashy fuels would increase risks to the public and the firefighter in the event 

wildfires would need to be controlled in these areas. 

Management actions that allowed commercial camping and casual recreational shooting opportunities would 

increase risks of human-caused wildland fire within those designated use areas. The resource damage 

resulting from human-caused fire and actions to suppress the fire would increase as human use of designated 

commercial camping and authorized shooting increased. Conversely, management actions that did not allow 

these activities would reduce risks of human-caused wildland fire within those designated areas. 

Removing ACEC designations would decrease suppression tactic restrictions to surface-disturbing actions for 

wildland fire management and wildfire suppression activities. 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Management actions that required reclamation or mitigation actions following surface disturbances would 

increase the costs of fire suppression by increasing the need for suppression activity damage repair and 

emergency stabilization and burned area rehabilitation activities. However, the habitat requirement under 

Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas would allow surface disturbances related to fire suppression 

activities because these activities would be implemented to maintain sage-grouse habitat functionality. 

Damages caused by the suppression action and the wildland fire would be rehabilitated to desired 

specifications to comply with this management action. 

Requiring mitigation under this alternative would increase costs through an increased need to apply wildfire 

suppression activity damage repair actions to counter wildfire suppression activity damage. Wildfire 

suppression activity damage repair needs would be reduced while emergency stabilization and rehabilitation 

and burned area rehabilitation needs would increase. 

Actions or policies that allowed vegetation manipulation or treatment (including haying; biomass treatment, 

manipulation, or sales; livestock grazing; range improvements; or prescribed fire) and required management 

of forestlands for a diversity of forest product production, sustainable yields, and enhancement of resources 

would contribute to the success of wildland fire management activities. Any reduction in burnable vegetation 

would decrease risks and increase the success of wildfire suppression through decreased fire behavior and 

reduced fuel loadings. Wildfire suppression damage caused by aggressive suppression actions would be 

reduced, which would decrease the need for wildfire suppression activity damage repair activities. Forage 

removal via grazing (which would remove fine, flashy fuels) and range improvements that removed potential 

fuels would reduce risk, intensity, fire behavior, and fire suppression costs. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Wildland Fire Management and Ecology 

4-189

The cumulative reduction of hazardous fuels located in timbered habitat types would reduce the risk of highseverity wildfires in these areas. Managing forested habitats through timber and biomass removal and regular 

return intervals of prescribed fire (to maintain the resiliency of the stand) would result in a landscape where 

naturally occurring wildfires would be controlled more easily, at reduced costs, and with reduced risks to the 

firefighter and the public. Forestland management under this alternative would indirectly result in a safer and 

more manageable fire environment. Forest fuel and biomass removal would result in less intense and less 

severe fires. Fire suppression, management, and mitigation costs would be reduced in these healthier 

environments. 

Allowing haying would provide fuel breaks and an economical and effective method to remove fine flashy 

fuels from the landscape or along ROWs. Wildfire suppression damage would be reduced, which would also 

reduce the need for wildfire suppression activity damage repair.

Management actions that restricted vegetation manipulation or treatment (including livestock grazing, 

prescribed fire, range improvements, and haying) would increase fine fuels or vegetation available to burn at 

greater intensities, with greater severity and with increased fire behavior, all of which would increase the risk 

and cost of the wildland fire suppression activities. Increased fuel loadings would also increase risks for the 

firefighter and communities in areas of wildland-urban interfaces. As fuel loads increased over time, the size 

of fires under extreme weather conditions would increase, and these fuels would be available to burn at 

greater intensities, severities, and with increased fire behavior, which would subsequently increase the risks 

and costs of the wildfire suppression event and the need to conduct wildfire suppression activity damage 

repair actions in these areas. Extreme fire behavior would limit success of the suppression activity and 

increase risks to the firefighter and wildlife habitat. Grazing would provide opportunities for fuel breaks on 

the landscape by reducing fine fuel loadings. 

Requiring full reclamation of disturbed areas would result in higher costs of wildfire suppression damage 

repair and emergency stabilization and burned area rehabilitation activities. 

Requiring habitat compensation under this alternative would increase landscape rehabilitation costs through 

increased burned area rehabilitation, emergency stabilization, or wildland fire management needs. During a 

wildfire event, the caps would be exceeded during the most extreme fire weather days because these 

conditions would include extreme fire behavior and carry the most risk for suppression activities. Increased 

suppression efforts and resources would be required during attempts to meet these caps, which would increase 

costs and surface disturbances over the short and long term. 

Evaluating areas in Condition Class 3 (53,000 acres) on a site-specific basis to determine if mechanical 

treatments or pre-commercial or commercial thinnings were necessary to remove merchantable forest 

products or reduce heavy fuel loadings prior to prescribed fire activity would ensure attainment of wildland 

fire management goals to sustain the ecological health and function of fire-adapted ecosystems. Overstocked 

and insect-affected forests and woodlands would provide opportunities to treat areas of timber and biomass 

with prescribed fire as conditions and funding would allow, which would reduce biomass and hazardous 

fuels. Less severe and less intense wildfires would occur in areas treated with prescribed fires and the need 

for fire suppression activity damage repair and burned area rehabilitation activities would decrease. 

Allowing management of cottonwood stands would contribute to the reduction of dead cottonwood trees, 

which would reduce the risk and complexity for any suppression effort by ensuring cottonwood stands 

remained stable and sound. 

Management actions that allowed commercial camping and casual recreational shooting opportunities would 

increase risks of human-caused wildfire within those designated use areas. The damage resulting from 

human-caused fire and actions to suppress the fire would increase as human use of designated commercial 

camping and authorized shooting increased. Conversely, management actions that did not allow these 

activities would reduce risks of human-caused wildfire within those designated areas.
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Wildland Fire Management and Ecology 

4-190

ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Management actions that restricted or required avoidance of surface-disturbing and disruptive activities 

would restrict effective wildland fire management suppression tactics for quickly suppressing wildfires. 

These actions would prevent suppression actions using heavy equipment and result in larger fire perimeters, 

increased acres of burned habitats, increased needs for emergency stabilization and burned area rehabilitation 

actions, and increased suppression times (which would cause increased smoke exposure in local areas) and 

costs. Although wildfire suppression activity damage repair needs would be reduced, emergency stabilization 

and rehabilitation and burned area rehabilitation needs would increase under these management actions. 

Restrictions on slopes and sensitive soils would contribute to heavy accumulations of fuel loadings in these 

areas, which would create greater fire hazards and contribute to landscape hazards and an unsafe 

environment. If heavily loaded slopes burned, erosion and burned area rehabilitation needs would increase. A 

fire moving upslope poses a greater hazard than a comparable fire on a flat landscape. 

Management actions that allowed surface-disturbing or disruptive activities under this alternative would 

permit wildland fire management suppression tactics that efficiently suppressed wildfires. Although burned 

area rehabilitation and emergency stabilization actions would be reduced through aggressive suppression 

actions, wildfire suppression activity damage repair needs would increase with the use of surface-disturbing 

equipment. 

Allowing surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in areas subject to specific habitat requirements would 

increase the amount of post-wildland fire burned area rehabilitation needed and increase fire suppression 

activity actions necessary to mitigate surface-disturbing actions. Suppression and rehabilitation costs would 

increase. 

Avoiding surface-disturbing activities within 300 feet of waterbodies, wetlands, and streams would decrease 

the rehabilitation needs from suppression damage but increase the emergency stabilization and burned area 

rehabilitation actions to mitigate the impacts of vegetation removal caused by wildland fire adjacent to the 

waterbody, wetland, or stream. Actions that allowed water impoundments would contribute to successful fire 

management. 

Actions or policies that allowed vegetation manipulation or treatment (including hay or seed harvesting; 

biomass treatment, manipulation, or sales; livestock grazing; range improvements; or prescribed fire) and 

required management of forestlands for a diversity of forest product production, sustainable yields, and 

enhancement of resources would contribute to the success of wildland fire management activities. Any 

reduction in burnable vegetation would decrease risks and increase the success of wildfire suppression 

through decreased fire behavior and reduced fuel loadings. Forage removal via grazing (which would remove 

fine, flashy fuels) and range improvements that removed potential fuels would reduce risk, intensity, fire 

behavior, and fire suppression costs. Fire suppression damage would be reduced, which would reduce 

wildfire suppression activity damage repair activities needed to mitigate impacts to other resources. Reducing 

biomass and tons per acre of hazardous fuels on the ground or treating fuels according to their capacity to 

burn would provide opportunities for successful suppression actions and reduce risks to wildland firefighters. 

Treated areas would experience less severe and intense wildfires, which would reduce the need for wildfire 

suppression activity damage repair and burned area rehabilitation actions. Wildfire suppression, management, 

and mitigation costs would be reduced in these healthier environments. In some areas, human-caused wildfire 

would increase during the drier months (spring and fall), when wood-product gathering would typically 

occur. Instances of fire in standing dead cottonwood trees would be reduced in managed cottonwood stands, 

which would reduce the risk and complexity of any suppression effort through the management of the 

stability and soundness of the stand. 

The cumulative reduction of hazardous fuels located in timbered habitat types would reduce the risk of highseverity wildland fires in these areas. Managing forested habitats through timber and biomass removal and 

regular return intervals of prescribed fire (to maintain the resiliency of the stand) would result in a landscape 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Wildland Fire Management and Ecology 

4-191

where naturally occurring wildland fires would be controlled more easily, at reduced costs, and with reduced 

risks to the firefighter and the public. Forestland management under this alternative would indirectly result in 

a safer and more manageable fire environment. Forest fuel and biomass removal would result in less intense 

and less severe fires. Wildfire suppression, management, and mitigation costs would be reduced in these 

healthier environments. 

Allowing haying would provide fuel breaks and an economical and effective method to remove fine flashy 

fuels from the landscape or along ROWs. Wildfire suppression damage would be reduced, which would also 

reduce the need for wildfire suppression activity damage repair. 

Management actions that restricted vegetation manipulation or treatment (including livestock and hay and 

seed harvest) would increase fine fuels or vegetation available to burn at greater intensities, with greater 

severity and increased fire behavior, all of which would increase the risk and cost of the wildfire suppression 

activities (including wildfire suppression damage repair activities). Increased fuel loadings would also 

increase risks for the firefighter and communities in areas of wildland-urban interfaces. As fuel loads 

increased over time, the size of fires under extreme weather conditions would increase. Grazing would 

provide opportunities for fuel breaks on the landscape by reducing fine fuel loadings. Additional wildfire 

suppression activity damage repair would be needed to mitigate impacts to other resources. Livestock grazing 

would provide opportunities to increase fuel breaks and reduce fuel loadings. Suppression actions used for 

naturally occurring wildfire on these acres would cause damage to other resources, which would result in 

more wildfire suppression activity damage repair activities. Fire behavior characteristics in harvested hay 

grounds would not be reduced. 

Requiring full reclamation of disturbed areas would result in higher costs of wildfire suppression activity 

damage repair and burned area rehabilitation activities. 

Evaluating areas in Condition Class 3 (53,000 acres) on a site-specific basis to determine if mechanical 

treatments or pre-commercial or commercial thinnings were necessary to remove merchantable forest 

products or reduce heavy fuel loadings prior to prescribed fire activity would ensure attainment of wildland 

fire management goals to sustain the ecological health and function of fire-adapted ecosystems. Overstocked 

and insect-affected forests and woodlands would provide opportunities to treat areas of timber and biomass 

with prescribed fire as conditions and funding would allow, which would reduce biomass and hazardous 

fuels. Less severe and less intense wildfires would occur in areas treated with prescribed fires and the need 

for wildfire suppression activity damage repair and burned area rehabilitation activities would decrease. 

Wildland Fire Management actions under this alternative would result in more effective wildfire suppression 

strategies and tactics designed to meet resource management goals and objectives. These actions would 

include management of wildland fires to reduce landscape damage and suppression actions, which would 

reduce damage to resources and require fewer burned area rehabilitation activities. 

Management actions that required the use of MIST would restrict aggressive suppression tactics in these 

areas, result in larger fire perimeters, and increase the possibility of greater suppression costs. However, 

because MIST would restrict mechanized equipment (and its subsequent impacts on the landscape), the use of 

these tactics would decrease the need for wildfire suppression activity damage repair actions. 

Because specialized equipment would be required to blend the disturbance with the natural surroundings, 

management actions that required a special design for VRM would result in greater fire suppression activity 

damage repair and rehabilitation costs. Costs to construct facilities to meet these requirements would also 

increase. 

Allowing management of cottonwood stands would contribute to the reduction of dead cottonwood trees, 

which would reduce the risk and complexity for any suppression effort by ensuring cottonwood stands 

remained stable and sound. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Wildland Fire Management and Ecology 

4-192

Actions that deferred grazing to ensure the presence of adequate fuel to carry a prescribed fire would improve 

the success and likelihood of achieving desired vegetation management objectives during a prescribed fire 

action. If the fire occurred during the most severe or extreme environmental conditions (high temperatures 

and low humidity) in a typical fire season, impacts from a naturally occurring wildfire would likely be 

undesirable. Retaining fine, flashy fuels would increase risks to the public and the firefighter in the event 

wildfires would need to be controlled in these areas. 

Management actions that allowed commercial camping and casual recreational shooting opportunities would 

increase risks of human-caused wildland fire within those designated use areas. The damage resulting from 

human-caused fire and actions to suppress the fire would increase as human use of designated commercial 

camping and authorized shooting increased. Conversely, management actions that did not allow these 

activities would reduce risks of human-caused wildfires within those designated areas. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Wildfire is a natural component of the ecosystem and the geological record contains evidence of wildland fire 

occurrence. Until the organized suppression of wildfire started around the turn of the century, naturally 

occurring wildfire kept vegetated ecosystems in a continual cycle of disturbance and growth. Continued 

exclusion of naturally occurring wildfires creates gradual and unnatural increases in fuel accumulations, 

which increases the potential for wildfires of greater size and intensities than would occur under natural fire 

regimes. Under decades of wildfire exclusion, these ecosystems have changed: species diversity is declining, 

native vegetation is disappearing, the density of encroaching tree species (such as juniper) is increasing, and 

fire regimes have departed from their typical ranges. 

The continual growth and sprawl of wildland-urban interface, which would continue and increase on private 

lands bordering public lands, compound the risk for larger and more costly wildfires through the loss of 

private property. Naturally occurring wildfires in the planning area would continue at the same annual 

occurrence on average. Human-caused wildfire would likely increase as wildland-urban interfaces increased 

and public lands became more accessible or available for public use. 

As fires continued to be suppressed, vegetation and hazardous fuels would continue to increase. Fuel buildup 

would contribute to the creation of large, high-intensity fires, which would subsequently increase suppression 

costs. The risk to firefighters, public and private land and property, cultural and paleontological resources, 

and other natural resources would increase as the potential for larger fires increased. 

High severity fire potentials would continue. The need to implement wildfire suppression activity damage 

repair, emergency stabilization, and burned area rehabilitation actions on the landscape would increase as this 

potential for large fires increases, which would subsequently increase the cost of the suppression event and its 

impacts to the landscape. 

The management actions under Alternatives A, B, C, and E would contribute to the anticipated impacts. 

Actions under C, D, and E would require fewer restrictions to wildland fire management actions on the 

landscape and provide for more options to manage wildland fire within the ecosystem and allow for 

opportunities to suppress fires at less cost. 

Alternative A 

Management actions under Alternative A would increase the costs of wildfire suppression to trend along the 

10-year national average. 

Alternative B 

Management actions under Alternative B would increase the costs of wildfire suppression to trends higher 

than the 10-year national average. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Wildland Fire Management and Ecology 

4-193

Alternative C 

Although management actions under Alternative C would increase the costs of wildfire suppression to trend 

along the 10-year national average, they would provide opportunities to reduce costs. 

Alternative D 

Although management actions under Alternative D would increase the costs of wildfire suppression to trend 

along the 10-year national average, they would provide opportunities to reduce costs. 

Alternative E 

Although management actions under Alternative E would increase the costs of wildfire suppression to trend 

along the 10-year national average, they would provide opportunities to reduce costs. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 

Cultural resources would be treated similarly and equally in terms of type, composition, and significance. 

Cultural resources are treated in this manner only for purposes of evaluation in this document (since the 

particular cultural resources that would be affected are not necessarily known at this time) but not all cultural 

resources are equal in terms of importance, National Register of Historic Place (NRHP) eligibility, density, 

and location. Federally recognized tribes would need to be consulted in consistency with the requirements of 

the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and regulations found at 36 CFR Part 800. Most of the 

mitigation for American Indian cultural resources would necessitate avoidance, particularly any site 

associated with burial of human remains. Cultural resource attributes would need to be considered when 

impacts are considered for each proposed management action. Additionally, when addressing impacts to 

cultural resources from various management actions, cultural resource sections of plans would need to 

include or follow guidelines in BLM's 8100 Manual Series, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (NPS 1983), and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation’s, Treatment of Archeological Properties (ACHP 1980). 

Based on information extrapolated from Aaberg, Hanna, Crofutt, Green, and Vischer 2006, for the sake of this 

analysis, cultural resources would be considered evenly distributed across the landscape. There would be 1 

cultural site for every 100 acres of land. This assumption is based on studies conducted in the planning area and 

was prepared by averaging the number of recorded sites divided by acres surveyed in the planning area. The 

actual number of cultural resources affected by a management action could vary dramatically depending on 

their location in the planning area. Approximately 10 to 15 percent of sites found are determined eligible for the 

NRHP. There would be 1 excavation every 5 years to conduct research, which would disturb 1 to 5 acres. 

Unless otherwise noted, surface-disturbing activities related to resource use would be evenly distributed across 

the landscape. See the Cultural Resources Appendix for more information about the calculations used to 

determine the assumptions for this analysis. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Any management action resulting in surface disturbance, including the use of heavy equipment, would have the 

potential to impact significant cultural resources if sites were not avoided. Surface disturbance, including some 

mitigation, would alter the characteristics of a significant cultural or historic property by diminishing the 

integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Other 

impacts to cultural resources from proposed activities would include the destruction, damage, or alteration to all 

or part of the cultural resource; diminishment of the property’s significant historic features caused by the 

introduction of visual, atmospheric, or auditory elements; and property loss through transfer, lease, or sale. The 

BLM recognizes the importance of scientific study to retrieve and interpret important cultural resource 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Cultural Resources 

4-194

information, and significant properties must be preserved intact for this to occur. Actions taken to protect 

properties by avoiding any disturbance often causes relocation of the activity. 

Adherence to the cultural resource laws and regulations, in most instances, would minimize or mitigate these 

impacts. Prior to the commencement of surface-disturbing activities, cultural resource inventories would be 

required as described in the Cultural Resources Appendix. These inventory requirements would result in the 

identification of cultural resources and avoidance or mitigation of impacts to significant sites prior to surface 

disturbance. 

In most surface-disturbing situations, cultural resources would be avoided (a BMP) by project redesign or 

relocation, which would eliminate the need for the implementation of mitigation measures. However, should a 

cultural property be unavoidable, impacts to significant properties would be mitigated prior to implementation 

of a project. 

Surface-disturbing activities would also potentially lead to the discovery of sites that would otherwise remain 

undiscovered because they were buried or omitted during review inventories. Although surface-disturbing 

activities would disturb or destroy buried cultural resource properties, activities at significant sites would be 

mitigated by excavation to recover data. Cultural resource surveys conducted prior to surface-disturbing 

activities would potentially locate additional cultural resources and result in a better understanding of the nature 

and distribution of those resources. 

Impacts would also occur to cultural resource properties or areas that derived their significance from 

topographic settings or feelings or religious values attributed to their setting (e.g., battlefield sites or properties 

with religious values). In these circumstances, if development were proposed around the edges of these 

properties, the values, settings, or feelings that make these properties significant would be lost. In some cases, 

mitigation would not offset impacts from surface-disturbing activities and development; for example, activities 

at sites with religious values cannot be mitigated through standard mechanical or archival means. 

Vehicle and equipment servicing and refueling activities would impact cultural resources. However, prior to 

authorizing and permitting these areas, the BLM would require a cultural resource inventory to determine the 

presence of cultural resources; if cultural resources were present, the vehicle and equipment servicing and 

refueling areas would be relocated to an area in which they would not impact cultural resources. 

If an activity that cannot be relocated would impact a cultural site available for scientific study, it would be 

mitigated prior to authorization of the disturbance. If a significant property would be affected by natural means, 

such as erosion, steps would be taken to reduce these impacts and prevent further degradation. In addition, the 

property would potentially be subjected to salvage mitigation measures. Making significant cultural sites 

available for scientific study would increase the cultural resource database and scientific body of knowledge. 

Recovery or preservation of data from new resources would require that the BLM and scientific community 

were notified. 

Although mitigation by excavation recovers valuable data, the process of archeological excavation, using even 

the most current archeological methods and technology that employed the best data recovery practices, would 

cause the destruction of cultural properties and the destruction and loss of some data. Data lost during 

excavation would not be available for future study when better analytical techniques may be available. 

Allocating all cultural properties in the planning area to one of the six Cultural Resource Program planning use 

categories (scientific use, conservation for future use, traditional use, public use, experimental use, and 

discharged from management) would assist in the planning and implementation of cultural resource 

management, which would assist to preserve and protect the range of cultural resource values on BLMadministered lands. 

Managing cultural resource values in accordance with Sections 106 and 110 of NHPA and avoiding registereligible cultural sites or significant paleontological resource remains through project abandonment, project 

redesign, or, as a last resort, mitigation of adverse impacts (through data recovery or other alternative means) 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Cultural Resources 

4-195

would assist to preserve and protect the range of cultural resource values located on BLM-administered lands. 

Avoidance of register-eligible cultural sites through project abandonment or project redesign would be preferred 

because any data recovery effort would cause residual impacts from the data loss inherent to archeological 

excavations. However, in some cases, actions requiring avoidance of cultural sites would potentially result in 

impact to other cultural resources, which would cause rerouting of activities. 

BLM consultation with American Indian Tribes to identify cultural values or places of traditional cultural 

practices and religious beliefs potentially affected by the BLM’s proposed actions would assist to preserve and 

protect cultural values of interest to American Indian Tribes on BLM-administered lands. 

When management actions would include surface-disturbing activities (such as overburden removal, heavy 

earth-moving equipment use, and road or trail construction), cultural resources would potentially still be 

affected by the excavation and removal of cultural sites. 

Although fire would impact cultural resource materials, in some cases, fire would not diminish characteristics 

affecting a site’s eligibility for the NRHP. For example, although high heat may destroy obsidian hydration 

bands on surface artifacts, the surface component of the site may not be of particular value in the site’s overall 

assessment; although fire may burn the solder out of a hole-in-cap can, this impact would not diminish 

chronological information obtained from the can (Winthrop 2004). 

Prescribed fire would have the potential to impact cultural resources through fireline disturbances associated 

with fire containment. Cultural resource surveys would be conducted to identify cultural values prior to the 

prescribed fire action and avoidance would be the standard field operating procedure employed. 

Wildfire would generally be more destructive to cultural resources than prescribed fire because it would include 

impacts from uncontrolled fire and fire suppression. 

In some extreme cases, fire suppression efforts critical to protect human life or property would damage or 

destroy cultural or historic sites. However, impacts to known cultural resources would be considered and 

mitigated under standard protocols. 

Fire rehabilitation efforts would generally increase the protection of cultural deposits unaffected by wildland 

fire or prescribed fire by preventing or reducing erosion and encouraging rapid revegetation of denuded 

surfaces. Potential impacts from rehabilitation activities (such as mechanical reseeding) would be mitigated 

under standard procedures. 

Livestock grazing would have the potential, although remote, to impact cultural resources through trampling, 

trailing, and rubbing. Impacts to surface sites and artifacts would include disturbance of site context, 

disturbance to the integrity of material association, and damage to artifacts. Cattle trailing, particularly to and 

from water sources and along fencelines, would create ruts that would expose sites and artifacts, which would 

result in accelerated erosion that would cause damage to, and loss of, sites, information, and remains. 

Increased erosion caused by vegetation removal by livestock would result in additional impacts to prehistoric 

sites and features. Buried prehistoric sites located along major streambanks would be subject to livestockcaused streambank erosion. Livestock that gathered under or near structures for shade or shelter or livestock 

that rubbed or leaned on the structures would impact historic sites, such as those with fragile standing 

buildings and structures related to homesteading, by causing wear or possible collapse of the structure. 

Many surface sites are not considered significant because they lack depositional component and a pre-existing 

lack of integrity of material association caused by lengthy surface exposure to natural wind and sheet erosion, 

which disturbs their associative integrity. 

Open OHV use would impact cultural resources or traditional use areas. Impacts would include damage and 

breakage of artifacts, erosion, soil compaction, and loss of ground cover. In addition, accompanying auditory, 

olfactory, and visual elements would be introduced and alter some of the traditional use areas. Expanded 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Cultural Resources 

4-196

access to remote areas would increase vandalism of the cultural resource and general degradation of the 

historic and natural landscape. 

Limiting OHV use and the number of roads and trails would reduce impacts to cultural resources. 

If cultural resource sites were uncovered through climate-related changes or if existing cultural sites became 

endangered through the impacts of climate change, such as accelerated erosion from more intensive rainfall 

episodes, sites would potentially be affected and damaged. Therefore, the significance of the sites would be 

reviewed and subjected to the variety of mitigation measures for protection, if deemed necessary. 

ALTERNATIVE A 

All management actions resulting in surface-disturbing activities would have the potential to cause impacts to 

cultural resources similar to those described under Management Common to all Alternatives if sites were not 

avoided. Impacts would differ across the alternatives only by the number of acres and resources affected by 

proposed management actions. Surface-disturbing activities considered under Alternative A would potentially 

encounter from 2,125 to 2,749 sites in the planning area that would be affected by management actions (Table 

4-48). However, adherence to the cultural resource laws and regulations, project abandonment, project redesign, 

or, as a last resort, mitigation of adverse impacts in most instances, would minimize or mitigate possible 

impacts. 

TABLE 4-48.

CULTURAL RESOURCE SITES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED UNDER ALTERNATIVE A

Action (long term) Acres Number of 

Sites

Number of 

Significant Sites1

Oil and gas development

conventional wells

43,000 (H)

9,100 (L) 866 (H)

242 (L)

H: 87 (10%)

130 (15%)

L: 4 (10%)

36 (15%)

CBNG 43,000 (H)

15,000 (L)

Geophysical exploration 5 0 0

Coal 9,000 90 9 (10%), 14 (15%)

Locatable mineral

development 11,000 108 11 (10%), 16 (15%)

Mineral material development 300 3 0

Prescribed fire 70,000 700 70 (10%), 105 (15%)

Open OHV use 2,400 24 3 (10%), 4 (15%)

Limited OHV use

2,800,000 acres; 

13,000 acres of roads 133 13 (10%), 20 (15%)

Forestry sales 25,000 253 26 (10%), 38 (15%)

Livestock grazing, range 

improvements 2,400 24 3 (10%), 4 (15%)

Land use authorizations

(ROWs)

25,000 248 25 (10%), 37 (15%)

Land tenure adjustments 30,000 300 30 (10%), 45 (15%)

Total H: 2,749

L: 2,125

H: 277 (10%)

413 (15%)

L: 214 (10%)

319 (15%)

H=High value; L=Low value

1Approximately 10 to 15 percent of sites found are determined eligible for the NRHP, so both values were used to 

estimate the number of sites that would be affected under this alternative.
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Cultural Resources 

4-197

Any management action proposing surface disturbance, including the use of heavy equipment, would have the 

potential to impact significant cultural resources. Surface disturbance, including some mitigation, would alter 

the characteristics of a significant cultural or historic property by diminishing the integrity of the property's 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Other impacts to cultural resources 

from proposed activities would include the destruction, damage, or alteration to all or part of the cultural 

resource; diminishment of the property’s significant historic features as a result of the introduction of visual, 

atmospheric, or auditory elements; and loss of the property through transfer, lease, or sale. 

Although all cultural ACECs would contain NSO stipulations for oil and gas leasing and development, other 

surface-disturbing activities would be allowed within ACEC boundaries, which would jeopardize the cultural 

values of these ACECs. These management actions would subject the battlefield sites and those portions of the 

sites designated ACECs to particular risk. 

A number of sites (seven) have been designated to the scientific use category, although no cultural sites at 

present have been designated for conservation use, traditional use (socio-cultural use), or public use. However, 

none of these sites could be protected with an NSO stipulation; subsequently, the sites would potentially be 

subject to impacts from oil and gas development. Additionally, cultural sites or districts that met the criteria for 

allocation for designation of scientific use, conservation use, traditional use (socio-cultural use), public use, or 

experimental use; or sites or districts eligible for (or included on) the NRHP; or traditional cultural properties 

(TCPs) (none have been designated at this time) or sites or areas designated as such; or sites or areas that meet 

the criteria for allocation for designation for traditional use (socio-cultural use) for cultural properties would be 

potentially subject to impacts from oil and gas development (without an NSO stipulation) or other surfacedisturbing actions. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

All management actions resulting in surface-disturbing activities would have the potential, although remote, to 

cause impacts to cultural resources similar to those described under Management Common to all Alternatives if 

sites were not avoided. Impacts would differ across the alternatives only by the number of acres and resources 

affected by proposed management actions. Surface-disturbing actions considered under Alternative B would 

potentially encounter approximately 602 sites in the planning area that would potentially be affected by 

management actions (Table 4-49). However, adherence to the cultural resource laws and regulations, project 

abandonment, project redesign, or, as a last resort, mitigation of adverse impacts in most instances, would 

minimize or mitigate possible impacts. 

Any management action proposing surface disturbance, including the use of heavy equipment, would have the 

potential to impact significant cultural resources. Surface disturbance, including some mitigation, would alter 

the characteristics of a significant cultural or historic property by diminishing the integrity of the property's 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Other impacts to cultural resources 

from proposed activities would include the destruction, damage, or alteration to all or part of the cultural 

resource; diminishment of the property’s significant historic features as a result of the introduction of visual, 

atmospheric, or auditory elements; and loss of the property through transfer, lease, or sale. 

Restricting surface-disturbing activities and oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing 

and development within 0.5 miles of site boundaries would also include cultural properties that met the criteria 

for allocation for designation to particular use categories, cultural properties eligible for or included on the 

NRHP, cultural properties determined to be of particular importance to American Indian groups, TCPs (in 

accordance with National Register Bulletin 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional 

Cultural Properties; Parker and King 1998), and those areas designated for traditional use. Such properties 

would include (but are not limited to) burial locations, pictograph or petroglyph sites, vision quest locations, 

plant-gathering locations, and areas considered sacred or used for religious purposes. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Cultural Resources 

4-198

TABLE 4-49.

CULTURAL RESOURCE SITES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED UNDER ALTERNATIVE B

Action (long term) Acres Number of Sites Number of 

Significant Sites1

Oil and gas development

conventional wells and CBNG

0 (H)

0 (L) 0 (H)

0 (L)

H: 0 (10%)

0 (15%)

L: 0 (10%)

0 (15%)

Geophysical exploration 0 0 0

Coal 1,100 11 1 (10%), 2 (15%)

Locatable mineral

development 1,300 108 1 (10%), 2 (15%)

Mineral material development 40 0 0

Prescribed fire 8,300 83 8 (10%), 13 (15%)

Limited OHV use

2,700,000 acres; 

13,000 acres of roads 131 13 (10%), 20 (15%)

Forestry sales 3,000 297 30 (10%), 46 (15%)

Livestock grazing, range 

improvements 280 3 0 (10%), 0 (15%)

Land use authorizations 2,900 29 3 (10%), 4 (15%)

Land tenure adjustments 3,500 35 4 (10%), 5 (15%)

Total 602 60 (10%)

92 (15%)

H=High value; L=Low value

1Approximately 10 to 15 percent of sites found are determined eligible for the NRHP, so both values were used to 

estimate the number of sites that would be affected under this alternative.

Surface-disturbing activities and oil and gas leasing would be restricted under Alternative B with buffers and 

NSO stipulations for oil and gas leasing and development in some sites or areas, which would curtail surfacedisturbing activities on BLM-administered lands and diminish impacts to cultural resources. The most 

protection would be provided to the Fort Union Historic Site National Historic Landmark (NHL), Rosebud 

Battlefield NHL, Battle Butte Battlefield (Wolf Mountain) NHL, Hagen NHL and the NRHP-nominated Cedar 

Creek, Reynolds, and Ash Creek Battlefields. Designating or expanding the areas covered by ACEC 

designations under this alternative would protect specific cultural and battlefield sites. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

All management actions resulting in surface-disturbing activities would have the potential, although remote, to 

cause impacts to cultural resources similar to those described under Management Common to all Alternatives if 

sites were not avoided. Impacts would differ across the alternatives only by the number of acres and resources 

affected by proposed management actions. Surface-disturbing actions considered under Alternative C would 

potentially encounter from 2,139 to 3,573 sites in the planning area that would be affected by management 

actions (Table 4-50). However, adherence to the cultural resource laws and regulations, project abandonment, 

project redesign, or, as a last resort, mitigation of adverse impacts in most instances, would minimize or 

mitigate possible impacts. 

Any management action proposing surface disturbance, including the use of heavy equipment, would have the 

potential to impact significant cultural resources. Surface disturbance, including some mitigation, would alter 

the characteristics of a significant cultural or historic property by diminishing the integrity of the property's 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Other impacts to cultural resources 

from proposed activities would include the destruction, damage, or alteration to all or part of the cultural 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Cultural Resources 

4-199

resource; diminishment of the property’s significant historic features as a result of the introduction of visual, 

atmospheric, or auditory elements; and loss of the property through transfer, lease, or sale. 

Alternative C would moderately curtail surface-disturbing activities on BLM-administered lands, diminish 

impacts to cultural resources, and improve protection of these resources. Buffers for surface-disturbing 

activities and NSO stipulations would protect some important and significant cultural sites, including sites 

designated to particular use categories; sites eligible for or included on the NRHP; sites designated TCPs; and 

sites in the Fort Union Historic Site NHL, Rosebud Battlefield NHL, Battle Butte Battlefield (Wolf Mountain) 

NHL, Hagen NHL, and the NRHP-nominated Cedar Creek, Reynolds, and Ash Creek Battlefields. Protections 

would also be offered to specific cultural and battlefield sites by designating or expanding the areas covered by 

ACEC designations in the Battle Butte (Wolf Mountain), Reynolds, and Cedar Creek Battlefields; the Long 

Medicine Wheel and Walstein areas; and the Yonkee site. 

If large developments occurred outside the site boundaries 

and proposed buffer areas, they would potentially still impact 

the setting and feeling of sites in the Rosebud Battlefield 

NHL; Battle Butte Battlefield (Wolf Mountain) NHL; Hagen 

NHL; and the NRHP-nominated Cedar Creek, Reynolds, and 

Ash Creek Battlefields. 

BLM specialists collect insect specimens for biological 

weed control in the planning area 

TABLE 4-50.

CULTURAL RESOURCE SITES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED UNDER ALTERNATIVE C

Action (long term) Acres Number of Sites Number of 

Significant Sites1

Oil and gas development

conventional wells and CBNG

190,000 (H)

45,000 (L)

1,885 (H)

451 (L)

H: 189 (10%)

283 (15%)

L: 45 (10%)

68 (15%)

Geophysical exploration 5 0 0

Coal 8,100 81 8 (10%), 12 (15%)

Locatable mineral

development 9,700 97 10 (10%), 15 (15%)

Mineral material development 270 3 0

Prescribed fire 63,000 627 63 (10%), 94 (15%)

Open OHV use 660 7 1 (10%), 1 (15%)

Limited OHV use

2,800,000 acres; 

13,000 acres of roads 133 13 (10%), 20 (15%)

Forestry sales 23,000 227 23 (10%), 34 (15%)

Livestock grazing, range 

improvements 2,100 21 2 (10%), 3 (15%)

Land use authorizations 22,000 223 22 (10%), 33 (15%)

Land tenure adjustments 27,000 269 27 (10%), 40 (15%)

Total 3,573 (H)

2,139 (L)

L: 358 (10%)

H: 535 (15%)

L: 214 (10%)

H: 320 (15%)

H=High value; L=Low value

1Approximately 10 to 15 percent of sites found are determined eligible for the NRHP, so 

both values were used to estimate the number of sites that would be affected under this 

alternative.
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Cultural Resources 

4-200

ALTERNATIVE D 

All management actions resulting in surface-disturbing activities would have the potential, although remote, to 

cause impacts to cultural resources similar to those described under Management Common to all Alternatives if 

sites were not avoided. Impacts would differ across the alternatives only by the number of acres and resources 

affected by proposed management actions. Surface-disturbing activities considered under Alternative D would 

potentially encounter from 2,395 to 4,119 sites in the planning area that would potentially be affected by 

management actions (Table 4-51). However, adherence to the cultural resource laws and regulations, project 

abandonment, project redesign, or, as a last resort, mitigation of adverse impacts in most instances, would 

minimize or mitigate possible impacts. 

TABLE 4-51.

CULTURAL RESOURCE SITES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED UNDER ALTERNATIVE D

Action (long term) Acres Number of 

Sites

Number of 

Significant Sites1

Oil and gas development

conventional wells and CBNG

230,000 (H)

61,000 (L)

2,331 (H)

607 (L)

H: 233 (10%)

350 (15%)

L: 61 (10%)

91 (15%)

Geophysical exploration 5 0 0

Coal 8,500 81 8 (10%), 12 (15%)

Locatable mineral

development 10,000 102 10 (10%), 15 (15%)

Mineral material development 280 3 0

Prescribed fire 66,000 664 66 (10%), 100 (15%)

Open OHV use 2,000 20 2 (10%), 3 (15%)

Limited OHV use

2,800,000 acres; 

13,000 acres of roads 133 13 (10%), 20 (15%)

Forestry sales 24,000 240 24 (10%), 36 (15%)

Livestock grazing, range 

improvements 2,200 22 2 (10%), 3 (15%)

Land use authorizations 24,000 235 24 (10%), 35 (15%)

Land tenure adjustments 28,000 284 28 (10%), 43 (15%)

Total 4,119 (H)

2,395 (L)

H: 411 (10%)

618 (15%)

L: 239 (10%)

359 (15%)

H=High value; L=Low value

1Approximately 10 to 15 percent of sites found are determined eligible for the NRHP, so both values were used to 

estimate the number of sites that would be affected under this alternative.

Alternative D would slightly curtail surface-disturbing activities on BLM-administered lands, which would 

diminish impacts to cultural resources and increase protection of cultural resource values. Alternative D would 

provide minimal protection for important and significant cultural sites in the form of buffers (for surfacedisturbing activities and oil and gas leasing) around sites designated to particular use categories, sites eligible 

for or included on the NRHP, and those designated a TCP. 

CSU stipulations for oil and gas leasing and development would offer minimal protections from oil and gas 

development activities in the Fort Union Historic Site NHL, Rosebud Battlefield NHL, Battle Butte Battlefield 

(Wolf Mountain) NHL, Hagen NHL, and the NRHP-nominated Cedar Creek, Reynolds, and Ash Creek 

Battlefields. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Cultural Resources 

4-201

Designating or expanding the areas covered by ACEC designations to the Battle Butte (Wolf Mountain), 

Reynolds, and Cedar Creek Battlefields; the Long Medicine Wheel and Walstein areas; and the Yonkee site 

would protect specific cultural and battlefield sites. 

If large developments occurred outside the site boundaries and proposed buffer areas, they would impact the 

setting and feeling of sites designated to particular use categories; sites eligible for or included on the NRHP; 

sites designated TCPs; and sites in the Fort Union Historic Site NHL, Rosebud Battlefield NHL, Battle Butte 

Battlefield (Wolf Mountain) NHL, Hagen NHL, and the NRHP-nominated Cedar Creek, Reynolds, and Ash 

Creek Battlefields.

ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

All management actions resulting in surface-disturbing activities would have the potential, although remote, to 

cause impacts to cultural resources similar to those described under Management Common to all Alternatives if 

sites were not avoided. Impacts would differ across the alternatives only by the number of acres and resources 

that would be affected by proposed management actions. Surface-disturbing activities considered under 

Alternative E would potentially encounter from 2,139 to 3,573 sites in the planning area that would potentially 

be affected by management actions (Table 4-52). However, adherence to the cultural resource laws and 

regulations, project abandonment, project redesign, or, as a last resort, mitigation of adverse impacts in most 

instances, would minimize or mitigate possible impacts. 

TABLE 4-52.

CULTURAL RESOURCE SITES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED UNDER ALTERNATIVE E

Action (long term) Acres Number of Sites Number of 

Significant Sites1

Oil and gas development

conventional wells and CBNG

37,000 (H)

10,000 (L)

374 (H)

105 (L)

H: 38 (10%)

56 (15%)

L: 11 (10%) 

16 (15%)

Geophysical exploration 5 0 0

Coal 7,722 77 8 (10%) 12 (15%)

Locatable mineral

development 9,242 92 9 (10%) 14 (15%)

Mineral material development 257 3 0

Prescribed fire 60,060 601 60 (10%), 90 (15%)

Open OHV use 1,992 20 2 (10%), 3 (15%)

Limited OHV use

2,800,000 acres; 

13,000 acres of roads 133 13 (10%), 20 (15%)

Forestry sales 21,710 217 22 (10%), 33 (15%)

Livestock grazing, range 

improvements 2,018 20 2 (10%), 3 (15%)

Land use authorizations 21,296 213 21 (10%), 32 (15%)

Land tenure adjustments 25,740 257 26 (10%), 39 (15%)

Total 2,007 (H)

1,738 (L)

H: 201 (10%)

302 (15%)

L: 174 (10%)

262 (15%)

H=High value; L=Low value

1Approximately 10 to 15 percent of sites found are determined eligible for the NRHP, so both values were used to 

estimate the number of sites that would be affected under this alternative.
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Cultural Resources 

4-202

Any management action proposing surface disturbance, including the use of heavy equipment, would have the 

potential to impact significant cultural resources. Surface disturbance, including some mitigation, would alter 

the characteristics of a significant cultural or historic property by diminishing the integrity of the property's 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Other impacts to cultural resources 

from proposed activities would include the destruction, damage, or alteration to all or part of the cultural 

resource; diminishment of the property’s significant historic features as a result of the introduction of visual, 

atmospheric, or auditory elements; and loss of the property through transfer, lease, or sale. 

Alternative E would moderately curtail surface-disturbing activities on BLM-administered lands, diminish 

impacts to cultural resources, and improve protection of these resources. Surface-disturbing activities and oil 

and gas leasing would be restricted under Alternative E with NSO stipulations for oil and gas leasing and 

development on significant cultural resource sites or areas, which would curtail surface-disturbing activities on 

BLM-administered lands and diminish impacts to significant cultural resource sites. 

Protection would be provided to the Fort Union Historic Site NHL, Rosebud Battlefield NHL, Battle Butte 

Battlefield (Wolf Mountain) NHL, Hagen NHL and the NRHP-nominated Cedar Creek, Reynolds, and Ash 

Creek Battlefields. Designating or expanding the areas covered by ACEC designations under this alternative 

would protect specific cultural and battlefield sites. This alternative would also protect specific cultural and 

battlefield sites by designating or expanding the areas covered by ACEC designations in the Battle Butte (Wolf 

Mountain), Reynolds, and Cedar Creek Battlefields; the Long Medicine Wheel and Walstein area; and the 

Yonkee site. 

If large developments occurred outside the site boundaries and proposed buffer areas, they would impact the 

setting and feeling of sites in the Fort Union Historic Site NHL, Rosebud Battlefield NHL; Battle Butte 

Battlefield (Wolf Mountain) NHL; Hagen NHL; and the NRHP-nominated Cedar Creek, Reynolds, and Ash 

Creek Battlefields.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Cultural resources have been affected by past land uses for more than 100 years. Land uses include 

agricultural development from the homestead period onward (including farming and plowing native grassland 

prairies), railroad and highway development; land loss caused by community development and expansion; 

and mineral development (which includes open pit strip mining of coal and oil and gas development). These 

past surface-disturbing activities affected cultural resources and continue to impact these values today on 

private, BLM-administered, and split-estate lands. 

Significant cultural resources are those with the potential to yield information that adds to the understanding 

of history or prehistory. Only these cultural resources are fundamental to the evaluation of cumulative 

impacts. While non-NRHP-eligible properties do not typically contribute to the archeological record beyond 

their recordation, they are useful in providing information for the broader perspective of regional activities. 

Typically, non-eligible sites are in advanced stages of erosion and their loss to natural processes already 

occurring. However, the loss of NRHP-eligible properties is offset, from an academic viewpoint, by 

mitigation through data recovery. These sites present an opportunity to expand the understanding of local and 

regional prehistory through excavation and analysis. Although avoidance of NRHP-eligible sites is generally 

preferred, the loss of some NRHP-eligible sites to data recovery efforts would not generally have an impact 

on cultural resources. 

Site types with particular vulnerability to cumulative loss include rock art sites and rock structure sites. 

Cumulative loss of these site types exceeds the loss of mere archeological data because these site types 

represent, in a highly visual manner, unique examples of prehistoric occupations that can be appreciated by 

the public and the archeological and academic communities. These are also relatively fragile site types subject 

to erosion and vandalism. Avoidance of these fragile site types would be preferred, although not required if 

impacts were mitigated. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Cultural Resources 

4-203

Although there is no consideration for sites remaining undiscovered because they are buried deeply, the total 

number of sites located during a Class III survey is a measure of site exposure caused by erosion. However, 

this number is only a sample of the actual number of sites present. Individual site type and quality determines 

their archeological value; therefore, management assessments that focus primarily on total site numbers 

would not accurately measure the cumulative impacts to the resource. 

Consequently, individual evaluation of known cultural resource sites through avoidance of sensitive site 

types, and mitigation through data recovery of all disturbed NRHP-eligible sites would result in minimal 

cumulative impacts to cultural resources. Differences in impacts vary only by rate across the management 

alternatives. 

Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, surface-disturbing activities on BLM-administered lands would continue as in the past, 

which would contribute to the projected decline in the number of cultural resources. Alternative A would not 

require buffers; NSO stipulations for oil and gas leasing and development; and ACEC designations that 

would offer additional protection of cultural resources. 

Under Alternative A and Management Common to all Alternatives, 212,000 to 270,000 acres would be 

disturbed, which would impact between 2,125 and 2,749 cultural resource sites if sites were not avoided. 

Actions would impact between 277 (10 percent) and 413 (15 percent) and between 214 (10 percent) and 319 

(15 percent) of cultural resource properties considered eligible for the NRHP. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B would not contribute to the decline in the number of cultural resources on BLM-administered 

lands because management actions under this alternative would not contribute to the present rate of surface 

disturbance. In addition, this alternative would provide protection for important and significant cultural sites 

through the implementation of buffers and NSO stipulations for oil and gas leasing and development. Specific 

cultural and battlefield sites would also be protected by new ACEC designations and the expansions of areas 

previously covered by ACEC designation. Protections for cultural resource values would be increased by the six 

new ACECs proposed under this alternative (four cultural and two paleontological areas). The paleontological 

areas designated under this alternative would include cultural resources. 

Under Alternative B and Management Common to all Alternatives, 34,000 acres would be disturbed, which 

would impact 602 cultural resource sites if sites were not avoided. Actions would impact between 60 (10 

percent) and 92 (15 percent) of cultural resource properties considered eligible for the NRHP. 

Alternative C 

Management actions under this alternative would contribute to a reduction in the current rate of decline of the 

number of cultural resource sites and increase protection of important and significant cultural resource sites. 

Alternative C would provide additional protection of important and significant cultural sites through buffers and 

NSO stipulations for oil and gas leasing and development. Specific cultural and battlefield sites would also be 

protected by new ACEC designations and the expansions of areas previously covered by ACEC designation. 

Protections for cultural resource values would be increased by the six new ACECs proposed under this 

alternative (four cultural and two paleontological areas). The paleontological areas designated under this 

alternative would include cultural resources. 

Under Alternative C and Management Common to all Alternatives, between 210,000 and 360,000 acres 

would be disturbed, which would impact between 2,139 and 3,573 cultural resource sites if sites were not 

avoided. In addition, actions would impact between 358 (10 percent) and 535 (15 percent) and between 214 

(10 percent) and 320 (15 percent) of cultural resource properties considered eligible for the NRHP. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Cultural Resources 

4-204

Alternative D 

Management actions under this alternative would not stem the current rate of decline of the number of cultural 

resource sites appreciably. Alternative D would provide minimal additional protections to important and 

significant cultural sites through buffers and CSU stipulations for oil and gas leasing and development. Specific 

cultural and battlefield sites would also be protected by new ACEC designations and the expansions of areas 

previously covered by ACEC designations. Protections for cultural resource values would be increased by the 

six new ACECs proposed under this alternative (four cultural and two paleontological areas). The 

paleontological areas designated under this alternative would include cultural resources. 

Under Alternative D and Management Common to all Alternatives, between 240,000 (low) and 410,000 

(high) acres would be disturbed, which would impact between 2,395 (low) and 4,119 (high) cultural resource 

sites if sites were not avoided. These actions would impact between 411 (10 percent) and 618 (15 percent) 

and between 239 (10 percent) and 359 (15 percent) of cultural resource properties considered eligible for the 

NRHP. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Management actions under this alternative would help contribute to a reduction in the current rate of decline of 

the number of cultural resource sites and increase protection of important and significant cultural resource sites 

through NSO stipulations for oil and gas leasing and development. Specific cultural and battlefield sites would 

also be protected by new ACEC designations and the expansion of areas previously covered by ACEC 

designations. Protections for cultural resource values would be increased by the four new ACECs proposed 

under this alternative (four cultural and two paleontological areas). The paleontological areas designated under 

this alternative would include cultural resources. 

Under Alternative E and Management Common to all Alternatives, between 170,000 and 200,000 acres 

would be disturbed, which would impact between 1,738 and 2,007 cultural resource sites if sites were not 

avoided. In addition, actions would impact between 201 (10 percent) and 302 (15 percent) and between 174 

(10 percent) and 262 (15 percent) of cultural resource properties considered eligible for the NRHP. 

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 

All vertebrate fossils are considered significant. Paleontological resources would be evenly distributed across 

the landscape within the significant Potential Fossil Yield Classification System (PFYC) formations rated 4 

or 5 (Arikaree, 4; Tullock member of the Fort Union formation, 4; Hell Creek, 5; Lance, 5; and Judith River, 

4) on 6.1 million acres of the planning area. Of these acres, 780,000 acres are BLM-administered surface 

acres and 1.7 million acres are BLM-administered oil and gas mineral estate acres. PFYC formation areas 

account for 28 percent of BLM-administered surface acres and 29 percent of BLM-administered oil and gas 

mineral estate acres in the planning area. 

Distribution of the 1,440 localities fully or partially located on BLM-administered land is equal to 1 locality 

per 1,909 acres (0.5 localities per 1,000 acres or 0.03 localities per 1 square mile [640 acres]) for the 2.8 

million BLM-administered surface acres within the planning area. Nearly all of the 1,440 localities are 

located within the PFYC formation areas. Although management actions are considered evenly distributed 

across the landscape of the planning area and not necessarily restricted to just the PFYC formation areas, the 

above figures would apply. For this analysis, localities were assumed to be 0.5 acres in size, with an area of 

approximately 148 square feet. 

The assumption of 1 paleontological locality for every 1,909 acres of BLM-administered lands is based on 

studies and findings conducted in the planning area (Aaberg, Hanna, Crofutt, Green, and Vischer 2006) and 

were calculated by averaging the number of localities discovered on BLM-administered lands before 

comparing this number to the number of BLM-administered surface acres in the planning area. Depending on 
HAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Paleontological Resources 

4-205

their location in the planning area, the actual number of paleontological localities affected by a management 

action could vary dramatically. 

There would be 10 to 15 paleontological excavations per year. Typical excavations cover approximately 0.5 

acres each, resulting in 5 to 7.5 acres disturbed annually. Unless otherwise noted, surface-disturbing activities 

caused by resource use would be evenly distributed across the landscape. 

The number of possible localities in PFYC areas on the 1.7 million acres of oil and gas mineral estate in 

PFYC formations would equal 885 possible localities in PFYC areas (oil and gas mineral estate acres divided 

by 1 locality per 1,909 acres). 

Under existing oil and gas stipulations, surface occupancy is prohibited within designated paleontological 

localities on BLM-administered minerals in the planning area; however, none exist at this time except those that 

have been designated ACECs. A modification or waiver may be applied for and, provided the paleontological 

resource values could be protected or undesirable impacts mitigated, an exception would be granted. The 

collection of vertebrate paleontological remains on BLM-administered surface would be conducted under a 

valid paleontological resources use permit, and reasonable, noncommercial collections of invertebrate fossils 

and fossil plants would be allowed under 43 CFR 8365.1. The collection of petrified wood would be allowed 

under the terms of 43 CFR 3622.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Any management action that would result in surface-disturbing activities, including the use of heavy equipment 

and OHV use, would have the potential to impact paleontological resources. These surface-disturbing activities 

would potentially alter the characteristics of paleontological resources through resource damage, fossil 

destruction, or disturbance of the stratigraphic context in which paleontological resources are located, which 

would result in the loss of important scientific data. 

The BLM recognizes the importance of scientific study to retrieve and interpret important paleontological 

resource information. For this to occur, significant localities must be preserved intact if possible prior to the 

study. Actions would need to be taken to protect localities by avoiding any disturbance, which would often 

mean relocating the activity. Because information contained in the stratigraphic and environmental context of 

paleontological resources is of primary importance to paleontological study, the removal of fossilized remains 

from their original location destroys this context and information. Ensuring that paleontological resources were 

available for scientific study would increase the paleontological resource database and scientific body of 

knowledge. Recovery or preservation of data from new resources would require notification of the BLM and 

scientific community. 

Because information loss is inherent to excavations, datum recovery efforts would cause residual impacts to 

paleontological resource values; although mitigation by excavation would recover valuable data, the process of 

excavation, using even the most current methods and technology that would employ the best datum recovery 

practices, would cause the destruction of and loss of some data. Subsequently, these data would not be available 

for future study when better analytical techniques may be available. 

Construction and associated surface-disturbing activities would potentially cause impacts to unknown 

paleontological resources. The excavation and removal of paleontological remains would impact 

paleontological resources through surface-disturbing activities such as overburden removal, the use of heavy 

earth-moving equipment, and road or trail construction or use. Any surface-disturbing activity that would 

occur under the jurisdiction of other entities on lands transferred, leased, or sold from BLM administration 

would have the potential to impact paleontological values. 

Surface-disturbing activities would also have the potential to expose paleontological resources buried or 

overlooked during review inventories that would otherwise remain unknown. Paleontological resource surveys 

and detailed pedestrian surveys conducted prior to surface-disturbing activities would potentially locate 

additional paleontological resources and result in a better understanding of the nature and distribution of these 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Paleontological Resources 

4-206

resources. Additionally, prior to authorizing and permitting surface-disturbing actions, the BLM would require 

that a paleontological resource assessment (based on the PFYC) be conducted in the area to determine the 

potential for paleontological resources. If it were likely that paleontological resources were present, a 

paleontological resource inventory would be conducted. 

Although surface-disturbing activities would potentially disturb or destroy buried paleontological resources, 

activities at significant localities would be mitigated through data recovery during excavation. If paleontological 

resources were located during these surveys, mitigation measures would be implemented, which would include 

additional sampling; excavation monitoring; or collection, excavation, and curation of scientifically significant 

fossils. 

Adherence to the paleontological resource laws and regulations, in most instances, would minimize and 

mitigate impacts to paleontological resources. Paleontological resource inventories may be required (as 

outlined in the Paleontological Resources Appendix) prior to the commencement of surface-disturbing 

activities, which would identify paleontological resources and avoid or mitigate significant sites prior to 

surface disturbance. Guidance for predicting, assessing, and mitigating paleontological resources is found in 

the Paleontological Resources Appendix. 

Avoiding paleontological localities in a project area would be a BMP. For most surface-disturbing activities, 

paleontological resources would be avoided by project redesign or relocation, which would eliminate the need 

for mitigation measures. If paleontological resources were found during an inventory, attempts would be made 

to move and relocate the proposed activity to an area without paleontological resource values or in which the 

activity would not impact paleontological resources. If paleontological resources were not present on the 

surface but the area was in a PFYC Class 3, 4, or 5, a monitoring plan would be implemented during surfacedisturbing activities. Should a paleontological locality be unavoidable, activities at significant localities would 

be mitigated prior to project authorization. 

Avoiding paleontological localities discovered by federal actions and avoiding paleontological localities by 

project abandonment, project redesign, or, as a last resort, mitigation of adverse impacts through data recovery 

or other alternative means would ultimately benefit paleontological resource values by helping to preserve and 

protect the range of paleontological resource values located on BLM-administered lands. However, these 

actions would potentially relocate activities and impact paleontological resources. Avoiding paleontological 

localities through project abandonment or project redesign would be preferred because any data recovery effort 

would cause residual impacts from the data loss inherent to archeological excavations. 

For federal actions within the significant PFYC formations (those rated 4 or 5), the BLM would require that a 

paleontological resource inventory be conducted to determine the presence of paleontological resources prior to 

authorizing and permitting these areas; if paleontological resources were present, vehicle and equipment 

servicing and refueling areas would be relocated. 

An activity that could not be relocated that was found to be affecting a paleontological locality available for 

scientific study would require mitigation under Management Common to all Alternatives. If a significant 

property were affected by natural means, such as erosion, steps would be taken to reduce these impacts and 

prevent further degradation. The property would also potentially be subjected to salvage mitigation measures. 

Under all alternatives, managing paleontological resource values by identifying, monitoring, protecting, and 

preserving significant paleontological resources in accordance with BLM policy and manuals would ultimately 

result in benefits to paleontological resource values. These actions would help preserve and protect the range of 

paleontological resources values located on BLM-administered lands. 

Fire would have the potential to impact paleontological materials. Accelerated erosion or the removal of 

vegetative cover during fire events would result in exposure of paleontological values to vandalism or illegal 

collection. Wildfire would potentially be more destructive to paleontological resources than prescribed fire 

because it would include impacts from both uncontrolled fire and fire suppression activities. Actions that 

allowed prescribed fire would also consider impacts from fireline disturbances. 
HAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Paleontological Resources 

4-207

In some extreme circumstances, paleontological values would be damaged or destroyed by fire suppression 

efforts critical to protect human life or property. However, under standard protocols, impacts to known 

paleontological values would be considered and mitigated. Under Management Common to all Alternatives, 

paleontological surveys would be conducted in areas within the significant PFYC formations to identify 

paleontological values prior to fire ignition. Avoidance would be the standard field operating procedure 

employed. Fire rehabilitation efforts would generally increase the protection of paleontological values by 

preventing or reducing erosion and encouraging rapid revegetation of denuded surfaces. Potential impacts from 

rehabilitation activities (such as mechanical reseeding) would be mitigated by standard procedures. 

Climate change impacts would have the potential to affect paleontological materials. Accelerated erosion 

resulting from heavy precipitation or evolving vegetative communities could result in exposure of 

paleontological values to vandalism or illegal collection. Areas with accelerated erosion in PFYC areas 3, 4 and 

5 would be monitored to identify new exposure of paleontological materials. 

Livestock grazing would impact paleontology localities through trampling, trailing, and rubbing. Impacts on 

surface localities and fossils would include fossil damage and disturbance of locality context and integrity of 

material association. Cattle trailing, particularly along fencelines and to and from water sources, would create 

ruts that would expose localities and fossils and cause accelerated erosion and damage and loss of localities 

and paleontological information. Livestock would remove vegetation, which would cause increased erosion 

and expose paleontological properties to additional impacts. Localities along major streambanks would be 

subject to livestock-caused streambank erosion. 

Impacts from OHV use would include crushing, breaking, and scattering of paleontological material; soil 

compaction from vehicle wheel pressure; and the intensified soil erosion processes caused by the removal of 

protective ground cover (such as vegetation and natural clutter), particularly when ruts and trails were created 

by repeated crossings. Shallow paleontological resources would be particularly vulnerable to disturbance by 

OHV-caused ruts and trails. Limiting OHV use would reduce the number of roads and trails available for use 

and subsequently reduce impacts to paleontological resource values. 

Information contained in the stratigraphic and environmental context of paleontological resources is of primary 

importance to paleontological study; subsequently, the removal of fossilized remains from their original 

locations destroys this context and information. OHV use by vandals would allow quick, often undetected 

collection of the information or objects, facilitate transport of fossil remains too heavy to transport by foot, and 

allow transport over long distances. 

Land tenure adjustments and increased public accessibility to fossils would lead to looting or vandalism 

activities according to BLM Washington Office (WO) IM No. 2009-011 (BLM 2008b). Vandalism and illicit 

collection is influenced by accessibility, which is one of the major factors affecting vandalism rates, and 

visitation to areas. Increased visitor use to some areas would lead to an increase in vandalism, illicit 

collection, littering, and disturbance of paleontological localities. Although vandalism would also increase in 

previously inaccessible areas, it would be reduced if road and trail restrictions left substantial, contiguous 

portions of public lands isolated from motorized travel. 

ALTERNATIVE A 

All management actions resulting in surface-disturbing activities would cause impacts to paleontological 

resources similar to those described under Management Common to all Alternatives. Impacts would differ 

across the alternatives only by the number of acres and resources affected by proposed management actions. 

Surface-disturbing activities considered under Alternative A would impact from 111 to 144 localities in the 

planning area (Table 4-53). 

Livestock grazing would impact paleontology localities through trampling, trailing, and rubbing. Impacts to 

surface localities and fossils would include fossil damage and disturbance of locality context and integrity of 

material association. Cattle trailing, particularly along fencelines and to and from water sources, would create 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Paleontological Resources 

4-208

ruts that would expose localities and fossils and cause accelerated erosion and damage and loss of localities 

and paleontological information. Livestock would remove vegetation, which would cause increased erosion 

and expose paleontological properties to additional impacts. Localities along major streambanks would be 

subject to livestock-caused streambank erosion. 

Impacts from OHV use would include crushing, breaking, and scattering of paleontological material; soil 

compaction from vehicle wheel pressure; and the intensified soil erosion processes caused by the removal of 

protective ground cover (such as vegetation and natural clutter), particularly when ruts and trails were created 

by repeated crossings. Shallow paleontological resources would be particularly vulnerable to disturbance by 

OHV-caused ruts and trails. 

Increased accessibility to remote areas would potentially result in vandalism and illegal fossil removal by 

unpermitted fossil collectors.

Land tenure adjustments and increased public accessibility to fossils would lead to looting or vandalism 

activities according to BLM WO IM No. 2009-011 (BLM 2008b). Vandalism and illicit collection is 

influenced by accessibility, which is one of the major factors affecting vandalism rates, and visitation to 

areas. Increased visitor use to some areas would lead to an increase in vandalism, illicit collection, littering, 

and disturbance of paleontological localities. Although vandalism would also increase in previously 

inaccessible areas, it would be reduced if road and trail restrictions left substantial, contiguous portions of 

public lands isolated from motorized travel. 

Although all paleontological ACECs would be subject to an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing and 

development under this alternative, other surface-disturbing activities would be allowed in these areas, which 

would jeopardize the paleontological values of these ACECs. Because the proposed Powderville ACEC would 

not be protected by ACEC designation or an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing and development and 

would have no protection from surface-disturbing activities, it would be at particular risk under this alternative. 

TABLE 4-53.

BLM-ADMINISTERED ACRES AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE LOCALITIES 

AFFECTED UNDER ALTERNATIVE A

Action (long term) Acres Number of Localities

Oil and gas development1

conventional wells

43,000 (H)

9,100 (L) H-45

L-13 CBNG 43,000 (H)

15,000 (L)

Geophysical exploration 5 0

Coal 9,000 5

Locatable mineral development 11,000 6

Mineral material development 300 <1

Prescribed fire 70,000 37

Open OHV use 2,400 1

Limited OHV use

2,800,000 acres; 

13,000 acres of roads 7

Forestry sales 25,000 13

Livestock grazing, range improvements 2,400 1

Land use authorizations (ROWs) 25,000 13

Land tenure adjustments 30,000 16

Total H-144

L-111

1Actual figures used
HAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Paleontological Resources 

4-209

ALTERNATIVE B 

All management actions resulting in surface-disturbing activities would cause impacts to paleontological 

resources similar to those described under Management Common to all Alternatives. Impacts would differ 

across the alternatives only by the number of acres and resources affected by proposed management actions. 

Surface-disturbing activities considered under Alternative B would impact 16 localities in the planning area 

(Table 4-54). 

Surface-disturbing 

activities, including the 

use of heavy 

equipment and OHV 

use, would alter the 

characteristics of 

paleontological 

resources, damage or 

destroy fossils, or 

disturb the 

stratigraphic context in 

which they are located 

and result in the loss of 

important scientific 

data. Information 

contained in the 

stratigraphic and 

environmental context 

of paleontological 

resources is of primary 

importance to 

paleontological study 

and the removal of fossilized remains from their original location destroys this context and information. If the 

new landowner allowed surface-disturbing activities, the same impacts would occur on lands removed from 

BLM administration. 

Over the long term, surface-disturbing activities, land tenure adjustments, oil and gas development, coal 

leasing, and surface-disturbing activities associated with activities occurring on BLM-administered lands 

would identify 910 paleontological properties under this alternative. Surface-disturbing activities that would 

impact, disturb, or destroy buried paleontological properties would result in the loss of previously undetected, 

buried paleontological resource values and data. 

Under this alternative, proposed Paleontological Resources management actions would be sufficient to protect 

the many valuable paleontological resources in the planning area. 

Livestock grazing would impact paleontology localities through trampling, trailing, and rubbing. Impacts to 

surface localities and fossils would include fossil damage and disturbance of locality context and integrity of 

material association. Cattle trailing, particularly along fencelines and to and from water sources, would create 

ruts that would expose localities and fossils and cause accelerated erosion and damage and loss of localities 

and paleontological information. Livestock would remove vegetation, which would cause increased erosion 

and expose paleontological properties to additional impacts. Localities along major streambanks would be 

subject to livestock-caused streambank erosion. 

Impacts from OHV use would include crushing, breaking, and scattering of paleontological material; soil 

compaction from vehicle wheel pressure; and the intensified soil erosion processes caused by the removal of 

protective ground cover (such as vegetation and natural clutter), particularly when ruts and trails were created 

TABLE 4-54.

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE LOCALITIES AFFECTED UNDER 

ALTERNATIVE B

Action (long term) Acres Number of 

Localities

Oil and gas development1

conventional wells and CBNG

0 (H)

0 (L)

H-0

L-0

Geophysical exploration 0 0

Coal 1,100 <1

Locatable mineral development 1,300 <1

Mineral material development 40 0

Prescribed fire 8,300 4

Limited OHV use1 2,700,000 acres; 

13,000 acres of roads 7

Forestry sales 3,000 2

Livestock grazing, range 

improvements 280 <1

Land use authorizations (ROWs) 2,900 2

Land tenure adjustments 3,500 2

Total 16

1Actual figures used
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Paleontological Resources 

4-210

by repeated crossings. Shallow paleontological resources would be particularly vulnerable to disturbance by 

OHV-caused ruts and trails. 

Increased accessibility to remote areas would potentially result in vandalism and the illegal fossil removal by 

unpermitted fossil collectors.

Land tenure adjustments and increased public accessibility to fossils would lead to looting or vandalism 

activities according to BLM WO IM No. 2009-011 (BLM 2008b). Vandalism and illicit collection is 

influenced by accessibility, which is one of the major factors affecting vandalism rates, and visitation to 

areas. Increased visitor use to some areas would lead to an increase in vandalism, illicit collection, littering, 

and disturbance of paleontological localities. Although vandalism would also increase in previously 

inaccessible areas, it would be reduced if road and trail restrictions left substantial, contiguous portions of 

public lands isolated from motorized travel. 

Under this alternative, paleontological resources values and specific paleontological localities or areas would be 

protected through the designation or expansion of areas covered by ACEC designations to the Flat Creek (547 

acres) and Powderville Paleontological Areas (29,571 acres). Under this alternative, paleontological ACECs 

would be subject to an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing and development and other surface-disturbing 

activities would be restricted within the ACEC boundaries. The proposed Powderville and expanded Flat Creek 

ACECs would be protected from surface-disturbing activities under this alternative. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

All management actions resulting in surface-disturbing activities would cause impacts to paleontological 

resources similar to those described under Management Common to all Alternatives. Impacts would differ 

across the alternatives only by the number of acres and resources affected by proposed management actions. 

Surface-disturbing activities considered under Alternative C would impact from 112 to 187 localities in the 

planning area (Table 4-55). 

Surface-disturbing activities, including the use of heavy equipment and OHV use, would alter the 

characteristics of paleontological resources, damage or destroy fossils, or disturb the stratigraphic context in 

which they are located and result in the loss of important scientific data. Information contained in the 

stratigraphic and environmental context of paleontological resources is of primary importance to 

paleontological study and the removal of fossilized remains from their original location destroys this context 

and information. If the new landowner allowed surface-disturbing activities, the same impacts would occur on 

lands removed from BLM administration. 

Over the long term, surface-disturbing activities, land tenure adjustments, and oil and gas development would 

be reduced from current levels but still impact paleontological localities and necessitate mitigation. 

Over the long term, surface-disturbing activities, land tenure adjustments, oil and gas development, coal leasing, 

and surface-disturbing activities associated with activities occurring on BLM-administered lands would identify 

910 paleontological properties under this alternative. Surface-disturbing activities that would impact, disturb, or 

destroy buried paleontological properties would result in the loss of previously undetected, buried 

paleontological resource values and data. 

Livestock grazing would impact paleontology localities through trampling, trailing, and rubbing. Impacts to 

surface localities and fossils would include fossil damage and disturbance of locality context and integrity of 

material association. Cattle trailing, particularly along fencelines and to and from water sources, would create 

ruts that would expose localities and fossils and cause accelerated erosion and damage and loss of localities 

and paleontological information. Livestock would remove vegetation, which would cause increased erosion 

and expose paleontological properties to additional impacts. Localities along major streambanks would be 

subject to livestock-caused streambank erosion. 
HAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Paleontological Resources 

4-211

Impacts from OHV use would include crushing, breaking, and scattering of paleontological material; soil 

compaction from vehicle wheel pressure; and the intensified soil erosion processes caused by the removal of 

protective ground cover (such as vegetation and natural clutter), particularly when ruts and trails were created 

by repeated crossings. Shallow paleontological resources would be particularly vulnerable to disturbance by 

OHV-caused ruts and trails. 

Increased accessibility to 

remote areas would 

potentially result in 

vandalism and the illegal 

fossil removal by 

unpermitted fossil 

collectors.

Land tenure adjustments 

and increased public 

accessibility to fossils 

would lead to looting or 

vandalism activities 

according to BLM WO IM 

No. 2009-011 (BLM 

2008b). Vandalism and 

illicit collection is 

influenced by accessibility, 

which is one of the major 

factors affecting vandalism 

rates, and visitation to 

areas. Increased visitor use 

to some areas would lead 

to an increase in 

vandalism, illicit 

collection, littering, and disturbance of paleontological localities. Although vandalism would also increase in 

previously inaccessible areas, it would be reduced if road and trail restrictions left substantial, contiguous 

portions of public lands isolated from motorized travel. 

Under this alternative, the Ash Creek Divide, Hell Creek, Bug Creek, and Sand Arroyo paleontological ACECs 

would be subject to an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing and development and other surface-disturbing 

activities would be restricted within the ACEC boundaries. The proposed Powderville and expanded Flat Creek 

ACECs would be protected with a buffer area for surface-disturbing activities within 300 feet of the boundary 

of significant localities and within 300 feet of localities within the proposed ACECs. 

ALTERNATIVE D 

All management actions under Alternative D that would result in surface-disturbing activities would cause 

impacts similar to those described under Management Common to all Alternatives. Impacts would differ 

across the alternatives only by the number of acres and resources affected by proposed management actions. 

Surface-disturbing activities considered under Alternative D would impact from 125 to 216 localities in the 

planning area (Table 4-56). 

Surface-disturbing activities, including the use of heavy equipment and OHV use, would alter the 

characteristics of paleontological resources, damage or destroy fossils, or disturb the stratigraphic context in 

which they are located and result in the loss of important scientific data. Information contained in the 

stratigraphic and environmental context of paleontological resources is of primary importance to 

paleontological study and the removal of fossilized remains from their original location destroys this context 

TABLE 4-55.

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE LOCALITIES POTENTIALLY 

AFFECTED UNDER ALTERNATIVE C

Action (long term) Acres Number of 

Localities

Oil and gas development1

conventional wells and CBNG

190,000 (H)

45,000 (L)

H-99

L-24

Geophysical exploration 5 0

Coal 8,100 4

Locatable mineral development 9,700 5

Mineral material development 270 0

Prescribed fire 63,000 33

Open OHV use1660 <1

Limited OHV use1 2,800,000 acres; 

13,000 acres of roads 7

Forestry sales 23,000 12

Livestock grazing, range 

improvements 2,100 1

Land use authorizations

(ROWs)

22,000 12

Land tenure adjustments 27,000 14

Total H-187

L-112

1Actual figures used
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Paleontological Resources 

4-212

and information. If the new landowner allowed surface-disturbing activities, the same impacts would occur on 

lands removed from BLM administration. 

Over the long term, surface-disturbing activities, land tenure adjustments, oil and gas development, coal

leasing, and surface-disturbing activities associated with activities occurring on BLM-administered lands 

would identify 910 paleontological properties under this alternative. Surface-disturbing activities that would 

impact, disturb, or destroy buried paleontological properties would result in the loss of previously undetected, 

buried paleontological resource values and data. 

Paleontological Resources 

management actions that 

required 300-foot buffers 

and CSU stipulations for 

oil and gas leasing and 

development activities 

and restricted surfacedisturbing activities 

would not, in the long 

term, protect 

paleontological resource 

values from oil, gas, and 

surface-disturbing 

activities if large 

developments occurred 

adjacent to 

paleontological locality 

boundaries. 

Livestock grazing would 

impact paleontology 

localities through 

trampling, trailing, and 

rubbing. Impacts to 

surface localities and fossils would include fossil damage and disturbance of locality context and integrity of 

material association. Cattle trailing, particularly along fencelines and to and from water sources, would create 

ruts that would expose localities and fossils and cause accelerated erosion and damage and loss of localities 

and paleontological information. Livestock would remove vegetation, which would cause increased erosion 

and expose paleontological properties to additional impacts. Localities along major streambanks would be 

subject to livestock-caused streambank erosion. 

Impacts from OHV use would include crushing, breaking, and scattering of paleontological material; soil 

compaction from vehicle wheel pressure; and the intensified soil erosion processes caused by the removal of 

protective ground cover (such as vegetation and natural clutter), particularly when ruts and trails were created 

by repeated crossings. Shallow paleontological resources would be particularly vulnerable to disturbance by 

OHV-caused ruts and trails. 

Increased accessibility to remote areas would potentially result in vandalism and illegal fossil removal by 

unpermitted fossil collectors.

Land tenure adjustments and increased public accessibility to fossils would lead to looting or vandalism 

activities according to BLM WO IM No. 2009-011 (BLM 2008b). Vandalism and illicit collection is 

influenced by accessibility, which is one of the major factors affecting vandalism rates, and visitation to 

areas. Increased visitor use to some areas would lead to an increase in vandalism, illicit collection, littering, 

and disturbance of paleontological localities. Although vandalism would also increase in previously 

TABLE 4-56.

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE LOCALITIES AFFECTED UNDER

ALTERNATIVE D

Action (long term) Acres Number of 

Localities

Oil and gas development1

conventional wells and CBNG

230,000 (H)

61,000 (L)

H-120

L-32

Geophysical exploration 5 0

Coal 8,500 5

Locatable mineral development 10,000 5

Mineral material development 280 0

Prescribed fire 66,000 35

Open OHV use12,000 1

Limited OHV use1 2,800,000 acres; 

13,000 acres of roads 7

Forestry sales 24,000 13

Livestock grazing, range 

improvements 2,200 1

Land use authorizations (ROWs) 24,000 12

Land tenure adjustments 28,000 15

Total H-216

L-125

1Actual figures used 
HAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Paleontological Resources 

4-213

inaccessible areas, it would be reduced if road and trail restrictions left substantial, contiguous portions of 

public lands isolated from motorized travel. 

Under this alternative, the Ash Creek Divide, Hell Creek, Bug Creek, and Sand Arroyo paleontological ACECs 

would be subject to an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing and development and other surface-disturbing 

activities would be restricted within the ACEC boundaries. The Powderville and expanded Flat Creek ACECs 

would be minimally protected (particularly those within the proposed ACECs) with 300-foot buffers. 

ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

All management actions resulting in surface-disturbing activities would cause impacts to paleontological 

resources similar to those described under Management Common to all Alternatives. Impacts would differ 

across the alternatives only by the number of acres and resources affected by proposed management actions. 

Surface-disturbing activities considered under Alternative E would impact from 112 to 187 localities in the 

planning area (Table 4-57). 

Over the long term, 

surface-disturbing 

activities, land tenure 

adjustments, oil and 

gas development, coal 

leasing, and surfacedisturbing activities 

associated with 

activities occurring on 

BLM-administered 

lands would identify 

910 paleontological 

properties under this 

alternative. Surfacedisturbing activities 

that would impact, 

disturb, or destroy 

buried paleontological 

properties would result 

in the loss of 

previously undetected, 

buried paleontological 

resource values and 

data. 

Surface-disturbing activities, including the use of heavy equipment and OHV use, would alter the 

characteristics of paleontological resources, damage or destroy fossils, or disturb the stratigraphic context in 

which they are located and result in the loss of important scientific data. Information contained in the 

stratigraphic and environmental context of paleontological resources is of primary importance to 

paleontological study and the removal of fossilized remains from their original location destroys this context 

and information. If the new landowner allowed surface-disturbing activities, the same impacts would occur on 

lands removed from BLM administration.

Livestock grazing would impact paleontology localities through trampling, trailing, and rubbing. Impacts to 

surface localities and fossils would include fossil damage and disturbance of locality context and integrity of 

material association. Cattle trailing, particularly along fencelines and to and from water sources, would create 

ruts that would expose localities and fossils and cause accelerated erosion and damage and loss of localities 

and paleontological information. Livestock would remove vegetation, which would cause increased erosion 

TABLE 4-57.

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE LOCALITIES POTENTIALLY 

AFFECTED UNDER ALTERNATIVE E

Action (long term) Acres Number of 

Localities

Oil and gas development1

conventional wells and CBNG

37,358 (H)

10,471 (L)

H-20

L-6

Geophysical exploration 5 0

Coal 7,722 4

Locatable mineral development 9,242 5

Mineral material development 257 0

Prescribed fire 60,060 31

Open OHV use11,992 1

Limited OHV use1 2,800,000 acres; 

13,000 acres of roads 7

Forestry sales 21,710 11

Livestock grazing, range 

improvements 2,018 1

Land use authorizations(ROWs) 21,296 11

Land tenure adjustments 25,740 13

Total H-104

L-90

1Actual figures used
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Paleontological Resources 

4-214

and expose paleontological properties to additional impacts. Localities along major streambanks would be 

subject to livestock-caused streambank erosion. 

Impacts from OHV use would include crushing, breaking, and scattering of paleontological material; soil 

compaction from vehicle wheel pressure; and the intensified soil erosion processes caused by the removal of 

protective ground cover (such as vegetation and natural clutter), particularly when ruts and trails were created 

by repeated crossings. Shallow paleontological resources would be particularly vulnerable to disturbance by 

OHV-caused ruts and trails. 

Increased accessibility to remote areas would potentially result in vandalism and the illegal fossil removal by 

unpermitted fossil collectors.

Land tenure adjustments and increased public accessibility to fossils would lead to looting or vandalism 

activities according to BLM WO IM No. 2009-011 (BLM 2008b). Vandalism and illicit collection is 

influenced by accessibility, which is one of the major factors affecting vandalism rates, and visitation to 

areas. Increased visitor use to some areas would lead to an increase in vandalism, illicit collection, littering, 

and disturbance of paleontological localities. Although vandalism would also increase in previously 

inaccessible areas, it would be reduced if road and trail restrictions left substantial, contiguous portions of 

public lands isolated from motorized travel. 

Under this alternative, the Ash Creek Divide, Hell Creek, Bug Creek, Sand Arroyo, Flat Creek, and Powderville 

paleontological ACECs would be subject to an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing and development and 

other surface-disturbing activities would be restricted within the ACEC boundaries. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Fossil-bearing rocks underlie the entire planning area. Although fossils are rare in most rock layers, five 

geologic rock units in the planning area are known to contain significant fossil material: the Judith River 

formation, the Hell Creek formation, the Lance formation (which is the same age as the Hell Creek 

formation), the Tullock member (and its equivalent in the Ludlow member) of the Fort Union formation, and 

the Arikaree formation. Rock exposures that produce significant fossils, particularly vertebrate fossils, are 

rare and of considerable scientific value and interest. 

Since visibility of the bedrock is an important factor in fossil recovery, paleontological resources are affected 

primarily by erosion that exposes fossil-bearing formations. Additionally, because most fossils are discovered 

and recovered as scattered surface finds, visibility of the bedrock is an important factor in fossil discovery and 

recovery. The climate in eastern Montana more often exposes, rather than buries, these formations. 

Surface fossils are subject to various impacts and a wide range of land uses has affected areas of significant 

formations for more than 100 years. These land uses include agricultural development from the homestead 

period onward (including farming and plowing native grassland prairies); railroad and highway development; 

land loss resulting from community development and expansion; and mineral development (including openpit strip mining of coal and oil and gas development). The wide range of surface-disturbing activities 

accompanying past development affected paleontological resources, continues to impact paleontological 

resource values today, and is expected to continue to increase impacts on paleontological resources on all 

lands. 

Management actions provide a systematic and proactive means to address direct impacts of authorized projects 

and activities on paleontological resources. Although mitigation through data recovery at paleontological sites 

would recover information relevant to current research concerns, these activities would also permanently 

remove the resource from future research and interpretive use, which would constitute an irretrievable and 

irreversible commitment of these resources. Any management actions that caused the inadvertent destruction of 

paleontological resources or made them susceptible to illegal collection would potentially lead to the loss of 

these resources. Potential impacts to paleontological resources would potentially be caused by actions for 
HAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Paleontological Resources 

4-215

vegetation management; recreation; travel route closures and development; wildland fire; wildland fire 

suppression; mineral, oil, and gas development; population increases; and vandalism. 

Other regional land uses and economic development planning would potentially impact the types and intensity 

of land uses within the planning area as well as the regional paleontological resources. Development of lands 

unprotected by federal or state paleontological statutes and regulations would potentially further decrease the 

resource base and limit paleontological resource management opportunities in the planning area. Planning 

coordination at the regional level would potentially help protect important paleontological resource values. 

An evaluation of the cumulative impacts to paleontological resources considers the number of localities 

destroyed in relationship to the number of existing localities. However, this figure does not correlate to a 

threshold at which there is an unacceptable loss of paleontological resources. Evaluation of the 

paleontological resources in the planning area considers individual localities, type, and quality. Although 

there is no consideration for buried localities that remain undiscovered, the total number of localities 

discovered during a paleontological survey is a measure of the exposure (a result of erosion) of the formation 

and localities. However, this number is only a sample of the actual number of localities present. Because 

individual locality type and quality determines their paleontological value, management assessments that 

focus primarily on total locality numbers would not accurately measure the cumulative impacts to the 

resource. 

Important or significant paleontological resources consist of all vertebrate fossils and those with the potential 

to yield information that would add to an understanding of geology and paleontology; only these 

paleontological resources are fundamental to the evaluation of cumulative impacts. However, all 

paleontological resources are useful in providing information to the broader perspective and understanding of 

regional scientific knowledge. These localities present an opportunity to expand local and regional scientific 

paleontological knowledge through excavation, removal, and analysis. 

Although academic losses are offset by mitigation through data recovery, many paleontological resources, 

when discovered, are in advanced stages of erosion and already experiencing losses to natural processes. 

Additionally, although avoiding paleontological resources would generally be preferred, the loss of some 

paleontological resources to data recovery efforts does not generally impact paleontological resources. 

Consequently, avoiding sensitive localities and implementing mitigation through data recovery of all 

disturbed localities would result in minimal cumulative impacts to paleontological resources. 

Alternative A 

Management actions under Alternative A would contribute to the declining number of paleontological 

resources and continue to increase impacts to paleontological resources through minimal protection of 

important and significant paleontological localities or areas. 

Under Alternative A, surface-disturbing activities on BLM-administered lands would continue as in the past, 

which would contribute to the projected decline in the number of paleontological resources in the planning area. 

Alternative A would not protect important and significant paleontological localities with buffers; NSO 

stipulations for oil and gas leasing and development; or ACEC designations. 

From 210,000 to 270,000 total acres of disturbance would impact from 111 to 144 paleontological resources 

in the planning area under Alternative A and Management Common to all Alternatives. 

Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, surface-disturbing activities on BLM-administered public lands would be greatly 

curtailed, which would diminish impacts to paleontological resources and greatly improve protection of 

paleontological resource values. Alternative B would not contribute to the decline in the number of 

paleontological resources on BLM-administered lands and would provide protection for important and 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Paleontological Resources 

4-216

significant paleontological localities through 0.5 mile-buffers; NSO stipulations for oil and gas leasing and 

development; and surface-disturbing restrictions. 

Under this alternative, proposed management actions would be sufficient to protect the many valuable 

paleontological resources in the planning area. The Ash Creek Divide, Hell Creek, Bug Creek, and Sand Arroyo 

paleontological ACECs would be subject to an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing and development and 

other surface-disturbing activities would be restricted within the ACEC boundaries. The proposed Powderville 

and Flat Creek ACECs would also be protected from surface-disturbing activities under this alternative. 

Under Alternative B and Management Common to all Alternatives, 34,000 acres of disturbance would impact 

16 paleontological resources in the planning area. 

Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, surface-disturbing activities on BLM-administered lands would be moderately curtailed, 

which would diminish impacts to paleontological resources and moderately improve protection of 

paleontological resource values in the planning area. Although a wide range of surface-disturbing activities 

would occur and impact paleontological resources under Alternative C, the current rate of decline in the number 

of paleontological resource localities in the planning area would be reduced. 

Alternative C would provide additional and moderate protection for important and significant paleontological 

localities in the form of 300-foot buffers for surface-disturbing restrictions and NSO stipulations for oil and gas 

leasing and development around areas designated paleontological localities. Moderate and additional protection 

would also be offered to paleontological resource values for future paleontological localities or areas that met 

the criteria for designation. 

Proposed management actions would moderately and minimally protect the many valuable paleontological 

resources in the planning area. The Ash Creek Divide, Hell Creek, Bug Creek, and Sand Arroyo paleontological 

ACECs would be subject to NSO stipulations for oil and gas leasing and development and other surfacedisturbing activities would be restricted within ACEC boundaries. The proposed Powderville and Flat Creek 

ACECs would be protected and contain buffers for surface-disturbing activities within the proposed ACECs. 

Protection would also be offered to specific paleontological localities or areas by designating or expanding the 

areas covered by ACEC designations to the Flat Creek (547 acres) and Powderville Paleontological Areas 

(29,571 acres). However, no 300-foot buffers were proposed around the proposed paleontological ACECs under 

this alternative because these areas incorporate sufficient area around the existing paleontological resource 

values to provide adequate protection.

From 210,000 (low) to 360,000 (high) acres of disturbance would impact from 112 to 187 paleontological 

resources under Alternative C and Management Common to all Alternatives. 

Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, surface-disturbing activities on BLM-administered public lands would be slightly 

curtailed, which would slightly diminish impacts to paleontological resources and slightly improve protection of 

paleontological resource values. This alternative would continue to contribute to the anticipated decline in the 

number of paleontological resource localities in the planning area. This alternative would offer some protection 

for paleontological resource values but also allow activities that would potentially cause resource damage. 

Paleontological Resources management actions for oil and gas leasing and development under Alternative D 

would slightly curtail and diminish impacts to paleontological resources and slightly improve protection of 

paleontological resource values by providing minimal additional protection for important and significant 

paleontological resources. 
HAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Paleontological Resources 

4-217

Under this alternative, proposed management actions would offer minimal protection of the many valuable 

paleontological resources in the planning area, particularly those within ACECs. Although the proposed 

Powderville and Flat Creek Paleontological Areas would be designated ACECs (except for 50 acres of the Flat 

Creek area, which is a paleontological locality in which all surface-disturbing activities would be prohibited), 

these areas would receive little protection from surface-disturbing activities. Buffers were not proposed around 

the paleontological ACECs under this alternative because these areas incorporate sufficient area around the 

existing paleontological resource values to provide adequate protection. 

From 240,000 (low) to 410,000 (high) acres of disturbance would impact from 125 to 216 paleontological 

resources under Alternative D and Management Common to all Alternatives. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Under Alternative E, surface-disturbing activities on BLM-administered lands would be moderately curtailed, 

which would diminish impacts to paleontological resources and moderately improve protection of 

paleontological resource values in the planning area. A wide range of surface-disturbing activities would occur 

and impact paleontological resources under Alternative E, but the current rate of decline in the number of 

paleontological resource localities in the planning area would be reduced. 

Alternative E would provide additional and moderate protection for important and significant paleontological 

localities in the form of NSO stipulations (and surface-disturbing restrictions) on areas designated 

paleontological localities. Moderate and additional protection would also be offered to paleontological resource 

values for future paleontological localities or areas that meet the criteria for designation. 

Proposed management actions would moderately and minimally protect the many valuable paleontological 

resources in the planning area. All current paleontological ACECs would be subject to an NSO stipulation for 

oil and gas leasing and development and other surface-disturbing activities would be restricted within ACEC 

boundaries. The proposed Powderville and Flat Creek ACECs would be protected because surface-disturbing 

activities would be allowed only if they would not impact the quality and setting of significant paleontological 

localities within the ACECs. 

Protection would also be offered to specific paleontological localities or areas by designating or expanding the 

areas covered by ACEC designations to the Flat Creek (547 acres) and Powderville Paleontological Areas 

(29,571 acres). However, under this alternative, no buffers were proposed around the proposed paleontological 

ACECs because these areas incorporate sufficient area around the existing paleontological resource values to 

provide adequate protection.

From 170,000 (low) to 200,000 (high) acres of disturbance would impact from 90 to 104 paleontological 

resources under Alternative E and Management Common to all Alternatives. 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 

Scenic resources would remain in demand within the planning area over the life of this RMP. Increasing 

tourism would increase the value of open spaces and undeveloped landscapes. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

The BLM’s VRM class objectives were used in analyzing impacts on visual resources. These objectives 

provide a baseline for determining how much a proposed management action would affect visual resources or 

scenic quality, as well as determining the level of disturbance an area can support while still meeting visual 

resource objectives. Opportunities, experiences, and public benefits would be tied to the physical setting of a 

landscape. VRM classifications determine the allowable level of visual impact in specific areas while 

maintaining the efficacy of land-use allocations for activities in other resource areas. Limitations for visual 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Visual Resources 

4-218

intrusions in VRM Class I and VRM Class II areas are intended to retain or improve the quality of visual 

resources while VRM Class III and IV allow a greater number of visual contrasts associated with 

development and resource management activities. In addition, the VRM inventory was updated during this 

RMP process, so the updated inventory is analyzed within Alternatives B, C, and D. Under Alternative A, the 

majority of the planning area would be located within VRM Class IV areas, the MCFO would use VRM 

Class I designations in all WSAs, VRM Class II designations would be used primarily along highway and 

river corridors, and VRM Class III areas would be used along county roadways. 

Changes in air quality, either from smoke, dust, haze, or other pollutants would potentially reduce or degrade 

scenic quality by obscuring distant views in the short term and long term. 

Vegetative manipulation (or prescriptive) treatments using chemical, fire, biological, manual, and mechanical 

means would impact the visual landscape in all VRM classes. Although VRM Class IV areas allow for major 

modification of the existing character of the landscape, vegetation changes would impact qualities such as 

patterns, forms, and texture. Within a VRM Class IV management objective area, every attempt should be 

made to minimize impacts through location considerations, emphasis on minimal disturbance, and element 

repetition. Although impacts would depend on spatial arrangements, vegetation mosaics, and the activity’s 

proximity to key observation points, impacts from this management action would typically be short term. In 

the long term, vegetative treatments would improve visual qualities by eliminating decadent stands and 

rejuvenating vegetation. 

Temporary or permanent enclosures used to promote species diversity within riparian and wetland areas 

would impact the viewshed in the short term. Enclosures would be required to follow VRM mitigation 

activities within all VRM classes by blending with the surrounding landscape and following existing lines, 

colors, and forms. 

Managing invasive species to improve the overall quality of public lands would contribute to the natural 

appearance of the landscape and, over the long term, enhance the visual character of the landscape. Using 

manual, mechanical, and prescribed fire treatments would detract from the viewshed on a short-term basis by 

disrupting the line, color, and form of natural vegetation. Monitoring would also contribute to the natural 

appearance of the area by reducing the spread of invasive species. 

Fire and fuels management actions would use woody and non-woody vegetation mechanical thinning, 

biomass removal, and chemical and biological treatments for fuels reductions. These actions would also be 

used to meet other multi-resource objectives. When needed, rehabilitation and restoration efforts specific to a 

fire event would be implemented to protect and sustain ecosystems. Fire suppression and fuel treatments 

within VRM Class I and II areas would detract from the existing visual elements of form, line, color, and 

texture. However, depending on spatial arrangement, vegetation mosaics, and the activity’s proximity to key 

observation points, impacts from these management actions would typically be short term. Visual impacts 

from dead, standing, and down woody material that occurred as a result of wildfire or prescribed burns would 

be short term in duration and depend on factors such as the intensity and extent of a given burn, the rate of 

decay of the dead material, and the size and density of vegetation burned. In the long term, fuel treatments 

would improve visual resource qualities by eliminating decadent stands and rejuvenating vegetation. In the 

short term, fire suppression actions involving heavy equipment use would detract from the existing landscape 

by introducing new forms, lines, colors, and textures to the landscape. 

Forest management actions would impact visual resources in areas in which woody and non-woody biomass 

product removals were allowed. Although some of this product removal would occur in VRM Class II areas, 

mitigation measures would be used for site-specific projects (such as locating biomass removal activities in 

areas not readily visible from key observation points) and visual impacts in this area would be short term. 

Forest health restoration projects that improved forest resiliency would impact VRM in the short term; 

however, the benefits of implementation of these management actions would contribute to the natural 

viewshed of the VRM class in the long term. If allowed near key observation points, commercial and personal 

use from forest or woodlands would have the potential to impact visual resources. Although salvage of dead 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Visual Resources 

4-219

and dying timber would be short term in duration, salvage would improve visual resource qualities in the long 

term by eliminating decadent stands and rejuvenating vegetation. 

New development would impact visual resources in VRM Class II, III, and IV areas. Closed, NSO, or timing 

stipulations that would be applied to all VRM Class I areas and VRM Class II designated areas would 

maintain the current scenic quality. These specific management actions would preserve or protect visual 

resources to the extent allowable under the VRM class objectives, with long-term impacts on scenic quality in 

these areas. Any development in VRM Class II areas would be mitigated to retain the scenic quality and 

avoid attracting the attention of the casual observer. Lasting the life of the well, periodic impacts would 

include dust and emissions from vehicles and facilities that contributed air pollution and haze in the region. 

The addition of structures (particularly wells, tanks, and power lines) to the landscape would have long-term 

impacts on the visual quality of the landscape by changing lines, colors, and textures of the landscape. Except 

where facilities were located on ridgelines, visual impacts of structures would be localized and only impact 

observers inside the viewsheds. Facilities placed on ridgelines would have a greater tendency to degrade 

multiple viewsheds because the structure extended above the horizon. Development activities would alter the 

character of the landscape by introducing contrasting elements against the natural landscape, which would be 

visually distracting to the casual observer. These management actions would alter the landscape from a 

predominately natural setting to a more industrialized setting by changing the area from one that is essentially 

free of human-made features to one dominated by roads, drill pads, and production facilities. 

Because VRM Class IV objectives allow major modifications of the existing character of the landscape, oil 

and gas development and production facilities and CBNG development would be compatible with these 

objectives. However, visual settings of some areas managed as VRM Class IV areas contain a high degree of 

naturally contrasting elements that create scenic landscapes. Oil, gas, and CBNG development in these areas 

would introduce contrasting elements of form, line, color, and texture, all of which would change the natural 

settings to an industrial setting. However, visual mitigation in the form of BMPs, mitigation, and conditions 

of approval would increase the compatibility of oil and gas development in VRM Class III and IV VRM 

areas. 

New recreation site developments would follow appropriate VRM class objectives, such as mitigation of 

resource damage by blending design and construction of new facilities with the existing landscape. The 

recreation sites would be managed to promote protection of other resource values and visitor experiences, 

which would result in providing stronger levels of protection for visual resources. Other impacts to visual 

resources from recreation management would be minimal. 

Renewable energy development and authorization would have long-term impacts if approved within VRM 

Class II objectives because of the high scenic quality in these areas. If approved under less stringent VRM 

class objectives, these activities would also have surface-disturbing impacts that would eventually decrease 

the long-term visual aesthetics of the area. 

Transportation management would maintain an adequate road network across the planning area. Any 

development or new construction of the transportation network would alter visual resources by changing the 

line, color, and texture of the landscape. Closing roads and restricting access to address adverse impacts 

would enhance the visual settings of the area by removing contrasting linear elements from the natural 

landscape. 

Designated ACECs would protect important resource values and limit major surface-disturbing activities. 

These actions would preserve and protect visual resources to the extent allowable under the VRM class 

objectives, with long-term impacts on scenic quality in these areas. 

Maintaining wilderness values would result in impacts to visual resources because they would be managed to 

preserve pristine or relatively undeveloped high-quality scenic landscapes. 

Soils, vegetation, and special status plants would all contribute to the natural appearance of the landscape for 

all VRM classes, which would enhance visual qualities for the casual observer. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Visual Resources 

4-220

ALTERNATIVE A 

Allowing surface-disturbing or disruptive activities, mineral leasing, fencing of new spring developments, or 

installation of troughs or tanks in riparian and wetland areas would change the viewshed of the landscape by 

altering its natural state. Mitigation would be used to reduce the visual impacts and prevent visual degradation 

of the existing landscape. Properly mitigated activities would result in minor changes to the landscape and 

avoid attracting the attention of the casual observer. 

Native or nonnative hay or seed harvesting would create a short-term, unnatural appearance on the landscape. 

Visual impacts would be greatest if the spatial arrangement, vegetation mosaics, and activity’s proximity to 

key observation points drew attention to the treated area. Over the long term, these actions would contribute 

to the natural appearance of the landscape, which would subsequently enhance the visual character of the 

landscape. 

Management actions that allowed surface-disturbing activities to treat invasive species infestations would 

detract from the viewshed on a short-term basis by disrupting the line, color, and form of the natural 

vegetation in the area. However, in the long term, surface-disturbing activities authorized by these actions 

would contribute to the natural appearance of the landscape and enhance the visual character of the landscape 

by eliminating invasive species. 

Under this alternative, fire and fuels management actions would allow the use of wildfire or prescribed fire; 

biomass removal; and mechanical, chemical, and biological treatments for fuels reduction. These actions 

would also be used to meet other multi-resource objectives. When needed, rehabilitation and restoration 

efforts specific to a fire event would be implemented to protect and sustain ecosystems. Fire suppression and 

fuel treatments in VRM Class I and II areas would detract from the existing visual elements of form, line, 

color, and texture. Depending on spatial arrangement, vegetation mosaics, and the activity’s proximity to key 

observation points, impacts from these management actions would typically be short term. Visual impacts 

from dead, standing, and down woody material caused by wildfire or prescribed burns would be short term in 

duration and depend on factors such as the intensity and extent of a given burn, the rate of decay of the dead 

material, and the size and density of vegetation burned. In the long term, fuel treatments would improve 

visual resource qualities by eliminating decadent stands and rejuvenating vegetation. 

The majority of the planning area would be located within VRM Class IV areas (1.9 million acres), the 

MCFO would use VRM Class I designations (97,000 acres) in all WSAs, VRM Class II designations 

(400,000 acres) primarily along highway and river corridors, and VRM Class III (380,000 acres) areas along 

county roadways. Impacts would not change from current VRM objectives. 

Forest management actions would impact visual resources in areas in which wood product sales were 

allowed. Although some of this product removal would occur in VRM Class II areas, mitigation measures 

would be used for site-specific projects (including locating wood product sales in areas inconspicuous from 

key observation points), which would keep visual impacts in this area limited to the short term. Although 

forest health restoration projects that improved forest resiliency would impact VRM in the short term, the 

benefits of implementation (such as improving forest health) would contribute to the natural viewshed of the 

VRM class in the long term. Short term in duration, salvage of dead and dying timber would improve visual 

resource qualities over the long term by eliminating decadent stands and rejuvenating vegetation. Cottonwood 

harvest, when used to eliminate disease or insect infestations that threaten other stands, would improve visual 

qualities by preventing the spread of disease. 

Surface disturbances associated with the construction of facilities and ROWs for pipelines, transmission lines, 

communication lines, and other developments (renewable energy) would impact visual resources in both the 

short and long term. Establishment of associated ROWs and surface disturbances associated with new 

construction would introduce contrasting visual elements that altered the character of the landscape. 

Development of aboveground and belowground linear facilities and access roads within VRM Class III and 

IV areas would create long-term but allowable (within the objectives) visual impacts. Facilities and roads 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Visual Resources 

4-221

constructed for mineral development would impact visual resources in VRM Class II, III, and IV areas. Oil 

and gas development facilities would introduce highly contrasting elements of form, line, color, and texture to 

the surrounding landscape, which would impact the scenic qualities and alter the landscape’s existing natural 

setting. Because VRM Class III and IV areas allow moderate to high levels of change to the characteristics of 

the landscape, most of this development would occur in these areas. 

Travel Management and OHV management actions under this alternative would allow motorized use on 

existing roads and trails, unless otherwise designated in Open OHV areas. Open areas would allow 

contrasting linear features, which would introduce elements that drew the attention of the casual observer 

from the natural landscape. However, because SRMAs would consider existing resources to avoid conflicts 

and unnecessary impacts, impacts to visual resources would be limited within these Open areas. Limited 

OHV use on existing roads and trails would protect visual resources from linear intrusions caused by route 

proliferation. 

Development activities associated with Lands and Realty management actions would include wind energy 

development, utility or transportation systems development, and communication site development. As a 

result, the viewshed would be altered in areas within important resources (such as existing and proposed 

recreation sites and special designation areas) that contained important supplemental recreational values. 

These developments would impact visual resources by altering the typical VRM Class II and VRM Class III 

visual settings and creating elements that contrasted greatly with existing settings. The characteristics and 

number of developments would create a large footprint not only in the local affected areas but on a landscape 

setting as well. Development activities would alter the scenic qualities of an area and detract from typical 

visual settings by creating linear and focal visual intrusions on the horizon. Additionally, surface disturbances 

authorized by the BLM’s lands and realty program and associated with the construction of facilities and 

ROWs would impact visual resources. 

The clearing and grading of land associated with new construction and ROW construction would remove 

vegetation, which would alter the character of the visual landscape. However, if properly mitigated with 

BMPs, mitigation, and reclamation, some belowground utilities and some aboveground facilities would be 

compatible with VRM Class II areas (see the Reclamation Appendix). Surface disturbances and facilities 

construction would be approved in VRM Class II areas with adequate mitigation as long as they would not 

exceed the VRM Class II management objectives. Development associated with lands and realty actions 

would impact visual resources if activities within VRM Class IV objective areas dominated the landscape, 

overwhelmed casual observers, and deterred future visits. In a VRM Class IV objective area, every attempt 

would be made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and 

repetition of the basic elements of line, color, and form. Nonfederal lands acquired in visually sensitive areas, 

such as WSAs, would help protect the visual settings in these areas. Areas to be avoided would include VRM 

Class I areas, which would preserve the visual character of these areas. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Limiting the extent of surface-disturbing activities under this alternative would prevent the degradation of the 

viewshed and improve visual qualities on the landscape by preventing alteration of the natural appearance of 

the landscape. 

Limiting the extent of surface-disturbing activities for invasive species treatments under this alternative 

would prevent the degradation of the viewshed and improve visual qualities on the landscape by preventing 

alteration of the natural appearance of the landscape. However, not treating invasive species would, in the 

long term, would detract from the existing scenic character of the landscape. 

Fire suppression within VRM Class I and II areas would detract from the existing visual elements of form, 

line, color, and texture. Impacts would typically be short term and depend on the spatial arrangement, 

vegetation mosaics, and activity’s proximity to key observation points. When needed, rehabilitation and 

restoration efforts specific to a fire event would be implemented to protect and sustain ecosystems. Visual 

impacts from dead, standing, and down woody material that occurred as a result of wildfire or prescribed 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Visual Resources 

4-222

burns would be short term in duration and depend on factors such as the intensity and extent of a given burn, 

the rate of decay of the dead material, and the size and density of vegetation burned. In the long term, fuel 

treatments would improve visual resource qualities by eliminating decadent stands and rejuvenating 

vegetation. 

While limiting wood product sales would benefit visual impacts in the short term, not using this action as a tool 

to improve forest health would, in the long term, detract from the visual landscape by increasing the possibility 

of increased visibility of disease-destroyed stands or dying vegetation. 

In the Powder River Depot, Calypso, and Lewis and Clark SRMAs, resource activities would maintain or 

improve visual characteristics and mitigate resource damage. Withdrawing locatable minerals and 

implementing an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing and development in these SRMAs would further 

protect the visual integrity of the sites. Proposed SRMAs would benefit visual resources by intensively 

managing any surface-disturbing activity that modified the visual setting through project redesign and impact 

mitigation. NSO stipulations for oil and gas leasing and development would preserve the visual quality of the 

recreational settings. Impacts to visual resources from recreation management actions under this alternative 

would be minimal. 

Development activities associated with wind energy development, utility or transportation systems 

development, and communication site development would alter the viewshed in areas in important resources 

(such as proposed recreation sites and special designation areas) that contained important supplemental 

recreational values. These developments would impact visual resources by altering the typical VRM Class II 

and VRM Class III visual settings and creating elements that contrasted greatly with existing settings. The 

characteristics and number of developments would create a large footprint not only in the local affected areas 

but on a landscape setting as well. Development activities would alter the scenic qualities of an area and 

detract from typical visual settings by creating linear and focal visual intrusions on the horizon. Additionally, 

surface disturbances authorized by the BLM’s lands and realty program and associated with the construction 

of facilities and ROWs would impact visual resources. However, requiring avoidance of some areas under 

this alternative would help to retain the quality of visual resources. 

The clearing and grading of land associated with new construction and ROW construction would remove 

vegetation, which would alter the character of the visual landscape. However, if properly mitigated with 

BMPs, mitigation, and reclamation, some belowground utilities and some aboveground facilities would be 

compatible with VRM Class II areas (see the Reclamation Appendix). Surface disturbances and facilities 

construction would be approved in VRM Class II areas with adequate mitigation as long as they would not 

exceed the VRM Class II management objectives. Development associated with lands and realty actions 

would impact visual resources if activities within VRM Class IV objective areas dominated the landscape, 

overwhelmed casual observers, and deterred future visits. In a VRM Class IV objective area, every attempt 

would be made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and 

repetition of the basic elements of line, color, and form. Nonfederal lands acquired in visually sensitive areas, 

such as WSAs, would help protect the visual settings in these areas. Areas to be avoided would include VRM 

Class I areas, which would preserve the visual character of these areas. 

Unless otherwise designated in Open areas, Travel Management and OHV management actions under this 

alternative would allow motorized use on existing roads and trails. Open areas on approximately 2,900 acres 

would allow contrasting linear features, which would introduce elements that drew the attention of the casual 

observer from the natural landscape. However, because the location of new SRMAs would consider existing 

resources to avoid conflicts and unnecessary impacts, impacts to visual resources would be limited within 

these Open areas. Limited OHV use on existing roads and trails would protect visual resources from linear 

intrusions caused by route proliferation. 

If surface-disturbing ROWs and other realty-related authorizations were avoided, the degradation of the 

viewshed would be prevented and visual qualities on the landscape would be improved by preventing alteration 

of the natural appearance of the landscape. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Visual Resources 

4-223

ALTERNATIVE C 

Native or nonnative hay or seed harvesting would create a short-term, unnatural appearance on the landscape. 

Visual impacts would be greatest if the spatial arrangement, vegetation mosaics, and activity’s proximity to 

key observation points drew attention to the treated area. Over the long term, these actions would contribute 

to the natural appearance of the landscape, which would subsequently enhance the visual character of the 

landscape. 

Limiting the extent of surface-disturbing activities under this alternative would prevent the degradation of the 

viewshed and improve visual qualities on the landscape by preventing alteration of the natural appearance of 

the landscape. 

Management actions that allowed surface-disturbing activities to treat invasive species infestations would 

detract from the viewshed on a short-term basis by disrupting the line, color, and form of the natural 

vegetation in the area. However, in the long term, surface-disturbing activities authorized by these actions 

would contribute to the natural appearance of the landscape and enhance the visual character of the landscape 

by eliminating invasive species. In the long term, using Early Detection Rapid Response to designate priority 

treatment areas would contribute to a natural appearance that enhanced the visual character of the landscape. 

Under this alternative, fire and fuels management actions would allow the use of wildfire or prescribed fire; 

biomass removal; and mechanical, chemical, and biological treatments for fuels reduction. These actions 

would also be used to meet other multi-resource objectives. When needed, rehabilitation and restoration 

efforts specific to a fire event would be implemented to protect and sustain ecosystems. Fire suppression and 

fuel treatments in VRM Class I and II areas would detract from the existing visual elements of form, line, 

color, and texture. Depending on spatial arrangement, vegetation mosaics, and the activity’s proximity to key 

observation points, impacts from these management actions would typically be short term. Visual impacts 

from dead, standing, and down woody material caused by wildfire or prescribed burns would be short term in 

duration and depend on factors such as the intensity and extent of a given burn, the rate of decay of the dead 

material, and the size and density of vegetation burned. In the long term, fuel treatments would improve 

visual resource qualities by eliminating decadent stands and rejuvenating vegetation. 

Management actions that allowed forestland management for a diversity of forest product production, wood 

product sales, sawtimber sales, and cottonwood harvest would detract from the existing visual elements of 

form, line, color, and texture. Impacts would typically be short term and depend on the spatial arrangement, 

vegetation mosaics created, and the activity’s proximity to key observation points. However, the benefits of 

implementation (such as improving forest health) would contribute to the natural viewshed of the VRM class 

in the long term. 

In the Powder River, Calypso, and Lewis and Clark SRMAs, resource activities would maintain or improve 

visual characteristics and mitigate resource damage. Management actions in proposed SRMAs would benefit 

visual resources by requiring avoidance for ROWs and CSU stipulations for oil and gas leasing and 

development, which would require modification of the visual setting and projects and mitigation of impacts. 

Impacts to visual resources from recreation management actions would be minimal. 

Development activities associated with wind energy development, utility or transportation systems 

development, and communication site development would alter the viewshed in areas within important 

resources (such as existing and proposed recreation sites and special designation areas) that contained 

important supplemental recreational values. These developments would impact visual resources by altering 

the typical VRM Class II and VRM Class III visual settings and creating elements that contrasted greatly with 

existing settings. The characteristics and number of developments would create a large footprint not only in 

the local affected areas but on a landscape setting as well. Development activities would alter the scenic 

qualities of an area and detract from typical visual settings by creating linear and focal visual intrusions on the 

horizon. Additionally, surface disturbances authorized by the BLM’s lands and realty program and associated 

with the construction of facilities and ROWs would impact visual resources. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Visual Resources 

4-224

Travel Management and OHV management actions under this alternative would allow motorized use on 

existing roads and trails unless otherwise designated in Open OHV areas. Open areas on approximately 660 

acres would allow contrasting linear features, which would introduce elements that drew the attention of the 

casual observer from the natural landscape. However, because the location of these Open areas would 

consider existing resources to avoid conflicts and unnecessary impacts, impacts to visual resources would be 

limited within these Open areas. Limited OHV use on existing roads and trails would protect visual resources 

from linear intrusions caused by route proliferation. Closing approximately 550 acres would protect visual 

resources from linear intrusions and result in the long-term enhancement of visual resources. Allowing onetime big game retrieval for those with a Montana permit to hunt from the vehicle would create linear features 

that contrasted with the existing visual elements of the landscapes, attracted the attention of the casual 

observer, and detracted from the view. 

If surface-disturbing ROWs and other realty-related authorizations were avoided, this would prevent the 

degradation of the viewshed and improve visual qualities on the landscape by preventing alteration of the 

natural appearance of the landscape. 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Limiting the extent of surface-disturbing activities under this alternative would prevent the degradation of the 

viewshed and improve visual qualities on the landscape by preventing alteration of the natural appearance of 

the landscape. 

Native or nonnative hay or seed harvesting would create a short-term, unnatural appearance on the landscape. 

Visual impacts would be greatest if the spatial arrangement, vegetation mosaics, and activity’s proximity to 

key observation points drew attention to the treated area. Over the long term, these actions would contribute 

to the natural appearance of the landscape, which would subsequently enhance the visual character of the 

landscape. 

Management actions that allowed surface-disturbing activities to treat invasive species infestations would 

detract from the viewshed on a short-term basis by disrupting the line, color, and form of the natural 

vegetation in the area. However, in the long term, surface-disturbing activities authorized by these actions 

would contribute to the natural appearance of the landscape and enhance the visual character of the landscape 

by eliminating invasive species. 

Under this alternative, fire and fuels management actions would allow the use of wildfire or prescribed fire; 

biomass removal; and mechanical, chemical, and biological treatments for fuels reduction. These actions 

would also be used to meet other multi-resource objectives. When needed, rehabilitation and restoration 

efforts specific to a fire event would be implemented to protect and sustain ecosystems. Fire suppression and 

fuel treatments in VRM Class I and II areas would detract from the existing visual elements of form, line, 

color, and texture. Depending on spatial arrangement, vegetation mosaics, and the activity’s proximity to key 

observation points, impacts from these management actions would typically be short term. Visual impacts 

from dead, standing, and down woody material caused by wildfire or prescribed burns would be short term in 

duration and depend on factors such as the intensity and extent of a given burn, the rate of decay of the dead 

material, and the size and density of vegetation burned. In the long term, fuel treatments would improve 

visual resource qualities by eliminating decadent stands and rejuvenating vegetation. 

Management actions that allowed forestland management for a diversity of forest product production, wood 

product sales, sawtimber sales, and cottonwood harvest would detract from the existing visual elements of 

form, line, color, and texture. Impacts would typically be short term and depend on the spatial arrangement, 

vegetation mosaics created, and the activity’s proximity to key observation points. 

Dispersed recreational use would increase in specific areas and be mitigated through recreation management 

actions such as limited use, creation of fee areas, or the establishment of developed recreation sites. Although 

other activities, such as oil and gas leasing, would impact visual characteristics in other developed recreation 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Visual Resources 

4-225

sites managed as ERMAs, these impacts would be mitigated through the implementation of BMPs. Impacts to 

visual resources from recreation management under this alternative would be minimal. 

Travel Management and OHV management actions under this alternative would allow motorized use on 

existing roads and trails unless otherwise designated in Open OHV areas. Open areas on approximately 2,000 

acres would allow contrasting linear features, which would introduce elements that drew the attention of the 

casual observer from the natural landscape. However, because the location of these Open areas would 

consider existing resources to avoid conflicts and unnecessary impacts, impacts to visual resources would be 

limited within these Open areas. Limited OHV use on existing roads and trails would protect visual resources 

from linear intrusions caused by route proliferation. Allowing one-time big game retrieval would create linear 

features that contrasted with the existing visual elements of the landscapes, attracted the attention of the 

casual observer, and detracted from the view. 

Development activities associated with wind energy development, utility or transportation systems 

development, and communication site development would alter the viewshed in areas within important 

resources (such as existing and proposed recreation sites and special designation areas) that contained 

important supplemental recreational values. These developments would impact visual resources by altering 

the typical VRM Class II and VRM Class III visual settings and creating elements that contrasted greatly with 

existing settings. The characteristics and number of developments would create a large footprint not only in 

the local affected areas but on a landscape setting as well. Development activities would alter the scenic 

qualities of an area and detract from typical visual settings by creating linear and focal visual intrusions on the 

horizon. Additionally, surface disturbances authorized by the BLM’s lands and realty program and associated 

with the construction of facilities and ROWs would impact visual resources. 

The clearing and grading of land associated with new construction and ROW construction would remove 

vegetation, which would alter the character of the visual landscape. However, if properly mitigated with 

BMPs, mitigation, and reclamation, some belowground utilities and some aboveground facilities would be 

compatible with VRM Class II areas (see the Reclamation Appendix). Surface disturbances and facilities 

construction would be approved in VRM Class II areas with adequate mitigation as long as they would not 

exceed the VRM Class II management objectives. Development associated with lands and realty actions 

would impact visual resources if activities within VRM Class IV objective areas dominated the landscape, 

overwhelmed casual observers, and deterred future visits. In a VRM Class IV objective area, every attempt 

would be made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and 

repetition of the basic elements of line, color, and form. Nonfederal lands acquired in visually sensitive areas, 

such as WSAs, would help protect the visual settings in these areas. Areas to be avoided would include VRM 

Class I areas, which would preserve the visual character of these areas. 

ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Limiting the extent of surface-disturbing activities under this alternative would prevent the degradation of the 

viewshed and improve visual qualities on the landscape by preventing alteration of the natural appearance of 

the landscape. 

Limiting the extent of surface-disturbing activities (not allowing harvesting of nonnative or native hay) under 

this alternative would prevent the short-term degradation of the viewshed and improve visual qualities on the 

landscape by preventing alteration of the natural appearance of the landscape. 

Allowing surface-disturbing or disruptive activities, mineral leasing, fencing of new spring developments, or 

installation of troughs or tanks in riparian and wetland areas would change the viewshed of the landscape by 

altering its natural state. Mitigation would be used to reduce the visual impacts and prevent visual degradation 

of the existing landscape. Properly mitigated activities would result in minor changes to the landscape and avoid 

attracting the attention of the casual observer. 

Management actions that allowed surface-disturbing activities to treat invasive species infestations would 

detract from the viewshed on a short-term basis by disrupting the line, color, and form of the natural 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Visual Resources 

4-226

vegetation in the area. However, in the long term, surface-disturbing activities authorized by these actions 

would contribute to the natural appearance of the landscape and enhance the visual character of the landscape 

by eliminating invasive species. In the long term, using Early Detection Rapid Response to designate priority 

treatment areas would contribute to a natural appearance that enhanced the visual character of the landscape. 

Under this alternative, fire and fuels management actions would allow the use of wildfire or prescribed fire; 

biomass removal; and mechanical, chemical, and biological treatments for fuels reduction. These actions 

would also be used to meet other multi-resource objectives. When needed, rehabilitation and restoration 

efforts specific to a fire event would be implemented to protect and sustain ecosystems. Fire suppression and 

fuel treatments in VRM Class I and II areas would detract from the existing visual elements of form, line, 

color, and texture. Depending on spatial arrangement, vegetation mosaics, and the activity’s proximity to key 

observation points, impacts from these management actions would typically be short term. Visual impacts 

from dead, standing, and down woody material caused by wildfire or prescribed burns would be short term in 

duration and depend on factors such as the intensity and extent of a given burn, the rate of decay of the dead 

material, and the size and density of vegetation burned. In the long term, fuel treatments would improve 

visual resource qualities by eliminating decadent stands and rejuvenating vegetation. 

Management actions that allowed forestland management for a diversity of forest product production, wood 

product sales, sawtimber sales, and cottonwood harvest would detract from the existing visual elements of 

form, line, color, and texture. Impacts would typically be short term and depend on the spatial arrangement, 

vegetation mosaics created, and the activity’s proximity to key observation points. 

New development would impact visual resources in VRM Class II, III, and IV areas. Closed, NSO, or timing 

stipulations that would be applied to all VRM Class I areas and VRM Class II designated areas would 

maintain the current scenic quality. These specific management actions would preserve or protect visual 

resources to the extent allowable under the VRM class objectives, with long-term impacts on scenic quality in 

these areas. Any development in VRM Class II areas would be mitigated to retain the scenic quality and 

avoid attracting the attention of the casual observer. Lasting the life of the well, periodic impacts would 

include dust and emissions from vehicles and facilities that contributed air pollution and haze in the region. 

The addition of structures (particularly wells, tanks, and power lines) to the landscape would have long-term 

impacts on the visual quality of the landscape by changing lines, colors, and textures of the landscape. Except 

where facilities were located on ridgelines, visual impacts of structures would be localized and only impact 

observers inside the viewsheds. Facilities placed on ridgelines would have a greater tendency to degrade 

multiple viewsheds because the structure extended above the horizon. Development activities would alter the 

character of the landscape by introducing contrasting elements against the natural landscape, which would be 

visually distracting to the casual observer. These management actions would alter the landscape from a 

predominately natural setting to a more industrialized setting by changing the area from one that is essentially 

free of human-made features to one dominated by roads, drill pads, and production facilities. 

Because VRM Class IV objectives allow major modifications of the existing character of the landscape, oil 

and gas development and production facilities and CBNG development would be compatible with these 

objectives. However, visual settings of some areas managed as VRM Class IV areas contain a high degree of 

naturally contrasting elements that create scenic landscapes. Oil, gas, and CBNG development in these areas 

would introduce contrasting elements of form, line, color, and texture, all of which would change the natural 

settings to an industrial setting. However, visual mitigation in the form of BMPs, mitigation, and conditions 

of approval would increase the compatibility of oil and gas development in VRM Class III and VRM Class 

IV areas. 

In the Howrey Island, Matthews, Dean S. Reservoir, Pumpkin Creek Ranch and Recreation Area, Glendive 

Short Pine OHV Area, Terry OHV Area, Strawberry Hill, Moorhead Recreation Area, Powder River Depot, 

Calypso, and Lewis and Clark SRMAs, resource activities would maintain or improve visual characteristics 

and mitigate resource damage. Management actions in proposed SRMAs would benefit visual resources by 

requiring avoidance for ROWs and requiring NSO or CSU stipulations for oil and gas leasing and 

development, which would require modification of the visual setting and projects and mitigation of impacts. 

Impacts to visual resources from recreation management actions would be minimal. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Visual Resources 

4-227

Open OHV areas on approximately 2,000 acres would allow contrasting linear features, which would 

introduce elements that drew the attention of the casual observer from the natural landscape. However, 

because the location of these Open areas would consider existing resources to avoid conflicts and unnecessary 

impacts, impacts to visual resources would be limited within these Open areas. Limited OHV use on existing 

roads and trails would protect visual resources from linear intrusions caused by route proliferation. Closing 

approximately 2,800 acres would protect visual resources from linear intrusions and result in the long-term 

enhancement of visual resources. 

Development activities associated with Lands and Realty management actions would include wind energy 

development, utility or transportation systems development, and communication site development. As a 

result, the viewshed would be altered in areas within important resources (such as existing and proposed 

recreation sites and special designation areas) that contained important supplemental recreational values. 

These developments would impact visual resources by altering the typical VRM Class II and VRM Class III 

visual settings and creating elements that contrasted greatly with existing settings. The characteristics and 

number of developments would create a large footprint not only in the local affected areas but on a landscape 

setting as well. Development activities would alter the scenic qualities of an area and detract from typical 

visual settings by creating linear and focal visual intrusions on the horizon. Additionally, surface disturbances 

authorized by the BLM’s lands and realty program and associated with the construction of facilities and 

ROWs would impact visual resources. 

The clearing and grading of land associated with new construction and ROW construction would remove 

vegetation, which would alter the character of the visual landscape. However, if properly mitigated with 

BMPs, mitigation, and reclamation, some belowground utilities and some aboveground facilities would be 

compatible with VRM Class II areas (see the Reclamation Appendix). Surface disturbances and facilities 

construction would be approved in VRM Class II areas with adequate mitigation as long as they would not 

exceed the VRM Class II management objectives. Development associated with lands and realty actions 

would impact visual resources if activities within VRM Class IV objective areas dominated the landscape, 

overwhelmed casual observers, and deterred future visits. In a VRM Class IV objective area, every attempt 

would be made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and 

repetition of the basic elements of line, color, and form. Nonfederal lands acquired in visually sensitive areas, 

such as WSAs, would help protect the visual settings in these areas. Areas to be avoided would include VRM 

Class I areas, which would preserve the visual character of these areas. 

Designated ACECs would protect important resource values and limit major surface-disturbing activities. 

These actions would preserve and protect visual resources to the extent allowable under the VRM class 

objectives, with long-term impacts on scenic quality in these areas. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

VRM has been affected by past land use, oil and gas development, range improvement projects, communication 

sites, ROWs, and current management actions. Prior to NEPA of 1969 and the Federal Land and Policy 

Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, the quality of scenic values was not a major issue; subsequently, land 

managers and private landowners did not often consider management of visual resources. Railroad and highway 

construction and other surface-disturbing activities degraded scenic landscape values through the creation of 

visual intrusions on the historic Great Plains landscape of public, private, and state lands. 

Oil and gas development and other surface-disturbing activities have affected visual resources through the 

creation of roads and facilities. As human populations increase and expand in the future, so would the impacts 

of the infrastructure needed to support those populations. This infrastructure would continue to create visual 

intrusions that would impact the scenic quality of the natural landscape. 

Future actions that affected visual resources would include oil and gas development, wind energy projects, 

power and pipeline projects, and communication towers. In combination with identical or similar activities on 

state or private land, oil and gas development, wind energy, and other surface-disturbing activities would result 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Visual Resources 

4-228

in cumulative visual impacts that would degrade the scenic quality of landscapes through associated roads and 

facilities and barren ground (particularly in areas of checkerboard and other intermixed land ownership 

patterns). These impacts would be caused primarily by surface disturbance in combination with other activities 

on federal and nonfederal lands. Some developments constructed on lands outside federal jurisdiction would 

alter the surrounding landscape to the point of exceeding prescribed VRM objectives. This incremental damage 

and loss of visual integrity would result in a landscape altered from a natural setting to an industrial setting, 

which would overwhelm the casual observer or recreationist and impact their experiences on BLMadministered land. 

Recreationists depend on the visual setting in which they recreate to enhance their outdoor experience. A 

decrease in the visual viewshed could be caused by changes in the natural resource base, which could include 

higher temperatures that create a drought situation or dull color in the landscape, forest fires creating a black 

or stark landscape, low water levels or dry reservoirs or streams, or reduced air quality that degrades 

visibility. Vegetation changes could alter the landscape and its appearance to the recreationist or public land 

user. The extent of the potential impacts to the visual landscape would be highly dependent on the type and 

level of climate change that occurs. 

All of the alternatives (A through E) would contribute to the anticipated cumulative impacts. 

LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

The BLM inventory update of the planning area identified approximately 5,236 acres in the Devil’s Creek 

Common area that contained wilderness characteristics. Previous inventories identified approximately 1,960 

acres in the Terry Badlands area that were already recommended for wilderness in the Montana Statewide 

Wilderness Study Report, Volume II, Wilderness Study Area Specific Recommendations (BLM 1991b). Chapter 

3, Affected Environment, provides a general description of the inventoried areas. This section identifies the 

potential impacts to wilderness characteristics caused by implementing proposed management actions in the 

RMP. Impacts to wilderness characteristics are described in terms of how certain actions affect the wilderness 

qualities of naturalness, undeveloped conditions, opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation, or unique or supplemental qualities of a given area, such as significant cultural resources. 

 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Protective management actions for wilderness characteristics, wildlife and habitat, cultural, paleontological and 

geological resources, and special designations would have both direct and indirect impacts on wilderness 

characteristics. Stipulations and reclamation requirements would be placed on surface-disturbing activities to 

help protect those resource values. 

Surface-disturbing activities would affect wilderness characteristics to varying degrees, depending on the type 

of disturbance, amount, duration, location, and success of reclamation efforts. 

Fire suppression activities would be expected under all alternatives. Impacts from the use of mechanical 

equipment for construction of firelines, safety zones, and other activities would be expected to degrade 

naturalness in the short-term. Rehabilitation efforts would mitigate this in the long-term. Planning for the role of 

wildland fire as an essential ecological process and natural change agent should be considered during future fire 

management planning efforts. 

Livestock grazing can impact native biological communities and often requires developments to accomplish 

allotment objectives. Impacts to primitive recreation would also be expected from cattle congregation in 

recreation use areas, which could create conflict between recreation users and cattle. Achieving or maintaining 

Standards for Rangeland Health (BLM 2011f) would benefit wilderness characteristics by maintaining and 

enhancing natural environments. Removing unnatural features and rehabilitating any human disturbances 

already within the area would further enhance the area for naturalness. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Visual Resources 

4-229

Management of nonnative, invasive species would have both short- and long-term impacts to naturalness and 

the visitor experience. Monitoring for this and other natural conditions in combination with monitoring for 

visitor use and impacts would enhance short- and long-term impacts to naturalness and chances for solitude and 

primitive or unconfined recreation. 

Future travel management planning proposed under all of the action alternatives would use proactive steps to 

inventory, designate, and maintain a sustainable transportation system. 

The Terry Badlands area would be managed as the current Terry Badlands WSA and management actions 

would be monitored or regulated to prevent degradation of the natural qualities. The area would be managed 

according to VRM Class I objectives to prevent impairment of wilderness suitability and protect current 

wilderness characteristics. 

ALTERNATIVE A (DEVIL’S CREEK COMMON AREA ONLY): 

Under Alternative A, no lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed to preserve and enhance the 

apparent naturalness and the opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation. The area would 

be vulnerable to development. Oil and gas leasing and ROWs would be allowed. Future demand for ROWs to 

provide legal access to private lands and for roads, transmission lines, and other agency facilities could be likely 

with the mixed ownership. The area would be managed according to Class II VRM on 5,127 acres and Class III 

VRM on 109 acres. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Under Alternative B, approximately 5,236 acres would be managed to preserve and enhance the apparent 

naturalness and the opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation (wilderness 

characteristics). 

Although these areas would potentially be affected by resource conflicts that would potentially be inconsistent 

with the retention of wilderness characteristics, the BLM would apply management to preserve these 

characteristics to the extent practicable under this alternative. The potential for impacts to wilderness 

characteristics would be reduced more under Alternative B than any other alternative because the alternative 

projects the lowest acreage of surface disturbance among the alternatives. 

Oil and gas leasing would be allowed only with an NSO stipulation on 5,236 acres, with no exceptions, waivers 

or modifications (WEMs) allowed. Surface-disturbing activities, including ROWs, would not be allowed on 

5,236 acres. These actions would eliminate or minimize physical disturbance and visual intrusions to the area, 

thereby protecting wilderness characteristics. 

Managing VRM to meet VRM Class II objectives would allow only minor changes to the landscape that would 

remain unnoticeable to the average person. Retaining the natural setting would benefit opportunities for 

primitive recreation or solitude by offering escape from the sights and sounds of civilization. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Under Alternative C, oil and gas leasing would be allowed on approximately 5,044 acres with a CSU stipulation 

and lease terms. While these activities would potentially be inconsistent with retention of wilderness 

characteristics, the BLM would apply management to preserve these characteristics to the extent practicable. 

Potential affects to wilderness characteristics during exploration, drilling, production, and abandonment would 

have to be mitigated to meet the goal and objectives of classifications for a VRM Class II area and the goals of 

lands with wilderness characteristics. Energy development would have to be closely mitigated and monitored to 

ensure that the current level of wilderness characteristics were protected and maintained. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Visual Resources 

4-230

ALTERNATIVE D 

Under Alternative D, oil and gas leasing would be allowed on approximately 5,044 acres with a CSU stipulation 

and lease terms. While this would potentially be inconsistent with retention of wilderness characteristics, the 

BLM would apply management to preserve these characteristics to the extent practicable. Potential affects to 

wilderness characteristics during exploration, drilling, production, and abandonment would have to be mitigated 

to meet the goal and objectives of classifications for a VRM Class II area and the goals of lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Energy development would have to be closely mitigated and monitored to ensure that the current 

level of wilderness characteristics were protected and maintained. 

ALTERNATIVE E 

Under Alternative E, oil and gas leasing would be allowed on approximately 5,236 acres with a CSU 

stipulation. The BLM would apply management to preserve these characteristics in accordance with the goal for 

lands with wilderness characteristics areas. Although development potential is low, potential affects to 

wilderness characteristics during exploration, drilling, production, and abandonment would have to be mitigated 

to meet the goals and objectives of classifications for VRM Class II areas and the goals for lands with 

wilderness characteristics. 

RESOURCE USES 

This section contains a description of potential impacts to existing human uses of resources in the planning area 

and follows the order of topics addressed in Chapter 2. These topics are as follows: 

 Facilities, 

 Forestry and Woodland Products, 

 Livestock Grazing, 

 Minerals, 

o Coal, 

o Oil, Gas, and Geothermal, 

o Locatable Minerals, 

o Mineral Materials, 

 Recreation, 

 Renewable Energy, 

 Transportation, 

 Travel Management and OHV Use, and 

 Lands and Realty

o Land Use Authorizations, and

o Land Tenure Adjustment (including Access). 

FACILITIES 

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 

Facilities management entails facility design, construction, and maintenance for administrative, recreation, and 

communication facilities; buildings; and hazard class dams. 

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following: 

 facilities maintenance funding often does not allow BLM to meet all maintenance obligations; 

 facilities would continue to be maintained with priority placed on public safety and health and to 

prevent accrual of deferred maintenance; 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Facilities 

4-231

 additional recreation facilities would be constructed, as needed, to support anticipated increases in 

recreational use demands; 

 recreation facility maintenance is expected to increase based on anticipated increases in recreational 

use demands; 

 facility maintenance is expected to increase as facilities age; 

 facility design and construction would incorporate the BLM’s sustainability requirements; and 

 facility design, construction, and maintenance would consider resource programs to minimize impacts. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Facility design, location, construction, or maintenance would be affected by management actions under all 

alternatives. Facilities that did not maintain, restore, or improve a sensitive resource would need to be mitigated, 

redesigned, sited in acceptable alternative locations, or, in some cases, denied altogether. The limitations and 

restrictions placed on facility proposals would depend on the locations and types of sensitive resources and the 

potential environmental impacts to those resources. Proposals that required limitations or restrictions would 

incur time delays, greater costs for project development, or increased maintenance (depending on the need for 

additional maintenance to ensure efficacy of these protective features). 

FORESTRY AND WOODLAND PRODUCTS 

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 

Based on data from the Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools Project (LANDFIRE) 

Vegetation Cover Types, it is estimated that there are approximately 108,000 acres of coniferous forestland on 

BLM-administered lands in the planning area. However, access issues; equipment operability challenges; 

merchantability specifications; market conditions; economics; and soils, riparian, visual, cultural, WSA, and 

wildlife restrictions would prevent the availability of all acres for treatments or commercial harvest. For this 

analysis, it is assumed that 25 percent of forestland acres (27,000 acres) would be available for the harvest of 

commercial sawtimber. 

Based on monitoring evaluations, probable sale quantity (PSQ) values for all alternatives would be adjusted in 

response to unforeseen events such as wildfires, insect and disease outbreaks, up-to-date inventory information, 

impacts to forest and woodland resources from changing climate conditions. 

 

The potential for impacts is directly related to PSQ: higher PSQs signify that either a larger area would be 

treated or the same area would be managed more intensively. Consequently, alternatives with higher PSQs are 

more likely to impact, directly or indirectly, other resources. 

Pre-European settlement forest conditions, characterized by open, park-like ponderosa pine stands and highfrequency, low-intensity fire return intervals, represent a stable and functional set of ecological conditions for 

healthy forests and woodlands (e.g., the Historic Range of Variability). 

Hazardous fuel loadings and increased levels of insect and disease activity would increase the need to manage 

forests and woodlands throughout the life of the plan. 

The implementation of mitigation measures and specialized design features would reduce the impacts to other 

resources and resource uses (including soils, vegetation, watersheds, fisheries, wildlife habitat, recreation, 

cultural sites, and visual integrity). 

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources, reviews of 

existing literature, and information provided by other agencies and institutions. The discussion of impacts is 

based on the best available data. Knowledge of the planning area and professional judgment, based on 

observation and analysis of conditions and responses in similar areas, are used to infer environmental impacts 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Forestry and Woodland Products 

4-232

where data is limited. Acre figures and other numbers used in the analysis are approximate estimates for 

comparison and analytical purposes only and do not reflect exact measurements or precise calculations. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Evaluating activities on a case-by-case basis prior to authorization of surface-disturbing activities would impact 

the location, timing, and type of vegetation management activity. Protection measures for soil stability, 

compaction, and erosion would impact forest management by restricting or preventing implementation of 

treatments in areas determined to have sensitive soils, unstable slopes, or steep topography. 

Direct and indirect impacts to water, soil, and riparian resources from timber harvest and other forest 

management activities would be mitigated by following the Montana Streamside Management Zone Law and 

adhering to Water Quality BMPs for Montana Forests (Logan 2001) (see the Forestry and Woodland Products 

Appendix). Measures to protect water quality, soil, and riparian resources would impact the overall cost, timing, 

and location of transportation and logging systems and reduce or eliminate timber volume availability in some 

areas. 

Vegetation management actions that required consistency with specific plans under all alternatives would 

alter and increase the total cost of forest management treatments (e.g., season and timing of operations, 

herbicide application, and monitoring). 

Implementing Integrated Weed Management strategies, invasive vegetation species (weed) management 

prescriptions, and preventative measures (including additional stipulations such as washing equipment, postproject weed inventories, or the treatment of project areas), would decrease weed-seed proliferation 

throughout the planning area, thus lowering the overall threat of spreading weeds. Although initial application 

of weed management strategies would increase forest and woodland treatment costs, proactive control of 

weeds on BLM-administered forestlands would decrease overall potential future costs. 

Proactive management of habitat for threatened, endangered, and special status plant, aquatic, and wildlife 

species would alter the size, scale, and timing of forest and woodland treatments. In some cases, restrictions 

would prevent any management activities designed to reduce stand density and improve forest and woodland 

health. Subsequently, some forest and woodland areas in need of forest health restoration and hazardous fuels 

reduction projects would not be treated, which would cause further deterioration of vigor and a continued 

departure from pre-settlement conditions. However, the impacts of these actions would depend on the 

individual species in need of protection and its specific habitat requirements. 

Woody and non-woody vegetation mechanical thinning, biomass removal, and chemical and biological 

treatments would allow the implementation of hazardous fuels reduction treatments; subsequently, stand 

density levels, the likelihood of stand-replacing wildfires, and the risk of degradation to or the complete loss 

of forest and woodland resources would be reduced. 

BLM policy prioritizes fire management activities by potential risks to life and property within the planning 

area. Prioritizing fire treatment areas would result in evaluations of different forest and woodland types with 

multiple resource goals, which would subsequently promote forest restoration across the landscape. However, 

some areas would not be a top priority for prescribed fire activities because they were not located near high 

priority urban interface communities. Consequently, some forested areas would not be treated and 

subsequently continue to decline in vigor and resilience to disturbances (e.g., wildfire, insects, and disease). 

Requiring an assessment of stand conditions and desired future conditions for all proposed forest and 

woodland management activities would ensure that an accurate inventory and health evaluation was 

completed for all projects. Obtaining information regarding stocking levels and stand attributes would assist 

in achieving management objectives to maintain and promote forest stand structures with large trees 

appropriate to forest types and successional stages and restore forests and woodlands toward a more natural 

forest condition class consistent with the Historic Range of Variability for each species. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Forestry and Woodland Products 

4-233

Prioritizing forest health restoration projects that reduced hazardous fuel loadings and improved resiliency to 

disturbances from wildfires, insects, and diseases (including impacts from climate change) would ensure that 

forest and woodland areas that deviated most from historical pre-settlement conditions and in serious need of 

forest management treatments, would be treated first. 

Considering wildlife habitat, watershed health, soils stability, local economic opportunities, recreational use, 

public safety, hazardous fuels, visual integrity, and any other relevant concerns before implementing forest 

management treatments would ensure that other resource values would be recognized and evaluated before 

removing live or dead trees. 

Avoiding impacts to significant paleontological and cultural resources (in accordance with Sections 106 and 

110 of NHPA), would reduce the efficacy of forest and woodland treatments by redesigning or canceling 

projects. As a result, this action would decrease or eliminate some treatments that improved forest health and 

the availability of forest products. 

Projects in highly visible or heavily used recreation areas would require mitigation measures to reduce the 

impacts of visual contrasts, which would subsequently decrease or eliminate some treatments that improved 

forest health and the availability of forest products. 

Grazing management actions designed to maintain or improve vegetative conditions would reduce the 

mortality and growth deformity of seedling and sapling trees caused by livestock foraging and trampling. 

Localized grazing in dry conifer forest and woodland areas would reduce the biomass and density of 

understory grasses that otherwise outcompete conifer seedlings and prevent dense tree recruitment; 

subsequently, this action would contribute to overstocked forests and changes in tree species composition 

(Belsky and Blumenthal 1997). In areas of heavy grazing, dense conifer encroachment into adjacent nonforest areas would occur. 

Implementation and planning to identify specific roads and trails for motorized use in areas designated 

Limited OHV areas would ensure that forest and woodland areas with young seedlings were closed to OHV 

use, which would prevent damage, growth deformities, and mortality caused by motorized vehicles. 

Managing the BLM’s transportation system to reduce impacts to natural resources from authorized roads and 

trails would result in redesign, rerouting, closure, or decommissioning of roads that contributed to resource 

impacts; thereby increasing costs and restricting or eliminating some treatments that would improve forest 

health and the availability of forest products. 

Although management actions that preserved or enhanced wilderness values of the WSAs in the planning 

area would prohibit removal of forest products, they would permit some management treatments that 

improved the health of forest and woodland vegetation. Subsequently, these actions would allow tree removal 

when necessary for insect and disease control or in emergencies involving wildfires or prescribed fires 

burning outside of designated boundaries. 

ALTERNATIVE A 

Avoiding mechanical treatments on slopes greater than 15 percent and highly erodible soils, and restricting the 

use of ground-based harvesting equipment to slopes less than 40 percent would limit or prohibit some forest 

treatment activities. The impacts of these actions would increase total costs and alter management activities; 

including the size, scale, type, and timing (e.g., temporary skid and haul road layout, skidding distances, cutting 

unit design, harvest system requirements, season of operations, mitigation measures, and silvicultural 

prescriptions) of treatments designed to improve forest health. Prohibiting surface-disturbing activities would 

reduce the ability to implement the appropriate silvicultural prescription for stand conditions; consequently, 

forests and woodlands would not be managed for the maintenance or improvement of vigor and structural 

diversity and subsequently continue to decline in vigor, productivity, and resilience to disturbances (e.g., 

wildfire, insects, and disease). 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Forestry and Woodland Products 

4-234

Prohibiting surface-disturbing activities within 0.25 miles of sharp-tailed and sage-grouse leks would 

eliminate timber availability and prohibit forest and woodland management activities designed to improve 

overall forest health in these areas. Forests and woodlands in need of silvicultural treatments would continue 

to decline in vigor, productivity, and resilience to disturbances (e.g., wildfire, insects, and disease). In 

addition, forest management projects designed to reduce conifer encroachment and enhance grouse habitat 

would be limited. 

Allowing surface-disturbing activities in areas of invasive species infestations on BLM-administered lands 

would not restrict project area locations and would not increase the overall cost of forest and woodland 

management activities. 

Requiring a case-by-case review of road crossings and new culvert installations or replacements for adequate 

fish passage would increase the overall cost of forest and woodland management activities. 

Implementing prescribed fire as a management tool in Fire Management Categories B and C would improve 

forest health by reducing fuels and the likelihood of stand-replacing crown fires. This action would also 

improve the resiliency and ecological functions of forests and woodlands. Requiring the removal or treatment 

of pre-commercial and commercial material from forest and woodland areas in FR/CC 3 areas prior to 

prescribed fire activities would ensure that silvicultural treatments designed to meet specific management 

objectives, trees densities, and phenotypic selection would be met prior to implementation of prescribed fire 

treatments. Limiting prescribed fire to areas already treated with hand or mechanical treatments would ensure 

that forest and woodland resources attained or maintained proper stocking levels and retained stand structures 

that accommodated prescribed fire without extensive resource damage or loss or a high-intensity, standreplacing event. 

Restricting the use of wildfire (unplanned ignitions) to Fire Management Categories C and D would limit the 

number of acres that benefitted from reductions in stand density and site preparation for revegetation and 

establishment of seedlings. 

Forestland management for areas with 10 percent or more canopy cover and wood product sale management 

under this alternative would restrict proactive management treatments designed to improve forest health by 

reducing stand densities and restoring forests and woodlands to pre-European settlement conditions to areas 

with fire or insect-affected trees. Without proactive forest management treatments, forests and woodlands 

would continue to decline in vigor, productivity, and resiliency to disturbances (e.g., wildfire, insects, and 

disease). As a result, the majority of forest areas would shift toward late successional forests and woodlands 

and exhibit conditions out of character with the Historic Range of Variability. Forest and woodland areas 

would be at risk for extensive resource damage or loss due to landscape-level insect outbreaks or highintensity wildfires. Restricting wood product sales for firewood, post and poles, and Christmas trees to 

designated areas would reduce the opportunity for these small forest management projects across the planning 

area. Restricting the harvest of cottonwood trees to those areas threatened by insects or diseases or where 

human safety was a factor would prevent some treatments designed to restore the health and resiliency of 

cottonwood stands. 

Temporarily closing livestock grazing after prescribed or wildfire for at least 1 growing season would not 

provide enough time for revegetation and seedling establishment in forests and woodlands. Newly established 

vegetation and seedlings would be subject to extensive damage caused by livestock foraging and trampling, 

which would result in mortality or growth deformity. Allowing livestock grazing in dry conifer forest and 

woodland areas would encourage conifer encroachment into adjacent non-forest areas by reducing 

competition with grasses. 

Allowing wood product sales in the Howrey Island ACEC with restrictions would increase the availability of 

forest products and permit management treatments designed to improve overall forest health and resiliency to 

disturbances (e.g., wildfire, insects, and disease). 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Forestry and Woodland Products 

4-235

Allowing management of forest and woodland products, biomass, and hazardous fuels in designated ACECs 

would increase timber volume availability and permit management treatments designed to improve the 

overall forest health and resiliency of forests and woodlands to disturbances (e.g., wildfire, insects, and 

disease).

ALTERNATIVE B 

Prohibiting surface-disturbing activities on slopes 25 percent or greater, sensitive soils, and in riparian and 

wetland areas would eliminate most forest treatment activities and increase the difficulty and expense of 

accomplishing desired forest health management goals. Prohibiting surface-disturbing activities would reduce 

the ability to implement the appropriate silvicultural prescription for stand conditions; consequently, forests and 

woodlands would not be managed for the maintenance or improvement of vigor and structural diversity and 

subsequently continue to decline in vigor, productivity, and resilience to disturbances (e.g., wildfire, insects, 

and disease). 

Prohibiting surface-disturbing activities in Big Game Crucial Winter Range and in areas of invasive species 

infestations on BLM-administered lands would restrict project area locations and increase the overall costs of 

forest and woodland management activities. 

Requiring new road construction and replacement of stream-crossing structures for adequate fish passage and 

habitat protection would increase the overall cost of forest and woodland management activities. 

Allowing surface-disturbing activities with specialized design features to maintain the functionality of sharptailed and sage-grouse nesting habitat and lek sites within 4 miles would restrict or modify, but not preclude, 

forest and woodland management activities and timber availability in these areas. These actions would 

increase the expense and difficulty of accomplishing forest and woodland health management goals by 

limiting or delaying the activities, forcing redesign of treatments, or requiring the implementation of timing 

buffer mitigation measures. 

Prohibiting surface-disturbing or disruptive activities within 0.5 miles of raptor nest sites under this 

alternative would eliminate timber volume availability and prohibit forest and woodland management 

activities designed to improve overall forest health in these areas. Consequently, forests and woodlands in 

need of silvicultural treatments would continue to decline in vigor, productivity, and resilience to disturbances 

(e.g., wildfire, insects, and disease). 

Prohibiting the use of prescribed fire as a management tool on approximately 2.5 million acres in the planning 

area would not allow treatments designed to improve forest and woodland health in these areas. Requiring the 

removal or treatment of pre-commercial and commercial material from forest and woodland areas in FR/CC 3 

areas prior to prescribed fire activities would ensure that silvicultural treatments designed to meet specific 

management objectives, trees densities, and phenotypic selection would be met prior to implementation of 

prescribed fire treatments. Limiting prescribed fire to areas already treated with hand or mechanical 

treatments would ensure that forest and woodland resources attained or maintained proper stocking levels and 

retained stand structures that accommodated prescribed fire without extensive resource damage or loss or a 

high-intensity, stand-replacing event. 

Authorizing the use of wildfire (unplanned ignitions) adjacent to the Custer National Forest and Charles M. 

Russell National Wildlife Refuge when consistent with forest management goals and objectives and where 

the risks of degradation to or the complete loss of forest and woodland resources were minimal would result 

in resource benefits that included lower stand density levels and preparation of sites for vegetation and 

seedling establishment. 

Forestland management and wood product sale management, under which treatments would only be allowed 

in situations in which trees posed a safety hazard or were affected by insects) would cause the majority of 

forest areas to shift toward late successional forests and woodlands. Forests and woodlands would continue to 

depart from characteristic pre-settlement conditions, which would contribute to declines in forest and 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Forestry and Woodland Products 

4-236

woodland health, changes in species composition, increases in stand densities and fuel loadings, and increases 

in the susceptibility of forests and woodlands to insect and disease epidemics. Trees would continue to grow 

on sites in which they were historically limited by natural disturbances. Competition for resources (e.g., 

sunlight, water, and nutrients) would increase stress to vegetation across the entire landscape, which would 

result in declining vigor, productivity, and resiliency to disturbances (e.g., wildfire, insects, and disease). 

Consequently, forests and woodlands would exhibit conditions out of character with the Historic Range of 

Variability. Forest and woodland areas would be at risk for extensive resource damage or loss due to 

landscape-level insect outbreaks or high-intensity wildfires. 

Restricting the harvest of cottonwood trees to those areas threatened by insects or diseases or where human 

safety was a factor would prevent some treatments designed to restore the health and resiliency of 

cottonwood stands.

Prohibiting wood product sales in the Howrey Island ACEC would decrease the availability of forest products 

and exclude management treatments designed to improve the overall forest health and resiliency to 

disturbances (e.g., wildfire, insects, and disease). 

Allowing forest management treatments that provided for the improvement or maintenance of ecosystem 

functionality in designated ACECs (as long as the improvements would not damage the values of the ACECs) 

would increase timber volume availability and permit management treatments designed to improve overall 

forest health and the resiliency of forests and woodlands to disturbances (e.g., wildfire, insects, and disease). 

Temporarily closing livestock grazing after wildfire, prescribed fire, or non-fire vegetative treatments for at 

least 2 growing seasons would not provide enough time for revegetation and seedling establishment in forests 

and woodlands. Newly established seedlings would be subject to extensive damage caused by livestock 

foraging and trampling, which would result in mortality or growth deformity. Allowing livestock grazing in 

dry conifer forest and woodland areas would encourage conifer encroachment into adjacent non-forest areas 

by reducing competition with grasses. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Avoiding surface-disturbing activities on sensitive soils and slopes greater than 25 percent whenever possible 

would limit or prohibit some forest treatment activities. Consequently, these actions would increase total 

costs and alter management activities; including the size, scale, type, and timing (e.g., temporary skid and 

haul road layout, skidding distances, cutting unit design, harvest system requirements, season of operations, 

mitigation measures, and silvicultural prescriptions) of treatments designed to improve forest health. 

Avoiding surface-disturbing activities in riparian and wetland areas whenever possible would reduce or 

eliminate timber volume availability in some areas. However, if avoidance were not possible, activities would 

be subject to restrictions that would ensure water quality, soils, and riparian vegetation would be preserved or 

enhanced. 

Management actions that allowed surface-disturbing activities with specialized design features to maintain 

the functionality of sharp-tailed (within 2 miles) and sage-grouse nesting habitat and lek sites (within 3.1 

miles) would restrict or modify, but not preclude, forest and woodland management activities and timber 

availability in these areas. These actions would subsequently increase the expense and difficulty of 

accomplishing forest and woodland health management goals by limiting or delaying the activities, forcing 

redesign of treatments, or requiring the implementation of timing buffer mitigation measures. 

Allowing surface-disturbing activities in Big Game Crucial Winter Range and areas of invasive species 

infestations on BLM-administered lands only with approved mitigation measures in place would restrict 

project area locations and increase the overall cost of forest and woodland management activities. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Forestry and Woodland Products 

4-237

Prioritizing invasive species control using Early Detection Rapid Response would focus treatments on areas 

with new invasive vegetation species (weed) establishment, which would prevent rapid weed spread and 

landscape-level weed infestations in forests and woodlands and decrease potential future eradication costs. 

Under this alternative, allowing surface-disturbing or disruptive activities within 0.5 miles of raptor nest sites 

with specialized design features to minimize disturbance to nest sites would increase the difficulty and 

expense of accomplishing forest and woodland health management goals by limiting or delaying activities or 

requiring timing buffer mitigation measures. 

Management actions that required new construction or replacement of stream-crossing structures for adequate 

fish passage and habitat protection would increase the overall cost of forest and woodland management 

activities. 

Implementing prescribed fire as a management tool throughout the planning area would improve forest health 

by reducing fuels and the likelihood of stand-replacing crown fires, improving the resiliency and ecological 

functions of forests and woodlands, and preparing sites for vegetation establishment. Evaluating sites in 

FR/CC 3 areas to determine if mechanical treatments or pre-commercial or commercial thinning would be 

necessary to reduce heavy fuel loadings or remove merchantable forest products prior to prescribed fire 

activities would ensure that forest and woodland resources would attain or maintain proper stocking levels 

and retain stand structures that would accommodate prescribed fire without resource damage or a highintensity, stand-replacing event. 

Authorizing the use of wildfire (unplanned ignitions) in the planning area when consistent with forest 

management goals and objectives and where the risks of degradation to, or the complete loss of, forest and 

woodland resources would be minimal would result in resource benefits that included lower stand density 

levels and preparation of sites for vegetation and seedling establishment. 

Under Alternative C, forestlands would be managed for a diversity of forest products, sustainable yields, and 

the enhancement of forest and woodland resources. PSQs for commercial sawtimber would be established 

based on site-specific analysis and sale quantities of up to 650 thousand board feet per year (mbf/year) would 

be authorized. Implementing silvicultural treatments on forest and woodland areas would reduce the density 

of overstocked stands, which would reduce competitive stress for water, sunlight, and nutrients, and reduce 

the area’s susceptibility to insect attacks, disease, and stand-replacing fire. Lower stand density levels and 

increased sunlight would promote tree growth and vigor, as well as ponderosa pine and limber pine 

regeneration. Leaving healthy dominant and co-dominant trees would increase the large tree component of 

forests and woodlands within the planning area. Trees growing on sites where natural disturbance historically 

limited their presence would be treated to reflect characteristics of a pre-European settlement landscape. Sales 

for other forest products including post and poles, firewood, and Christmas trees would be allowed, which 

would facilitate the opportunity for these small forest management projects across the planning area. 

Allowing the harvest of cottonwood trees for hazard tree removal and as a tool to restore the health and 

resiliency of these stands would improve the functionality, vigor, and longevity of cottonwood forests. 

Forested vegetation would be affected by both timber and fire management activities, which would 

subsequently alter the FR/CC of the treatment area. Management treatments designed to reduce ladder fuels 

and understory vegetation buildup would lower the FR/CC of a project area and shift forests and woodlands 

toward fire return intervals and stand structures characteristic of vigorous pre-settlement conditions consistent 

with the Historic Range of Variability. After treatment, forests and woodlands would improve in vigor, 

productivity, and resiliency to disturbances (e.g., wildfire, insects, and disease). The risk for extensive 

resource damage or loss due to landscape-level insect outbreaks or high-intensity wildfires would be reduced. 

Insect and disease activity would be at endemic levels and fire activity would more closely resemble its 

historical natural role. 

Under this alternative, forests and woodlands would be managed for the maintenance or improvement of 

overall vigor, productivity, and structural diversity; to sustain and restore habitat diversity; to actively manage 

species composition, size, and age class distribution; and to implement treatments on forest areas with a high 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Forestry and Woodland Products 

4-238

risk for extensive stand mortality. This action would increase the availability of forest byproducts as a 

biomass fuel source or for conversion into manufactured wood products. 

Allowing wood product sales in the Howrey Island ACEC would increase forest products availability and 

permit management treatments designed to improve the overall forest health and resiliency to disturbances 

(e.g., wildfire, insects, and disease). 

Allowing forest management treatments that provided for the improvement or maintenance of ecosystem 

functionality in designated ACECs (as long as the improvements would not damage the values of ACECs) 

would increase timber volume availability and permit management treatments designed to improve overall 

forest health and the resiliency of forests and woodlands to disturbances (e.g., wildfire, insects, and disease). 

Closing livestock grazing after wildfire, prescribed fire, or non-fire vegetative treatments until the area 

attained identified vegetative objectives would reduce the damage to forest vegetation caused by livestock 

foraging and trampling, which would result in lower levels of seedling mortality and growth deformity. These 

actions would also facilitate rapid revegetation and seedling establishment in forests and woodlands. Longer 

closures of these areas would increase the likelihood of seedling survival and allow young trees the 

opportunity to grow tall enough to withstand grazing. Allowing livestock grazing in dry conifer forest and 

woodland areas would encourage conifer encroachment into adjacent non-forest areas by reducing 

competition with grasses. 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Under this alternative, avoiding surface-disturbing activities on sensitive soils and slopes greater than 25 

percent whenever possible would limit or prohibit some forest treatment activities. Consequently, these 

actions would increase total costs and alter management activities; including the size, scale, type, and timing 

(e.g., temporary skid and haul road layout, skidding distances, cutting unit design, harvest system 

requirements, season of operations, mitigation measures, and silvicultural prescriptions) of treatments 

designed to improve forest health. 

Avoiding surface-disturbing activities in riparian and wetland areas whenever possible would reduce or 

eliminate timber volume availability in some areas. However, if avoidance were not possible, activities would 

be subject to restrictions that ensured that water quality, soils, and riparian vegetation would be preserved or 

enhanced. 

Allowing surface-disturbing activities in Big Game Crucial Winter Range and in areas of invasive species 

infestation on BLM-administered lands only with approved mitigation measures in place would restrict 

project area locations and increase the overall cost of forest and woodland management activities. 

Requiring a case-by-case review of road crossings and new culvert installations or replacements to ensure 

adequate fish passage would increase the overall cost of forest and woodland management activities. 

Allowing surface-disturbing activities with specialized design features to maintain the functionality of sharptailed and sage-grouse nesting habitat and lek sites within 2 miles would restrict or modify, but not preclude, 

forest and woodland management activities and timber availability in these areas. These actions would 

increase the expense and difficulty of accomplishing forest and woodland health management goals by 

limiting or delaying the activities, forcing redesign of treatments, or requiring the implementation of timing 

buffer mitigation measures. 

Under this alternative, allowing surface-disturbing or disruptive activities within 0.5 miles of raptor nest sites 

with specialized design features to minimize disturbance to nest sites would limit or delay activities or require 

buffers with timing mitigation measures, which would increase the difficulty and expense of accomplishing 

forest and woodland health management goals. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Forestry and Woodland Products 

4-239

Implementing prescribed fire as a management tool throughout the planning area would improve forest health 

by reducing fuels and the likelihood of stand-replacing crown fires, improving the resiliency and ecological 

functions of forests and woodlands, and preparing sites for vegetation establishment. Evaluating sites in 

FR/CC 3 areas to determine if mechanical treatments or pre-commercial or commercial thinnings were 

necessary to reduce heavy fuel loadings or remove merchantable forest products prior to prescribed fire 

activities would ensure that forest and woodland resources would attain or maintain proper stocking levels 

and retain stand structures that would accommodate prescribed fire without resource damage or a highintensity, stand-replacing event. 

Authorizing the use of wildfire (unplanned ignitions) in the planning area when consistent with forest 

management goals and objectives and where the risks of degradation to or the complete loss of forest and 

woodland resources would be minimal would result in resource benefits that included lower stand density 

levels and preparation of sites for vegetation and seedling establishment. 

Forestlands would be managed for a diversity of forest products, sustainable yields, and the enhancement of 

forest and woodland resources. PSQs for commercial sawtimber would be established based on site-specific 

analysis, and sale quantities of up to 1,100 mbf/year would be authorized. Implementing silvicultural 

treatments on forest and woodland areas would reduce the density of overstocked stands, which would reduce 

competitive stress for water, sunlight, and nutrients, and reduce the area’s susceptibility to insect attacks, 

disease, and stand-replacing fire. Lower stand density and increased sunlight would promote tree growth and 

vigor and ponderosa pine and limber pine regeneration. Leaving healthy dominant and co-dominant trees 

would increase the large tree component of forests and woodlands within the planning area. Trees growing on 

sites where natural disturbance historically limited their presence would be treated to reflect characteristics of 

a pre-European settlement landscape. Allowing sales for other forest products (including post and poles, 

firewood, and Christmas trees) would facilitate opportunities for these small forest management projects 

across the planning area. Allowing the harvest of cottonwood trees for hazard tree removal and as a tool to 

restore the health and resiliency of these stands would improve the functionality, vigor, and longevity of 

cottonwood forests. 

Forested vegetation would be affected by both timber and fire management activities, which would alter the 

FR/CC of the treatment area. Management treatments designed to reduce ladder fuels and understory 

vegetation buildup would lower the FR/CC of a project area and shift forests and woodlands toward fire 

return intervals and stand structures characteristic of vigorous pre-settlement conditions consistent with the 

Historic Range of Variability. After treatment, forests and woodlands would improve in vigor, productivity, 

and resiliency to disturbances (e.g., wildfire, insects, and disease). The risk for extensive resource damage or 

loss due to landscape-level insect outbreaks or high-intensity wildfires would be reduced. Insect and disease 

activity would be at endemic levels and fire activity would more closely resemble its historical natural role. 

Managing forests and woodlands for the maintenance or improvement of overall vigor, productivity, and 

structural diversity; to sustain and restore habitat diversity; to actively manage species composition, size, and 

age class distribution; and to implement treatments on forest areas with a high risk for extensive stand 

mortality would increase the availability of forest byproducts as a biomass fuel source or for conversion into 

manufactured wood products. 

Closing livestock grazing after wildfire, prescribed fire, or non-fire vegetative treatments until established 

seed set the next growing season would not provide enough time for revegetation and seedling establishment 

in forests and woodlands. Newly established vegetation and seedlings would be subject to extensive damage 

caused by livestock foraging and trampling, which would result in mortality or growth deformity. Allowing 

livestock grazing in dry conifer forest and woodland areas would encourage conifer encroachment into 

adjacent non-forest areas by reducing competition with grasses. 

Allowing wood product sales in the Howrey Island ACEC would increase forest products availability and 

permit management treatments designed to improve the overall forest health and resiliency to disturbances 

(e.g., wildfire, insects, and disease). 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Forestry and Woodland Products 

4-240

Allowing management of forest and woodland products, biomass materials, and hazardous fuels in designated 

ACECs would increase timber volume availability and allow management treatments designed to improve 

overall forest health and forest and woodland resiliency to disturbances (e.g., wildfire, insects, and disease).

ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Avoiding surface-disturbing activities on sensitive soils and slopes greater than 25 percent whenever possible 

would limit or prohibit some forest treatment activities. Consequently, these actions would increase total 

costs and alter management activities; including the size, scale, type, and timing (e.g., temporary skid and 

haul road layout, skidding distances, cutting unit design, harvest system requirements, season of operations, 

mitigation measures, and silvicultural prescriptions) of treatments designed to improve forest health. 

Avoiding surface-disturbing activities within 300 feet of riparian and wetland areas whenever possible would 

reduce or eliminate timber volume availability in some areas. However, if avoidance were not possible, 

activities would be subject to restrictions that would ensure water quality, soils, and riparian vegetation would 

be preserved or enhanced. 

Allowing surface-disturbing activities in Big Game Crucial Winter Range and in areas of invasive species 

infestation on BLM-administered lands only with approved mitigation measures in place would restrict 

project area locations and increase the overall cost of forest and woodland management activities. 

Prioritizing invasive species control using Early Detection Rapid would focus treatments on areas with new 

weed establishment; which would prevent rapid weed spread and landscape-level infestations in forests and 

woodlands and decrease potential future eradication costs. 

Management actions that required new construction or replacement of stream-crossing structures for adequate 

fish passage and habitat protection would increase the overall cost of forest and woodland management 

activities. 

Allowing surface-disturbing activities with specialized design features to maintain sharp-tailed and sagegrouse nesting habitat and lek sites within 2 miles would restrict or modify, but not preclude, forest and 

woodland management activities and timber availability in these areas. These actions would increase the 

expense and difficulty of accomplishing forest and woodland health management goals by limiting or 

delaying the activities, forcing redesign of treatments, or requiring the implementation of timing buffer 

mitigation measures. 

Under this alternative, allowing surface-disturbing or disruptive activities within 0.5 miles of raptor nest sites 

with specialized design features to minimize disturbance to nest sites would limit or delay activities or require 

buffers with timing mitigation measures, which would increase the difficulty and expense of accomplishing 

forest and woodland health management goals. 

Implementing prescribed fire as a management tool throughout the planning area would improve forest health 

by reducing fuels and the likelihood of stand-replacing crown fires, improving the resiliency and ecological 

functions of forests and woodlands, and preparing sites for vegetation establishment. Evaluating sites in 

FR/CC 3 areas to determine if mechanical treatments or pre-commercial or commercial thinnings were 

necessary to reduce heavy fuel loadings or remove merchantable forest products prior to prescribed fire 

activities would ensure that forest and woodland resources would attain or maintain proper stocking levels 

and retain stand structures that would accommodate prescribed fire without resource damage or a highintensity, stand-replacing event. 

Authorizing the use of wildfire (unplanned ignitions) in the planning area when consistent with forest 

management goals and objectives and where the risks of degradation to or the complete loss of forest and 

woodland resources would be minimal would result in resource benefits that included lower stand density 

levels and preparation of sites for vegetation and seedling establishment. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Forestry and Woodland Products 

4-241

Forestlands would be managed for a diversity of forest products, sustainable yields, and the enhancement of 

forest and woodland resources. PSQs for commercial sawtimber would be established based on site-specific 

analysis, and sale quantities of up to 1,100 mbf/year would be authorized. Implementing silvicultural 

treatments on forest and woodland areas would reduce the density of overstocked stands, which would reduce 

competitive stress for water, sunlight, and nutrients, and reduce the area’s susceptibility to insect attacks, 

disease, and stand-replacing fire. Lower stand density and increased sunlight would promote tree growth and 

vigor and ponderosa pine and limber pine regeneration. Leaving healthy dominant and co-dominant trees 

would increase the large tree component of forests and woodlands within the planning area. Trees growing on 

sites where natural disturbance historically limited their presence would be treated to reflect characteristics of 

a pre-European settlement landscape. Allowing sales for other forest products (including post and poles, 

firewood, and Christmas trees) would facilitate opportunities for these small forest management projects 

across the planning area. Allowing the harvest of cottonwood trees for hazard tree removal and as a tool to 

restore the health and resiliency of these stands would improve the functionality, vigor, and longevity of 

cottonwood forests. 

Forested vegetation would be affected by both timber and fire management activities, which would alter the 

FR/CC of the treatment area. Management treatments designed to reduce ladder fuels and understory 

vegetation buildup would lower the FR/CC of a project area and shift forests and woodlands toward fire 

return intervals and stand structures characteristic of vigorous pre-settlement conditions consistent with the 

Historic Range of Variability. After treatment, forests and woodlands would improve in vigor, productivity, 

and resiliency to disturbances (e.g., wildfire, insects, and disease). The risk for extensive resource damage or 

loss due to landscape-level insect outbreaks or high-intensity wildfires would be reduced. Insect and disease 

activity would be at endemic levels and fire activity would more closely resemble its historical natural role. 

Managing forests and woodlands for the maintenance or improvement of overall vigor, productivity, and 

structural diversity; to sustain and restore habitat diversity; to actively manage species composition, size, and 

age class distribution; and to implement treatments on forest areas with a high risk for extensive stand 

mortality would increase the availability of forest byproducts as a biomass fuel source or for conversion into 

manufactured wood products. 

Closing livestock grazing after wildfire, prescribed fire, or non-fire vegetative treatments until the area 

attained identified vegetative objectives would reduce the damage to forest vegetation caused by livestock 

foraging and trampling, which would result in lower levels of seedling mortality and growth deformity. These 

actions would also facilitate rapid revegetation and seedling establishment in forests and woodlands. Longer 

closures of these areas would increase the likelihood of seedling survival and allow young trees the 

opportunity to grow tall enough to withstand grazing. Allowing livestock grazing in dry conifer forest and 

woodland areas would encourage conifer encroachment into adjacent non-forest areas by reducing 

competition with grasses. 

Prohibiting wood product sales in the Howrey Island ACEC would decrease forest product availability and 

exclude management treatments designed to improve the overall forest health and resiliency to disturbances 

(e.g., wildfire, insects, and disease). 

Allowing forest management treatments that provided for the improvement or maintenance of ecosystem 

functionality in designated ACECs (as long as the improvements would not damage the values of ACECs) 

would increase timber volume availability and permit management treatments designed to improve overall 

forest health and the resiliency of forests and woodlands to disturbances (e.g., wildfire, insects, and disease). 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Historically, the majority of forested areas in the planning area consisted of open, park-like stands of 

ponderosa pine and juniper intermixed with hardwood draws. Mature stands were dominated by large 

ponderosa pine trees with an understory of native bunchgrasses and low shrubs. For at least the last 10,000 

years, American Indians supplemented lightning-caused fire with their own fires to encourage foods to grow 

in the understory (such as berries), to open the forest to attract game and simplify hunting, and to prevent 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Forestry and Woodland Products 

4-242

surreptitious attacks by enemies in heavy forest cover (Clark and Sampson 1995). Prior to European 

settlement, fires ignited by lightning and tribes burned frequently throughout southeastern Montana, with firereturn intervals of 35 to 40 years (Arno and Gruell 1983). High frequency, low intensity fires kept forests 

open and removed understory vegetation, down material, and tree regeneration, resulting in irregularly shaped 

patches and groups of trees varying in size and density across the landscape. Impacts of past actions, natural 

events, and region-wide decisions (e.g., fire suppression, insect and disease activity, grazing) that affected 

forests are described in Chapter 3, Affected Environment. 

In the early 1900s, aggressive fire suppression became the management rule on public lands to protect human 

lives, property, and forests from the devastating impacts of wildfires. Implementation of fire control strategies 

dramatically interrupted the historical role of fire in ponderosa pine ecosystems, which resulted in species 

composition changes and increased stand density levels. Subsequently, vegetative communities shifted toward 

late successional stage forests and woodlands. Forests and woodlands have declined in overall health, 

productivity, and functionality, and are therefore less resilient to disturbances (e.g., wildfire, insects, and 

disease). Overstocked stands experience increased stress due to competition for water, sunlight, and nutrients. 

These conditions have increased the susceptibility of forested areas to insect attacks, disease, and standreplacing fires. The virtual exclusion of fire in the more than 100 years since Euro-Americans settled the region 

has been a major factor in ecosystem changes that today pose an almost-certain risk of high-intensity, standreplacing wildfire (Clark and Sampson 1995). 

Horses, cattle, and sheep have intensively grazed eastern Montana since the mid-1850s (Hansen et al. 2008) 

and have removed fine grass fuels that historically carried low-intensity fires over large areas annually (Clark 

and Sampson 1995). Because of both fire suppression and livestock grazing, juniper became established on 

sites that were previously grass covered and maintained by periodic wildfires (Smeins and Fuhlendorf 1997). 

Today, trees are growing on sites in which natural disturbance historically limited their presence. 

Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, sales of commercial sawtimber would be restricted to those areas with fire or insectaffected trees; therefore, only a small percentage of forest and woodland acres in need of forest health 

restoration projects would be treated. Proactive silvicultural treatments designed to improve forest health by 

reducing stand densities and restoring forests and woodlands to pre-European settlement conditions would be 

restricted only to areas with fire or insect-affected trees. As a result, forests and woodlands would continue to 

depart from the Historic Range of Variability, which would contribute to a decline in forest health, species 

composition changes, increased stand density levels and fuel loadings, and increased susceptibility of these 

areas to insect and disease epidemics. Competition for resources (e.g., sunlight, water, and nutrients) would 

increase stress to forest and woodland vegetation across the entire landscape, which would result in declining 

vigor, productivity, and resiliency to disturbances (e.g., wildfire, insects, disease, and climate change). 

Consequently, forest and woodland areas would be at risk for extensive resource damage or loss due to 

landscape-level insect outbreaks or high-intensity wildfires. 

Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, no sales of special forest products (e.g., firewood, post and poles, Christmas trees) or 

commercial sawtimber would be allowed (except in situations in which trees posed a safety hazard or were 

affected by insects). The implementation of proactive silvicultural treatments designed to reduce fuel 

accumulations and restore stands to desired conditions by improving the overall vigor, productivity, and 

resiliency of forested vegetation would not be an option under this alternative. As a result, forests and 

woodlands would continue to depart from the Historic Range of Variability, which would contribute to a 

decline in forest health, changes in species composition, increased stand densities and fuel loadings, and 

increased susceptibility of these areas to insect and disease epidemics. Trees would continue to grow on sites 

in which natural disturbances historically limited their presence. Competition for resources (e.g., sunlight, 

water, and nutrients) would increase stress to vegetation across the entire landscape, which would result in 

declining vigor, productivity, and resiliency to disturbances (e.g., wildfire, insects, disease, and climate 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Forestry and Woodland Products 

4-243

change). Consequently, forest and woodland areas would be at risk for extensive resource damage or loss due 

to landscape-level insect outbreaks or high-intensity wildfires. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C would provide a moderate volume of commercial forest products and contribute to long-term 

forest health improvement. Implementation of silvicultural treatments in forests and woodlands would reduce 

the density of overstocked stands, which would subsequently reduce competitive stress for water, sunlight, 

and nutrients, and reduce the susceptibility of forests and woodlands to insect attacks, disease, and standreplacing fire. Lower stand density levels and increased sunlight would promote tree growth and ponderosa 

pine and limber pine regeneration. Alternative C would contribute to the overall vigor, productivity, and 

resiliency of forest and woodland vegetation in the planning area and the restoration of conditions 

characteristic of the Historical Range of Variability. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D would provide a moderate-high volume of commercial forest products and contribute to longterm improvements in forest health. Implementation of silvicultural treatments in forests and woodlands 

would reduce the density of overstocked stands, which would subsequently reduce competitive stress for 

water, light, and nutrients and reduce the susceptibility of forests and woodlands to insect attacks, disease, 

and stand-replacing fire. Lower stand density levels and increased sunlight would promote tree growth and 

ponderosa pine and limber pine regeneration. Alternative D would contribute to the overall vigor, 

productivity, and resiliency of forest and woodland vegetation in the planning area and the restoration of 

conditions characteristic of the Historical Range of Variability. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative E would provide a moderate-high volume of commercial forest products and contribute to longterm improvements in forest health. Implementation of silvicultural treatments in forests and woodlands 

would reduce the density of overstocked stands, which would subsequently reduce competitive stress for 

water, light, and nutrients and reduce the susceptibility of forests and woodlands to insect attacks, disease, 

and stand-replacing fire. Lower stand density levels and increased sunlight would promote tree growth and 

ponderosa pine and limber pine regeneration. Alternative E would contribute to the overall vigor, 

productivity, and resiliency of forest and woodland vegetation in the planning area and the restoration of 

conditions characteristic of the Historical Range of Variability. 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 

Construction of new range improvement projects funded by the BLM each year average 33 pits or reservoirs, 9 

wells, 1 spring, 10 miles of pipeline, and 20 miles of fence. Construction of new range improvement projects 

funded by livestock operators annually on BLM-administered lands would likely include 4 pits or reservoirs, 1 

well, 1 spring, 18 miles of pipeline, and 5 miles of fence. The disturbance would vary according to the range 

improvement project (Table 4-58). 

Acre figures in all tables, except where noted, may overlap, and adding these figures will not result in 

accurate total acreage values. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Under all alternatives, vegetation allocation and use levels would be adjusted, if necessary, to meet the 

Standards for Rangeland Health, which would impact grazing operations and operators. Meeting these 

standards would provide for a stable amount of forage for livestock grazing. If livestock grazing prevented 

attainment of Standards for Rangeland Health, specific direction to the permittee or lessee would be identified 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Livestock Grazing 

4-244

in the permit terms and conditions. However, if the standards were not met because of conditions unrelated to 

livestock grazing, grazing management terms and conditions would potentially remain in effect. Site-specific 

permit terms and conditions are determined by an interdisciplinary team in consultation with permittees and 

interested public for each individual allotment. Management actions would be designed to maintain or 

improve vegetation conditions and include grazing use and grazing activity plans and systems, range 

improvements, and vegetation treatments. 

Livestock grazing use would potentially be adjusted to ensure damage to rangeland health does not occur, 

specifically where drought, fire, flood, insect 

infestations, or climate change have affected 

available forage. Affected grazing operations would 

need to find alternate forage or reduce livestock 

numbers, depending on the situation. Reclamation or 

rehabilitation plans, including invasive vegetation 

species (weed) management prescriptions, would 

guide site reclamation for vegetative recovery and 

long-term sustainability. Because fertilizer use on 

BLM-administered lands would provide nutrients to 

enhance native reestablishment, nutrient deficiency 

would not limit restoration efforts. In addition to 

surface-disturbing impacts, indirect impacts of these 

actions would be expected to change livestock 

grazing patterns and distribution within allotments. 

Rangeland improvement projects would allow 

permittees or lessees to better manage grazing (specifically the distribution and movement of livestock within 

allotments) and result in varying levels of disturbance (Table 4-59). 

Projects would be designed to minimize 

impacts to other resources. Fence 

construction in compliance with BLM 

Fencing Manual Handbook H-1741-1 

would ensure wildlife-friendly 

construction and acceptable construction 

standards. Strict adherence to the 

manual standards would limit some 

livestock containment objectives, 

rendering some deviations necessary. 

Authorized deviations would consider 

wildlife needs, and some specialized 

design features would add costs to a 

project. 

Hardwood draw restoration would include managed herbivory, which would temporarily exclude livestock 

from identified areas and temporarily reduce available forage in these areas. Exclusion time would be based 

on monitoring used to determine if livestock use prevented young plants from attaining their natural stature. 

Potential black-footed ferret habitat would include prairie dog colonies and complexes 80 acres or more in 

size not designated as black-footed ferret reintroduction sites. If habitat surveys identified the presence of 

ferrets, surface disturbance would not be authorized and the construction of range improvement projects 

would be excluded on these acres. 

In addition to BLM Handbook 1740-1 and WO IM 2009-018 (BLM 2008d), the new criteria described in the 

Livestock Grazing Appendix (see Screening Criteria Checklist for 10-Year Grazing Permits, Lease Renewals, 

or Transfers) would prioritize staff and budget efforts . 

TABLE 4-58.

ASSUMED ACRES OF DISTURBANCE PER 

RANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

Development

Acres of 

Disturbance, 

Pre 

Reclamation

Acres of 

Disturbance, 

Post 

Reclamation

Pit or 

reservoir 1.0 0.3 

Well 0.25 0.15 

Spring 0.25 0.15 

Pipeline 1.7 (per mile) 0.12 acres per 

mile

Fence 1.2 (per mile) 0.007 acres per 

mile

TABLE 4-59.

TOTAL ACRES OF DISTURBANCE PER RANGE 

IMPROVEMENT PROJECT UNDER MANAGEMENT 

COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Development

Acres of Shortterm disturbance, 

Post Reclamation

Acres of Longterm Disturbance, 

Post Reclamation

Pit or reservoir 49.5 198 

Well 6.75 27 

Spring 0.75 3 

Pipeline 6 24 

Fence 0.7 2.8 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Livestock Grazing 

4-245

ALTERNATIVE A 

Under this alternative, the available BLM-administered surface for livestock grazing would be approximately 

2.8 million acres that supported an estimated 546,570 AUMs. 

Avoiding surface-disturbing activities on slopes 30 percent or greater in the Big Dry RMP area would impact 

48,000 acres under this alternative. Although it is not likely that range improvement projects would be 

constructed on these slopes, if no other options existed and the project determined to be worthwhile, the 

project would be designed to mitigate soil disturbance. 

Prohibiting surface-disturbing activities within 1,000 feet of double-crested cormorant and great blue heron 

rookeries (in the Big Dry RMP area) would prohibit range improvements on 200 acres. 

The current permitted use for grazing would be maintained or increased through the implementation of 

AMPs, range improvements, and vegetation manipulation. AMPs would be developed according to resource 

conditions. If these measures did not provide for other established resource values and maintain the current 

permitted grazing use, livestock reductions would potentially become necessary. Any adjustments in 

livestock grazing use would be made following monitoring and in consultation with grazing permittees and 

the interested public. 

Terms and conditions of grazing permits and leases would be modified to ensure progress toward meeting 

these standards in allotments in which Standards for Rangeland Health were not met and livestock grazing 

was a causal factor for the failure to meet these standards. These modifications would include at least one of 

the following: a change in the grazing season, a reduction in active AUMs, or a change in the type or number 

of livestock authorized. Impacts to the grazing permittees and their grazing operation would potentially 

include alteration of grazing systems, reductions in herd sizes, procurement of additional pasture, or 

installation of some type of range improvement project. Some changes may be implemented at a financial 

cost to the producer. Forty-one allotments have not met Standards for Rangeland Health, totaling 190,000 

acres and 39,119 AUMs (see the Livestock Grazing Appendix).

The absence of seasonal grazing restrictions under Alternative A would allow for greater flexibility in 

managing range allotments by the leaseholder. Season-long grazing permits issued with terms and conditions 

would not restrict livestock numbers as long as the grazing lands met the Standards for Rangeland Health. 

Deferring livestock grazing on a case-by-case basis with permittee cooperation to ensure the presence of 

adequate fuel to carry a prescribed fire, which would temporarily reduce forage available for grazing. 

Affected permittees would need to provide alternative feed for their livestock while the BLM-administered 

lands were in deferral. 

The Big Dry RMP temporarily closed (for at least 1 growing season) lands affected by a wildfire or 

prescribed fire, which temporarily removed these AUMs. Permittees affected by site-specific actions would 

need to provide alternative feed for their livestock. The Powder River RMP required deferral or temporary 

closure on a case-by-case basis. Deferring livestock grazing after a burn would result in a temporary loss of 

available forage on the burned acres. Aside from the temporary loss of forage, fire would potentially benefit 

livestock grazing by improving the quality, quantity, and availability of forage in the long term. 

Permits or leases would be renewed on a case-by-case basis. At the time of renewal, allotment management 

would be evaluated for compliance with Standards for Rangeland on I, M, and C allotments. 

Livestock carrying capacity would continue to be based on guidelines that determined AUMs for different 

ages and species of animals as listed below: 

 cow or bull over 6 months of age, 1 AUM (approximately 91 percent of total AUMs); 

 horse over 6 months of age, 1 AUM (approximately 2 percent of total AUMs); 

 5 sheep or goats over 6 months of age, 1 AUM (approximately 3 percent of total AUMs); and 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Livestock Grazing 

4-246

 yearling cattle, 1 AUM (approximately 4 percent of total AUMs). 

Livestock grazing would not be allowed on the following SRMAs, which would remove 240 acres and 62 

AUMs from permitted livestock grazing under this alternative. Implementation would require approximately 

3 miles of fence to exclude livestock from these areas. Areas closed would include the: 

 Powder River Depot SRMA (and the Powder River Depot ACEC), which would include 171 acres, 

51 AUMs, and approximately 2 miles of fence (the Conns Coulee Allotment No. 01327 would be 

closed); and 

 Calypso SRMA, which would include 69 acres, 11 AUMs, and approximately 1 mile of fence (the 

Hines Allotment AMP No. 01669). Range improvements would also be excluded on these 69 acres. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Under this alternative, available AUMs for livestock excluding domestic sheep and goats would be reduced 

by approximately 8 percent. Available AUMs for domestic sheep and goats would be reduced by 23 percent. 

Reductions for all livestock grazing would total 214,658 acres and impact between 42,849 and 43,864 AUMs 

of authorized livestock grazing. Domestic sheep and goats would also be prohibited from grazing on an 

additional 390,000 acres under this alternative, which would impact an additional 79,803 AUMs. Available 

AUMs for livestock grazing (excluding domestic sheep and goats) would total between 502,706 and 503,721 

AUMs on 2.5 million acres. Available AUMs for domestic sheep and goats would total between 422,903 and 

423,918 on 2.1 million acres under this alternative. 

Under this alternative, surface-disturbing activities would not be authorized on 2.5 million acres, which 

would eliminate construction of range improvement projects on these acres (Table 4-60). The indirect 

impacts of these actions would eliminate the BLM’s ability to influence livestock grazing patterns and 

distribution through construction of these projects. These management actions would limit projects that 

assisted in meeting Standards for Rangeland Health, which would result in AUM reductions. 

Prohibiting disruptive activities would potentially impact the design, location, and installation timing of range 

improvement projects, which would increase project costs. 

Harvesting of nonnative or native hay and native seed would temporarily remove AUMs during the year of 

harvest. 

Additional management actions under this alternative would also prohibit surface-disturbing activities unless 

the activities benefited the resource or were mitigated with specialized design features (Table 4-61). BMPs 

would be used to design projects. Design features for range improvement projects would add costs to a project 

through increased materials or labor. 

Under this alternative, new livestock water developments (troughs and tanks) would be located at least 0.25 

miles from riparian and wetland areas, waterbodies, and streams, which would prevent stocktank placement on 

2.5 million acres. 

Prohibiting aboveground power lines unless burial were not technologically feasible would increase the cost 

for permittees installing power lines to equip stockwater wells and other developments. Prohibiting 

aboveground power lines in winter occurrence points, sage-grouse concentration areas, and within 4 miles of 

a lek would impact 1.0 million acres. Burying power lines would increase costs to power stockwater wells. 

Habitat disturbance caps (overall and per section) in Sage-grouse Habitat – Restoration Areas would impact 

construction of range improvement project construction only if they did not benefit sage-grouse habitat. 

Eliminating renewal and approval of grazing permits for domestic sheep and goats in the Bighorn Sheep 

Range and within 14.3 miles of the Bighorn Sheep Range would close 390,000 BLM-administered surface 

acres, an estimated 79,803 AUMs, and 199 allotments to domestic sheep and goat grazing. Five of these 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Livestock Grazing 

4-247

allotments are currently authorized for domestic sheep (23,000 acres and 4,392 AUMs). In order for these 

operators to continue grazing sheep on their private land, operators would have to construct over 150 miles of 

fence to exclude public land parcels in these five allotments. 

Closing allotments in 

which the Standards for 

Rangeland Health were 

not met and livestock 

grazing was a causal 

factor in the failure to 

meet these standards 

would impact 41 

allotments, 190,000 

BLM-administered 

surface acres, and 

39,119 AUMs (see the 

Livestock Grazing 

Appendix). This action 

would impact 

approximately 7 percent 

of the total grazing 

allotment acreage and 7 

percent of AUMs in the 

planning area. In order 

for operators to continue 

grazing on their private 

land, operators would 

have to construct over 

515 miles of fence to 

exclude public land 

parcels in these 41 

allotments. 

Closing livestock 

grazing in areas with 

active locatable mining for the life of the activity would impact 1,010 AUMs and an estimated 5,000 BLMadministered surface acres. It is assumed that up to 45,000 BLM-administered surface acres would be 

disturbed in the future, which would impact up to 9,136 AUMs. 

Because there would be low potential for oil and gas development under this alternative, oil and gas 

development would not suspend livestock grazing on any acres. 

Under this alternative, livestock grazing would be suspended during coal development for the life of the 

mine. Acreage within mine permit boundaries is approximately 2,000 acres, and it is assumed that there 

would be 2,000 acres disturbed in the future, which would impact 475 AUMs. AUMs on these acres would 

become unavailable for livestock grazing for the life of the mine. 

Under this alternative, livestock grazing would be suspended until vegetative conditions allowed adequate 

fuel to carry a prescribed fire. Suspended AUMs would be temporarily unavailable for grazing. Areas 

affected by wildfire, prescribed fire, or non-fire vegetative treatments would be removed from livestock 

grazing for a minimum of 2 growing seasons. Closing these areas would result in a temporary loss of 

available forage, and the permittee would need to provide other feed for the animals while they were removed 

from BLM-administered lands. 

TABLE 4-60.

BLM-ADMINISTERED ACRES CLOSED TO SURFACE 

DISTURBANCE UNDER ALTERNATIVE B

Resource or Area Acres

Veg.

Riparian and wetland areas

1,300,000 

(High)

94,000 (Low) 

Invasive Species, areas of invasive species 280,000

Fish and Wildlife

Big Game Crucial Winter Range 1,600,000

Colonial Waterbirds, 0.25-mile buffer 300

Bighorn Sheep Range 68,000

Prairie Falcon, 0.5 mile buffer of nests active within 

the past 7 years 10,100

Special Status Species Raptors, 0.5-mile buffer of 

nests active within the past 7 years 61,100

Piping Plover 730

Interior Least Tern, 0.25-mile buffer of habitat 1,400

Black-tailed Prairie Dog, 0.5-mile buffer of colonies 130,000

Pallid Sturgeon 14,000

Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority ACEC 1,100,000

Restoration Areas, 1-mile lek buffers1 260,000 

Rec. and 

Special 

Desig. 

Areas

SRMA and ACECs 20,000

1

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be prohibited in sections that are within 

1 mile of a lek and that border existing leases with 3 or fewer wells. Surface-disturbing and 

disruptive activities would be allowed in sections that are within 1 mile of a lek and that 

border existing leases with four or more wells.
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Livestock Grazing 

4-248

The designation of reserve 

common allotments (RCAs) 

would provide opportunities for 

qualified applicants to graze 

when their allotments were in 

deferral for vegetative recovery 

and restoration. RCAs would 

facilitate management actions by 

reducing the financial impact to 

applicants deferring authorized 

use of their allotments. RCAs 

would be designated and 

managed according to the criteria 

listed in the Livestock Grazing

Appendix. 

AUM conversions in kinds of 

livestock would be considered on 

a case-by-case basis under this 

alternative. Such changes would 

be consistent with objectives for 

wildlife, watershed, riparian, 

special status species, and 

vegetation. Although any AUM 

conversions that resulted in an authorization to graze a different number of animals of a specific livestock 

class would impact directly affected allotments, these conversions would not be expected to impact the 

overall number of available AUMs. 

Livestock grazing acreage would be reduced by 25,501 acres and AUMs would be reduced by between 3,730 

and 4,745 AUMs in SRMAs and ACECs. Implementation would require approximately 19 miles of fence to 

exclude livestock from these areas. Areas closed would include the: 

 Powder River Depot and Calypso SRMAs (240 acres and 62 AUMs), which would include 

approximately 3 miles of fence; 

 Howrey Island, Pumpkin Creek Ranch and Recreation Area (with an assumed carrying capacity of 

between 2,627 AUMs and 3,642 AUMs), Glendive Short Pine OHV Area, Terry OHV Area, 

Strawberry Hill Recreation Area, Moorhead, Matthews, and Dean S. Reservoir proposed SRMAs, 

which would include 24,524 acres, between 3530 and 4,545 AUMs, and approximately 7 miles of 

fence; and 

 Big Sheep Mountain and Hoe ACECs (504 acres and 97 AUMs), which would include 

approximately 5 miles of fence; and 

 Long Medicine Wheel, Walstein, and Yonkee proposed ACECs, which would include 233 acres, 41 

AUMs, and approximately 4 miles of fence.

ALTERNATIVE C 

Reductions in livestock grazing under this alternative would total 6,800 acres and between 1,237 and 1,381 

AUMs. Domestic sheep and goats would also be prohibited from grazing on 8,000 acres, which would impact 

611 AUMs. Under this alternative, between 545,189 and 545,333 AUMs would be available for livestock 

(excluding domestic sheep and goats) grazing on 2.7 million acres. Between 544,578 and 544,722 AUMs 

would be available for domestic sheep and goat grazing on 2.7 million acres). Changes in AUM allocations 

would have a greater impact on individual allotments and permittees than overall AUM allocations. 

Approximately 38 miles of fence would be required to exclude livestock from these areas. 

TABLE 4-61.

BLM-ADMINISTERED ACRES SUBJECT TO BENEFICIAL OR 

FUNCTIONALITY REQUIREMENTS OR SPECIALIZED DESIGN 

FEATURES UNDER ALTERNATIVE B

Resource or Area Acres

Soils

Slopes 150,000

Sensitive 1,800,000

Water

Floodplain 42,000

Waterbodies and streams 300,000

Fish and Wildlife

Aquatics, 0.5-mile sport-fish reservoir

buffer 10,000

Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks and Nesting 

Habitat, 4-mile specialized design 

features buffer

1,400,000

Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat 

Areas, 4-mile buffer 1,100,000

Rec. and 

Special 

Desig. 

Areas

SRMAs and ACECs 100,000
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Livestock Grazing 

4-249

Under this alternative, surface-disturbing activities would not be authorized on 63,000 acres, which would 

eliminate construction of range improvement projects on these acres (Table 4-62). The indirect impacts of 

these actions would eliminate the BLM’s ability to influence livestock grazing patterns and distribution 

through construction of these projects. These management actions would limit projects that assisted in 

meeting Standards for Rangeland Health, which would result in AUM reductions. 

All BLM-administered surface acres (2.7 million acres) would be affected by management actions that allowed 

surface-disturbing activities subject to habitat functionality or beneficial outcomes to the resource. Surfacedisturbing activities would be avoided on steep slopes, sensitive soils, and riparian areas. Although projects 

could still be constructed, they would be constructed in a way that would protect the resource. These specialized 

design features would increase the cost of implementing a project. 

Prohibiting disruptive activities would potentially impact the design, location, and installation timing of range 

improvement projects, which would increase project costs. 

Depending on the circumstances, harvesting of nonnative or native hay and native seed would make AUMs 

temporarily unavailable during the year of harvest. 

Under this alternative, new livestock water developments (troughs and tanks) would be located at least 0.25 

miles from riparian and wetland areas, waterbodies, and streams, which would prevent stocktank placement on 

2.5 million acres. 

Under this alternative, authorized power lines would incorporate 

specialized design features (e.g., burying or line location) that 

maintained habitat functionality. These specialized design features 

would add costs to project implementation. 

Eliminating grazing permits for domestic sheep and goats in the 

Bighorn Sheep Range or within 14.3 miles of the Bighorn Sheep 

Range would impact 4 allotments (55,000 acres and 4,073 AUMs) in 

which the BLM administers 51 percent or more of the acres. Domestic 

sheep are not currently authorized in any of these allotments. Because 

pasture boundary information is limited, it is difficult to determine 

areas in which the BLM would administer the majority of the pasture; 

however, it is assumed that areas in which the BLM administers 51 

percent or more of the pasture acres would impact l8,000 acres and 

611 AUMs under this alternative. 

Habitat disturbance caps for surface-disturbing restrictions in Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas 

would limit the construction of range improvement projects. Areas with fields for oil, gas, CBNG, 

development or mineral development areas would be the most likely areas in which habitat disturbance caps 

would become a factor. Prohibiting range improvement projects would eliminate the BLM’s ability to 

influence livestock grazing patterns and distribution with these projects, which would be designed to maintain 

or make progress toward meeting Standards for Rangeland Health. 

Habitat compensation would be required for surface-disturbing projects that did not improve sage-grouse 

habitat. Range improvement projects would be used to meet Rangeland Health Standards. 

Closing allotments that did not show progress toward meeting Standards for Rangeland Health within 5 years 

due to grazing would impact the same 41 allotments, which would total 190,000 BLM-administered surface 

acres and 39,119 AUMs (see the Livestock Grazing Appendix). However, when facing pending closure, it is 

assumed that the majority of livestock operators would work toward rangeland health improvement to 

eliminate the possibility of allotment closure, which would reduce livestock on a number of ranches in the 

immediate short term. For the purposes of this analysis, an estimated one to two allotments would not 

progress toward these Standards for Rangeland Health, which would result in the closure of 3,000 acres and 

TABLE 4-62.

BLM-ADMINISTERED ACRES 

CLOSED TO 

SURFACE DISTURBANCE 

UNDER ALTERNATIVE C

Fish and 

Wildlife 

Resource or 

Area

Acres

Black-tailed Prairie 

Dog, 0.25-mile buffer 48,000

Pallid Sturgeon, 0.5-

mile buffer` 14,000
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Livestock Grazing 

4-250

an estimated 606 AUMs unpermitted. In order for operators to continue grazing on their private land, 

operators would have to construct an assumed 30 miles of fence to exclude the public land parcels on the 

assumed 2 allotments that did not show progress in meeting Standards for Rangeland Health. 

Suspending livestock grazing within areas with active locatable mining for the life of the activity would 

impact an estimated 5,000 BLM-administered surface acres currently disturbed by active locatable mining 

(1,010 AUMs). Up to 45,000 BLM-administered surface acres would be disturbed in the future, which would 

impact up to 9,136 AUMs. As reclamation occurs and the Standards for Rangeland Health were met, these 

AUMs would become available for grazing again. 

Under this alternative, grazing on oil and gas areas would continue as long as Standards for Rangeland Health 

were met. 

Suspending livestock grazing during coal development would impact 2,000 acres currently within mine 

permit boundaries. It is assumed that there would be 2,000 acres disturbed in the future, which would impact 

475 AUMs. AUMs on these acres would become unavailable during active mining. Grazing prior to bond 

release would be allowed if Standards for Rangeland Health were met. Ensuring Standards for Rangeland 

Health were met would prevent damage caused by premature grazing on reclaimed areas and ensure 

functioning ecological processes and adequate ground cover. 

Suspending livestock grazing until vegetative conditions allowed adequate fuel to carry a prescribed fire 

would result in a temporary loss of available forage. Deferral times would depend on many variables, but the 

permittee would need to provide alternate feed for livestock while animals were not on BLM-administered 

lands. 

Closing BLM-administered land affected by wildfire, prescribed fire, or non-fire vegetative treatments to 

livestock grazing until the area attained identified vegetative objectives would result in a temporary loss of 

available forage. The time the area was deferred would depend on many variables. The permittee would need 

to provide alternate feed for livestock while animals were not on the BLM-administered lands. 

Limiting the availability of RCAs to county residents would reduce transportation costs, which would increase 

grazing feasibility. This management action would not have a measured impact on the overall total grazing 

acreage or available AUMs. 

Focusing management efforts on allotments or pastures with higher percentages of BLM-administered land 

would increase the acres improved by management changes. 

Transferring or renewing grazing permits or leases under this alternative would increase administrative 

efficiency and allow personnel to be proactive in resource management. Streamlining administrative actions 

would enable more time to be spent planning and implementing habitat enhancement projects. 

Under this alternative, livestock grazing would be reduced by 3,800 acres and between 631 and 791 AUMs in 

SRMAs and ACECs. Implementation would require approximately 8 miles of fence to exclude livestock from 

the following areas: 

 the Powder River Depot and Calypso SRMAs (88 acres and 16 AUMs), with approximately 1 mile 

of fence; 

 Howrey Island, Pumpkin Creek Ranch and Recreation Area, Glendive Short Pine OHV Area, 

Moorhead, Matthews, and Dean S. Reservoir proposed SRMAs ( 3,500 acres and between 551 to 

711 AUMs), with approximately 2 miles of fence for the Glendive Short Pine OHV Area; 

 Big Sheep Mountain and Hoe ACECs (213 acres and 55 AUMs), with approximately 3 miles of 

fence; and the 

 Long Medicine Wheel, Walstein, and Yonkee proposed ACECs (49 acres and 9 AUMs), with 

approximately 2 miles of fence. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Livestock Grazing 

4-251

Under this alternative, Strawberry Hill Recreation Area would be open to livestock grazing with a restricted 

season of use. However, the unavailability of water in the winter and the presence of snow would potentially 

reduce the feasibility of winter grazing. Winter grazing would increase utilization on shrubs. 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Livestock grazing reductions would total 3,100 acres and approximately 627 AUMs under this alternative. 

There would be 545,943 available AUMs on 2.8 million acres of BLM-administered lands. Changes in AUM 

allocations would have a greater impact on individual allotments and permittees than overall AUM 

allocations. Approximately 33 miles of fence would be required to exclude livestock from these areas. 

Management actions that allowed surface disturbance subject to requirements for resource improvement or 

subject to specialized design features would impact 2.7 million acres under this alternative. Requiring 

approved mitigation; invasive vegetation species or weed management plans; and avoidance of steep slopes, 

sensitive soils, and floodplains would reduce the environmental footprint of range improvement projects. 

These management actions would not be likely to prevent or eliminate any range improvements. Currently, 

BMPs are considered when constructing range improvement projects. 

Under this alternative, new livestock water developments (troughs and tanks) would be located at least 0.25 

miles from riparian and wetland areas, waterbodies, and streams, which would prevent stocktank placement on 

2.5 million acres. 

Management actions that required specialized design features for power line installation, such as buried power 

lines or rerouting the line, would result in increased costs to equip livestock water wells. 

Habitat disturbance caps for surface-disturbing restrictions in Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas 

would limit the construction of range improvement projects. Areas with fields for oil, gas, or CBNG, 

development or mineral development areas would be the most likely areas in which habitat disturbance caps 

would become a factor. Prohibiting range improvement projects would eliminate the BLM’s ability to 

influence livestock grazing patterns and distribution with these projects, which would be designed to maintain 

or make progress toward meeting Standards for Rangeland Health. 

Habitat compensation would be required for surface-disturbing projects that did not improve sage-grouse 

habitat. Range improvement projects would be used to meet Rangeland Health Standards. 

Grazing permits for domestic sheep and goats would be approved with specialized design features (such as a 

contact mitigation plan) in the 14.3-mile buffer surrounding the Bighorn Sheep Range in areas in which the 

BLM administered 51 percent or more of the pasture acres. Because pasture boundary information is limited, it 

is difficult to determine areas in which the BLM would administer the majority of the pasture; however, it is 

assumed that areas in which the BLM administers 51 percent or more of the pasture acres would impact 8,300 

acres and 611 AUMs under this alternative. 

Closing allotments that did not show progress toward meeting Standards for Rangeland Health within 5 years 

due to grazing would impact the same 41 allotments, which would total 190,000 BLM-administered surface 

acres and 39,119 AUMs (see the Livestock Grazing Appendix). However, when facing pending closure, it is 

assumed that the majority of livestock operators would work toward rangeland health improvement to 

eliminate the possibility of allotment closure, which would reduce livestock on a number of ranches in the 

immediate short term. For the purposes of this analysis, an estimated one to two allotments would not 

progress toward these Standards for Rangeland Health, which would result in the closure of 3,000 acres and 

an estimated 606 AUMs unpermitted. In order for operators to continue grazing on their private land, 

operators would have to construct an assumed 30 miles of fence to exclude the public land parcels on the 

assumed 2 allotments that did not show progress in meeting Standards for Rangeland Health. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Livestock Grazing 

4-252

Suspending livestock grazing within areas with active locatable mining for the life of the activity would 

impact an estimated 5,000 BLM-administered surface acres currently disturbed by active locatable mining 

(1,010 AUMs). Up to 45,000 BLM-administered surface acres would be disturbed in the future, which would 

impact up to 9,136 AUMs. As reclamation occurs and the Standards for Rangeland Health were met, these 

AUMs would become available for grazing again. 

Under this alternative, grazing on oil and gas areas would continue as long as Standards for Rangeland Health 

were met. 

Suspending livestock grazing during coal development would impact 2,000 acres currently within mine 

permit boundaries. It is assumed that there would be 2,000 acres disturbed in the future, which would impact 

475 AUMs. AUMs on these acres would become unavailable during active mining. Grazing prior to bond 

release would be allowed if Standards for Rangeland Health were met. Ensuring Standards for Rangeland 

Health were met would prevent damage caused by premature grazing on reclaimed areas and ensure 

functioning ecological processes and adequate ground cover. 

Deferring livestock grazing on a case-by-case basis (with permittee cooperation) to ensure the presence of 

adequate fuel to carry a prescribed fire or until established seed set in the growing season following wildfire, 

prescribed fire, or non-fire vegetative treatments would temporarily limit forage available for grazing. 

Affected permittees would need to provide alternative feed for their livestock while animals were not on 

BLM-administrated lands. 

Restricting the designation of RCAs under this alternative would eliminate BLM-administered areas available 

for permittees to graze while their allotments were in deferral. Costs to obtain private grazing land for this 

purpose would be too prohibitive for many livestock operations. 

Under this alternative, priority allotments for monitoring and land health evaluations would be allotments that 

failed to meet Standards for Rangeland Health. The standards require uplands and riparian areas to attain PFC 

and provide a diversity of habitat for various species. The percentage of BLM-administered land in an allotment 

or pasture would not determine allotment prioritization. 

Transferring or renewing grazing permits or leases under this alternative would increase administrative 

efficiency and allow personnel to be proactive in resource management. Streamlining administrative actions 

would enable more time to be spent planning and implementing habitat enhancement projects. 

Considering AUM conversions for kinds of livestock on a case-by-case basis and would be consistent with 

wildlife, watershed, riparian, special status species, and vegetation objectives. 

The Howrey Island, Moorhead Recreation Area, and Glendive Short Pine OHV area would be open to 

livestock grazing with a restricted season of use. However, the unavailability of water in the winter and the 

presence of snow would potentially reduce the feasibility of winter grazing. Winter grazing would increase 

utilization on shrubs. In the Glendive OHV area, herbaceous vegetation would receive dormant season 

grazing that would increase vigor. In the Howrey Island area, livestock mortality would result if livestock fell 

through ice on the Yellowstone River while attempting to access water. 

Under this alternative, livestock grazing acreage would be reduced by 88 acres and 21 AUMs in ACECs and 

proposed ACECs. Implementation would require approximately 3 miles of fence to exclude livestock from 

the following areas: 

 the Big Sheep Mountain and Hoe ACECs (74 acres and 19 AUMs), with approximately 2 miles of 

fence; and 

 the Long Medicine Wheel and Yonkee proposed ACECs (14 acres and 2 AUMs), with less than 1 

mile of fence. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Livestock Grazing 

4-253

ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Reductions in livestock grazing under this alternative would total up to 6,125 acres and between 1,071 and 

1,863 AUMs. Approximately 37 miles of fence would be required to exclude livestock from these areas. 

Management actions that allowed surface disturbance subject to requirements for resource improvement or 

subject to specialized design features would impact 2.7 million acres under this alternative. Surfacedisturbing activities would be avoided on steep slopes, sensitive soils, and within a 300-foot buffer of riparian 

and wetland areas. Although projects could still be constructed, they would be constructed in a way that 

would protect the resource. Project proposed in the Bighorn Sheep Range and pallid sturgeon habitat would 

require written plans to minimize habitat loss. 

Prohibiting disruptive activities would potentially impact the design, location, and installation timing of range 

improvement projects, which would increase project costs. These actions may also require specialized design 

features, timing restrictions, or other mitigation to minimize impacts to maintain habitat. 

Range improvement project design may require additional or specialized modifications to mitigate impacts. 

The project proponent would potentially incur additional costs for materials and installation (for example, a 

power line needed for a livestock water well may need to be rerouted or buried). 

Projects designed to maintain habitat would protect the forage resource. 

If hay were harvested, AUMs would be temporarily unavailable during the year of harvest. If native seed 

were harvested for reclamation, AUMs would potentially become temporarily unavailable for reclamation, 

restoration, or emergency stabilization and rehabilitation projects. 

Grazing permits for domestic sheep and goats would be approved or renewed in the Bighorn Sheep Range or 

within 14.3 miles of the Bighorn Sheep Range on a case-by-case basis. 

Closing allotments that did not show progress toward meeting Standards for Rangeland Health within 5 years 

due to grazing would impact the same 41 allotments, which would total 190,000 BLM-administered surface 

acres and 39,119 AUMs (see the Livestock Grazing Appendix). However, when facing pending closure, it is 

assumed that the majority of livestock operators would work toward rangeland health improvement to 

eliminate the possibility of allotment closure, which would reduce livestock on a number of ranches in the 

immediate short term. For the purposes of this analysis, an estimated one to two allotments would not 

progress toward these Standards for Rangeland Health, which would result in the closure of 3,000 acres and 

an estimated 606 AUMs unpermitted. In order for operators to continue grazing on their private land, 

operators would have to construct an assumed 30 miles of fence to exclude the public land parcels on the 

assumed 2 allotments that did not show progress in meeting Standards for Rangeland Health. 

Suspending livestock grazing within areas with active locatable mining for the life of the activity would 

impact an estimated 5,000 BLM-administered surface acres currently disturbed by active locatable mining 

(1,010 AUMs). Up to 45,000 BLM-administered surface acres would be disturbed in the future, which would 

impact up to 9,136 AUMs. As reclamation occurs and the Standards for Rangeland Health were met, these 

AUMs would become available for grazing again. 

Under this alternative, grazing on oil and gas areas would continue as long as Standards for Rangeland Health 

were met. 

Suspending livestock grazing during coal development would impact 2,000 acres currently within mine 

permit boundaries. It is assumed that there would be 2,000 acres disturbed in the future, which would impact 

475 AUMs. AUMs on these acres would become unavailable during active mining. Grazing prior to bond 

release would be allowed if Standards for Rangeland Health were met. Ensuring Standards for Rangeland 

Health were met would prevent damage caused by premature grazing on reclaimed areas and ensure 

functioning ecological processes and adequate ground cover. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Livestock Grazing 

4-254

Suspending livestock grazing until vegetative conditions allowed adequate fuel to carry a prescribed fire 

would result in a temporary loss of available forage. Deferral times would depend on many variables, but the 

permittee would need to provide alternate feed for livestock while animals were not on BLM-administered 

lands. 

Closing BLM-administered land affected by wildfire, prescribed fire, or non-fire vegetative treatments to 

livestock grazing until the area attained identified vegetative objectives would result in a temporary loss of 

available forage. The period of deferral would depend on many variables. The permittee would need to 

provide alternate feed for livestock while animals were not on the BLM-administered lands. 

The designation of RCAs would provide opportunities for grazing by qualified applicants when their 

allotments were in deferral for vegetative recovery and restoration. RCAs would facilitate management 

actions by reducing the financial impact to applicants deferring authorized use of their allotments. RCAs 

would be designated and managed according to the criteria listed in the Livestock Grazing Appendix. 

Transferring or renewing grazing permits or leases under this alternative would increase administrative 

efficiency and allow personnel to be proactive in resource management. 

The Glendive Short Pine OHV area would be open to livestock grazing with a restricted season of use from 

November 1 to March 1. However, the unavailability of water in the winter and the presence of snow would 

potentially reduce the feasibility of winter grazing. Winter grazing would increase utilization on shrubs. 

Dormant season grazing would increase the vigor of herbaceous vegetation. 

Under this alternative, livestock grazing would be reduced by up to 3,125 acres and between 465 and 1,257 

AUMs in SRMAs and ACECs. Implementation would require approximately 6.4 miles of fence to exclude 

livestock from the following areas: 

 the Powder River Depot and Calypso SRMAs with approximately 1 mile of fence; 

 Howrey Island (with approximately 14 miles of fence), Pumpkin Creek Ranch and Recreation Area 

(north and east of Hwy 59), and Moorhead proposed SRMAs, with approximately 3 miles of fence 

for the Pumpkin Creek OHV Area; and the 

 Hoe ACEC, with less than 1 mile of fence.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

The primary cumulative effects for each alternative would be the total amount of AUMS reduced or displaced 

within the planning area and the total number of sheep AUMS reduced. Allotments are closed or forage 

availability is reduced because of long-term surface-disturbing activities under each alternative, the decreased 

amount of AUMS produced by BLM-administered land is either lost or replaced by production elsewhere 

(Table 4-63). 

MINERALS 

COAL 

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 

The coal leasing decisions made in the Big Dry and Powder River RMPs (BLM 1996 and 1985c) would be 

carried forward in this RMP and include areas identified as acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing. 

Most of these lands are located within areas defined as Coal with Development Potential (Map 75). As a result, 

the lands considered as acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing found in the Big Dry and Powder 

River RMPs should be taken into consideration for purposes of impact analysis in this document. The coal 

screening process would be applied on a case-by-case basis in response to individual coal lease applications. 
HAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Coal 

4-255

The explanation of the coal leasing 

process located in those RMP appendices 

is reproduced in the Minerals Appendix. 

According to the Department of EnergyEnergy Information Administration 

(DOE-EIA) 2009 Annual Energy 

Outlook, the demand for coal in the U.S. 

would gradually increase approximately 

0.6 percent per year from 2007 to 2030. 

This modest growth would come from 

increasing coal use for electricity and the 

startup of several new coal-to-liquids 

plants. The Annual Energy Outlook

further indicates that most of the 

additional output would come from 

mines in Wyoming, Montana, and North 

Dakota (DOE-EIA 2009). 

Based on this information, it is assumed 

that production at currently operating 

mines in the planning area (Cloud Peak’s 

Spring Creek Coal Mine, Decker Coal 

Company’s mines, Western Energy’s Rosebud coal mines, and Westmorland Resources’ Savage Mine) would 

need additional coal as current reserves are used. It is assumed that most mines would continue current 

production rates or increase or decrease accordingly to meet changes in market demand. See the Minerals 

Appendix for current production levels for each mine in the 2008 fiscal year. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Under this plan, leasing decisions would be carried forward from the Powder River and Big Dry RMPs and 

approximately 1.0 million acres (containing 65.63 billion tons of coal) identified in the Powder River RMP 

and 580,547 acres (containing 6.18 billion tons of coal), identified in the Big Dry RMP would be available for 

further consideration for leasing. Proposals would be evaluated for their suitability for leasing through the 

reapplication of the unsuitability criteria or the full coal-screening process or both, as needed. Surface owner 

consultation would be conducted, if needed, during site-specific planning for a lease application. It is assumed 

that certain unspecified greenhouse gas emission reduction measures would be considered during the 

environmental analysis conducted in response to individual lease requests. 

If a decision is made to lease federal coal and the coal is mined, these actions would represent an irreversible 

or irretrievable commitment of the coal resource. 

Coal leasing and ownership would be affected by land management actions such as future mineral or surface 

exchanges. The BLM may exchange federal coal for private coal to protect important alluvial valley floors 

and may also exchange federal coal for private coal in other areas as part of a mineral-for-mineral exchange. 

Exploratory coal drilling would be conducted in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws, 

policies, and regulations. The BLM would strive to observe all agreements, guidelines, and policies 

pertaining to resource protection and enhancements (such as the National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation 

Strategy (BLM 2004i) and the Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage-grouse in Montana 

(Montana Sage-grouse Work Group 2005) when evaluating coal exploration license applications. 

Protective management actions, including reclamation requirements, would be attached to exploration 

licenses to mitigate impacts to resources and some activities would be denied, if necessary. This action would 

subject the project proponent to delays, additional expenses, and altered exploration plans. 

TABLE 4-63.

ANIMAL UNIT MONTHS BY ALTERNATIVE

Impact Alternative

A B C D E

Total AUMS 

Reduced or 

Suspended 

62

44,334 

to 

53,475

2,722 

to 

10,992

2,112

to 

9,611

2,556 

to 

11,474

Reduction or 

Suspension as a 

Percentage of 

Planning Area 

Forage 

Requirements (%)

<1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Sheep AUMS 

Reduced 0 4,392 611 611 0

Reduction as a 

Percentage of 

Planning Area 

Sheep Herd Forage 

Requirements (%)

N/A 2 <1 <1 N/A

For purposes of this analysis within the planning area, it is assumed that 

10,575,600 AUMS of forage are required by cattle herds and 224,400 AUMS 

of forage are required by sheep herds (NASS 2011). 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Coal 

4-256

ALTERNATIVE A 

Management actions that restricted surfacedisturbing or disruptive activities would impact 

coal exploration by prohibiting the activity (Table 

4-64), requiring timing restrictions (Table 4-65), 

or requiring specialized design features. These 

actions would delay permitting and increase the 

operator’s costs for exploratory coal drilling. 

However, use of specialized design features or 

compliance with mitigation requirements would 

allow the operation to occur. Restricting 

exploratory coal activities would prevent data 

collection through drilling on coal deposits in 

some areas and impact companies’ decisions to 

lease coal. 

Coal exploration under this alternative would 

continue over most of the planning area, except 

on 200,000 acres of BLM-administered coal 

mineral estate. Timing restrictions would be 

required on about 4.2 million acres of BLMadministered coal mineral estate, and specialized design features would be required on about 280,000 acres of 

BLM-administered coal mineral estate (the total acreage figures include areas of overlapping restrictions). 

The same restrictions would apply to the BLM-administered coal mineral acres located in Coal with 

Development Potential polygons. There would also be many areas in which site-specific adjustments to 

reduce environmental impacts (such as relocating the drill sites or altering the timing of the operation) would 

be made to any drilling proposal. 

Requiring mitigation plans for slopes 30 percent or 

greater would impact 280,000 acres of BLMadministered coal mineral estate and 27,000 acres 

of BLM-administered coal mineral estate in Coal 

with Development Potential polygons in the 

planning area.

Allowing surface-disturbing coal exploration 

activities (such as drilling) in the Knowlton (21,131 

acres) and Hay Draw (7,023 acres) Travel 

Management Areas (TMAs) would impact 28,000 

coal acres and 6,400 acres within the Coal with 

Development Potential polygons. However, it is 

also likely that a more rigorous review of the 

activity would be employed during the planning and environmental review stages, which would likely lead to 

additional mitigation, relocation of drill sites, and, potentially, denial of some drill locations in lieu of travel 

management goals and objectives. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Management actions that restricted surface-disturbing or disruptive activities would impact coal exploration 

by prohibiting the activity (Table 4-66), requiring timing restrictions, requiring specialized design features, or 

requiring maintenance of habitat functionality. These actions would delay permitting and increase the 

operator’s costs for exploratory coal drilling. However, requirements for specialized design features or 

TABLE 4-64.

BLM-ADMINISTERED ACRES CLOSED TO 

COAL EXPLORATION 

UNDER ALTERNATIVE A

Resource Mineral 

Acres 

Acres in the 

Coal with 

Development 

Potential 

Polygons

Sharp-tailed Grouse, 0.25-

mile buffer 88,000 22,000

Colonial Waterbirds, 

1,000-foot buffer 560 20

Special Status Species

Raptors, 0.5-mile buffers 130,000 77,000

Sage-grouse, 0.25-mile 

buffer 30,000 4,600

Total (includes 

overlapping acres) 240,000 100,000

Total (without 

overlapping acres) 1,200,000 NA

TABLE 4-65.

BLM-ADMINISTERED ACRES SUBJECT TO 

TIMING STIPULATIONS 

UNDER ALTERNATIVE A

Resource Mineral Acres 

Acres in the 

Coal with 

Development 

Potential 

Polygons

Sharp-tailed Grouse 2,700,000 500,000

Sage-grouse 1,500,000 89,000

Total (includes 

overlapping acres) 4,200,000 590,000
HAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Coal 

4-257

mitigation would allow the operation to occur. Restricting exploratory coal activities would prevent data 

collection through drilling on coal deposits in some areas and impact companies’ decisions to lease coal. 

TABLE 4-66.

BLM-ADMINISTERED ACRES CLOSED TO COAL 

EXPLORATION UNDER ALTERNATIVE B

Area or Resource Mineral 

Acres 

Acres in the 

Coal with 

Development

Potential

Polygons

Soils

Sensitive 7,200,000 1,500,000

Slopes 490,000 140,000

Water

100-year floodplains of major rivers 260,000 28,000

Waterbodies 41,000 4,800

Veg.

Riparian and wetlands 21,000 1,800

Fish and Wildlife

Aquatics, sport-fish reservoir, 0.5 miles of designated 

reservoirs with fisheries 51,000 980

Big Game Crucial Winter Range 4,000,000 480,000

Colonial Waterbirds 970 50

Bighorn Sheep Range 120,000 19,000

Special Status Species Raptors, 0.5-mile buffer 130,000 77,000

Piping Plover 79,000 1,200

Least Tern 72,000 1,200

Black-tailed Prairie Dogs, 0.25-mile buffer 330,000 37,000

Pallid Sturgeon 45,000 2,100

Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority ACEC 2,600,000 180,000

Total (with overlap) 15,000,000 2,500,000

Total (without overlap) 8,500,000 NA

Coal exploration would be curtailed under this alternative because it would be prohibited on about 8.5 million 

acres (without overlapping acres) of BLM-administered coal mineral estate. Timing restrictions would be 

required on about 1.4 million acres of BLM-administered coal mineral estate, and specialized design features 

would be required on about 5.7 million acres of BLM-administered coal mineral estate. In addition, if habitat 

functionality were not maintained, surface occupancy would not be allowed on 3.0 million BLMadministered coal mineral acres. The same restrictions would apply to the BLM-administered coal mineral 

acres located within Coal with Development Potential polygons. There would also be many areas in which 

site-specific adjustments (such as relocating drill sites or altering the timing of the operation) would be made 

to any drilling proposal to reduce environmental impacts. 

Restricting activities on slopes 25 percent or greater would decrease the ability of coal companies to explore 

and develop new reserves for mine expansion or new mines. 

Restricting activities in areas of sensitive slopes would eliminate coal exploration on about 65 percent of the 

BLM-administered coal resource in the planning area, which would curtail and possibly eliminate coal 

exploration on BLM-administered minerals in southeastern Montana. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Coal 

4-258

Under this alternative, 5.6 million BLM-administered mineral acres and 760,000 BLM-administered acres in 

the Coal with Development Potential polygons would be subject to stipulations that required maintenance of 

habitat functionality. 

Under Alternative B, 3.0 million acres of BLM-administered coal mineral estate (400,000 acres in the Coal 

with Development Potential polygons) would be subject to a Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Area 

management action that would require maintenance of habitat functionality. 

Prohibiting coal exploration in sage-grouse areas would impact any future lease applications. If these 

management actions were applied in areas adjacent to existing mines, such as Spring Creek and Decker, it is 

likely that exploratory drilling would not be authorized in sage-grouse habitat until these mines were fully 

reclaimed. Without data on the coal resource, it is unlikely the mining companies would be able to determine 

the extent of the coal resource; consequently, this action would stifle future coal leasing and cause premature 

closure of some coal mines. 

Although it is doubtful that exploratory drilling for coal alone would reach sage-grouse habitat disturbance caps 

(because it typically causes minimal surface disturbance), it would be possible for cumulative disturbance from 

coal exploration and other disturbance) to reach disturbance caps. Reaching the habitat disturbance cap would 

require proponents to pay the United States government a compensation fee to conduct exploration for BLMadministered coal resources, which would subsequently increase the cost of exploration. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Management actions that restricted 

surface-disturbing or disruptive 

activities would impact coal exploration 

by prohibiting the activity (Table 4-67), 

requiring timing restrictions, requiring 

specialized design features (Table 4-

68), or requiring maintenance of habitat 

functionality (Table 4-69). These 

actions would delay permitting and 

increase the operator’s costs for 

exploratory coal drilling. However, 

requirements for specialized design 

features or mitigation would allow the 

operation to occur. Restricting or prohibiting exploratory coal activities would prevent data collection through 

drilling on coal deposits in some areas and impact companies’ decisions to lease coal. 

Management actions that restricted surface-disturbing activities in Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority 

Areas would require specialized design features for exploratory coal drilling, require that exploratory coal 

drilling avoid these areas, or otherwise restrict or prohibit exploratory coal drilling, all of which would delay 

permitting and increase costs for the operator. 

Avoiding areas with slopes 25 percent or greater and sensitive soils would reduce coal acres available for 

exploration; however, it is anticipated that most impacts would be mitigated to allow drilling to occur (Table 

4-70). 

Management actions in Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas that capped habitat disturbance 

would likely impact exploratory drilling at coal mines (such as Spring Creek and Decker). Under this action, 

companies would not be able to drill in sage-grouse habitat around the mines until they were fully reclaimed. 

However, at that point, there would be no need for exploratory drilling at the mines; subsequently, this 

management action would prohibit exploratory drilling at some mines. Without data on the coal resource, it is 

unlikely the mine companies would be able to determine the extent of the coal resource; consequently, this 

action would stifle future coal leasing and cause premature closure of some coal mines. Since exploratory 

TABLE 4-67. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED COAL MINERAL ACRES CLOSED 

TO COAL EXPLORATION UNDER ALTERNATIVE C

Area or Resource Mineral 

Acres

Acres in the 

Coal with 

Development 

Potential 

Polygons

Fish and 

Wildlife

Black-tailed Prairie Dogs, 

0.25-mile buffer 120,000 15,000

Pallid Sturgeon 45,000 2,100

Total 165,000 17,000
HAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Coal 

4-259

coal drilling would not be permitted in sage-grouse areas, it would be highly unlikely that any new mines 

would be developed in these areas. 

Surface-disturbing activities, including the use of heavy equipment and OHV use, would alter the 

characteristics of paleontological resources, damage or destroy fossils, or disturb the stratigraphic context in 

which they are located, which would result in the loss of important scientific data. Information contained in 

the stratigraphic and environmental context of paleontological resources is of primary importance to 

paleontological study and the removal of fossilized remains from their original location destroys this context 

and information. If the new landowner allowed surface-disturbing activities, these impacts would potentially 

occur on lands removed from BLM administration. 

TABLE 4-68.

BLM-ADMINISTERED COAL MINERAL ACRES REQUIRING 

SPECIALIZED DESIGN FEATURES UNDER ALTERNATIVE C

Fish and 

Wildlife Area 

or Resource

Mineral Acres 

Acres in the Coal with 

Development Potential 

Polygons

Big Game 

Crucial Winter 

Range

4,000,000 480,000

Sharp-tailed 

Grouse 2,700,000 500,000

Bighorn Sheep 

Range 120,000 19,000

Special Status 

Species Raptors 130,000 77,000

Total 7,000,000 1,100,000

TABLE 4-69. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED COAL MINERAL ACRES 

SUBJECT TO HABITAT FUNCTIONALITY REQUIREMENTS UNDER 

ALTERNATIVE C

Fish and Wildlife Area or 

Resource Mineral Acres

Acres in the Coal with 

Development Potential 

Polygons

Piping Plover 79,000 1,237

Least Tern 72,000 1,182

Sage-grouse Habitat – General 

Habitat Areas 2,300,000 280,000

Total 2,500,000 280,000

ALTERNATIVE D 

Management actions that restricted surface-disturbing or disruptive activities would impact coal exploration by 

requiring the activity be avoided (Table 4-71), requiring specialized design features (Table 4-72), or requiring 

maintenance of habitat functionality (Table 4-73). These actions would delay permitting and increase the 

operator’s costs for exploratory coal drilling. Restricting or prohibiting exploratory coal activities would prevent 

data collection through drilling on coal deposits in some areas and impact companies’ decisions to lease coal. 

Under this alternative, coal exploration programs would be required to avoid 8.0 million acres of BLM-
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Coal 

4-260

administered coal mineral estate. In addition, specialized design features to reduce impacts would be required 

on 7.0 million acres of BLM-administered coal mineral estate. 

TABLE 4-70. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED COAL MINERAL ACRES 

AVOIDED UNDER ALTERNATIVE C

Area or Resource Mineral 

Acres 

Acres in the Coal

with Development 

Potential Polygons

Soils

Slopes 490,000 1,400,000

Sensitive soils 7,200,000 1,500,000

Water

All floodplains 260,000 28,000

Waterbodies and streams 41,000 3,800

Veg.

Riparian and wetland areas 21,000 1,800

Fish and 

Wildlife

Aquatics, 0.25-mile sport-fish reservoir

buffer 5,500 320

Total 7,500,000 1,700,000

TABLE 4-71. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED COAL MINERAL ACRES AVOIDED UNDER 

ALTERNATIVE D

Area or Resource Mineral Acres

Acres in the Coal

with Development 

Potential Polygons

Soils, slopes 490,000 140,000

Soils, sensitive 7,200,000 1,500,000

Water, floodplains 260,000 28,000

Vegetation, riparian and wetland areas 21,000 1,700

Total (includes overlapping acres) 8,000,000 1,700,000

Management actions in Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas that capped habitat disturbance would 

likely impact exploratory drilling at coal mines (such as Spring Creek and Decker). Under this action, 

companies would not be able to drill in sage-grouse habitat at the mines until the mines were fully reclaimed. 

However, at that point, there would be no need for exploratory drilling at the mines; subsequently, this 

management action would prohibit exploratory drilling at some mines. Without data on the coal resource, it is 

unlikely the mining companies would be able to determine the availability of the coal resource; consequently, 

this action would stifle future coal leasing and cause premature closure of some coal mines. If exploratory 

drilling were prohibited in sage-grouse habitat areas, development of new coal mines would potentially be 

inhibited. 

ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Management actions that restricted surface-disturbing or disruptive activities would impact coal exploration 

by requiring timing restrictions, requiring specialized design features, avoidance, or requiring maintenance of 

habitat (Table 4-74). These actions would delay permitting and increase the operator’s costs for exploratory 
HAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Coal 

4-261

coal drilling. However, 

requirements for specialized 

design features or mitigation 

would allow the operation to 

occur. Restricting or prohibiting 

coal exploration activities would 

prevent data collection through 

drilling on coal deposits in some 

areas and affect companies’ 

decisions to lease coal. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

In the past, the BLM has made 

additional BLM-administered 

coal reserves available by 

processing Leases by Application 

and Lease Modification 

submittals for the existing coal 

mines, which has been sufficient 

to provide enough BLMadministered coal to mines, when it is needed. In the future, the BLM would continue to consider leasing 

requests to provide additional reserves to the existing mines at about the same rate as in the past. Although it is 

very difficult to predict, the BLM may receive leasing requests for new mine development within the planning 

area. 

Prior to submitting leasing requests, coal companies typically conduct exploration to locate and develop new 

reserves. Coal companies have been able to conduct exploration as needed with only a few seasonal restrictions. 

This ability to conduct exploration enables the coal companies to make long-range development plans that 

sustain the mining operations at current production levels or allows them to expand in accordance with market 

demands. The management actions proposed under this RMP would have a cumulative effect on exploratory 

coal drilling and possibly leasing, as described below. 

Alternative A 

The closures and restrictions under this alternative 

would tend to slow coal exploration but not 

severely restrict it. Typically, coal exploration 

precedes leasing applications. Currently, coal 

companies are able to continue to conduct the 

exploration necessary to define additional coal 

resources, a trend that would probably continue into 

the future under this alternative. 

Alternative B 

In the future, exploration by coal companies would 

be severely restricted and the companies would not 

be able to develop new reserves under this 

alternative. The closures and restrictions under this 

alternative would nearly eliminate coal exploration 

in the planning area. Subsequently, coal companies would not be able to continue to explore as necessary to 

define additional BLM-administered coal resources, which would cause some mines to close prematurely, 

depending on the availability of private and state coal resources. 

TABLE 4-72. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED COAL MINERAL ACRES REQUIRING 

SPECIALIZED DESIGN FEATURES UNDER ALTERNATIVE D

Area or Resource Mineral Acres 

Acres in the 

Coal with 

Development 

Potential 

Polygons

Fish and Wildlife

Big Game Crucial 

Winter Range 4,000,000 480,000

Sharp-tailed Grouse 2,700,000 500,000

Bighorn Sheep 

Range 120,000 8,800

Special Status 

Species Raptors 130,000 77,000

Cult

Battlefields 22,000 9,700

Total 6,900,000 1,100,000

TABLE 4-73. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED COAL MINERAL ACRES 

SUBJECT TO HABITAT FUNCTIONALITY 

REQUIREMENTS UNDER ALTERNATIVE D

Fish and Wildlife 

Area or Resource

Mineral 

Acres

Acres in the 

Coal with 

Development 

Potential 

Polygons

Piping Plover 79,000 1,237

Least Tern 72,000 1,182

Pallid Sturgeon 45,000 2,100

Sage-grouse Habitat –

General Habitat Areas 1,400,000 150,000

Total 1,600,000 160,000
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Coal 

4-262

TABLE 4-74.

BLM-ADMINISTERED COAL MINERAL ACRES SUBJECT TO SPECIALIZED DESIGN 

FEATURES, AVOIDANCE, OR HABITAT STIPULATIONS UNDER ALTERNATIVE E

Area or Resource Mineral 

Acres 

Acres in the Coal

with Development 

Potential Polygons

Soils

25% or greater slopes and sensitive soils 5,300,000 500,000

Water 

100-year floodplains 320,000 28,000

All waterbodies, 300-foot buffer 3,400,000 350,000

Veg.

Riparian and wetland areas 2,300,000 270,000

Fish and Wildlife

Aquatics, 0.25-mile buffer 5,500 320

Big Game Crucial Winter Range 4,000,000 480,000

Sharp-tailed Grouse, 2-mile buffer 2,700,000 500,000

Colonial Waterbirds, 0.25-mile buffer 970 32

Bighorn Sheep Range 120,000 19,000

Prairie Falcon, 0.5-mile buffer 29,000 8,400

Special Status Species Raptors, 0.5 mile buffer 130,000 29,000

Piping Plover 79,000 1,200

Interior Least Tern 72,000 1,200

Black-tailed Prairie Dog 13,000 1,300

Pallid Sturgeon, 0.5-mile buffer 45,000 2,400

Sage-grouse Habitat –General Habitat Areas, 2-mile 

buffer) 1,300,001 150,000

Protection Priority Areas 1,200,000 23,000

Restoration Areas 190,000 10

Visual 

Class II and III 240,000 3,000,000

Alternative C 

The closures and restrictions under this alternative would increase the difficulty of coal exploration by 

eliminating lands for exploration and imposing new restrictions on the lands available to explore. Currently, 

coal companies are able to continue to explore as necessary to define additional coal resources. However, in the 

future, coal companies would be able to continue to explore but encounter more difficulties and incur greater 

costs under this alternative. 

Alternative D 

Currently, coal companies are able to continue to explore as necessary to define additional coal resources. 

However, in the future, coal companies would be able to continue to explore but encounter more difficulties and 

incur greater costs under this alternative. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

The cumulative impacts under Alternative E would be nearly the same as those described under Alternative D. 

Exploration would continue around existing mines but more restrictions would delay operations and increase 

costs. It is possible that some operations would be denied depending on the resource involved and many other 

undermined variables analyzed at the time the action is proposed. As a result coal exploratory drilling at 
HAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Coal 

4-263

existing mines, as well as in other areas, would be allowed to continue; however, more restrictions with 

increased costs and anticipated delays would occur.

OIL, GAS, AND GEOTHERMAL

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 

The planning area contains approximately 25.8 million total mineral acres, of which 5.8 million are BLMadministered oil and gas mineral estate. The MCFO RFD scenario for oil and gas (see the Minerals Appendix 

for the RFD for the entire planning area) estimates that between 3,500 and 6,400 conventional oil and gas 

wells and between 1,100 and 1,200 CBNG wells would be drilled throughout the planning area. Of these, 

between 1,000 and 1,500 conventional oil and gas well locations and 23 and 278 CBNG well locations would 

occur on BLM-administered mineral estate. Conventional oil and gas wells would result in 10,000 to 16,000 

acres of short-term disturbance, with 2,400 to 3,700 of these acres disturbed by BLM-administered wells on 

BLM-administered mineral estate. There would be 139 to 600 acres (short term) disturbed by CBNG wells, 

with 12 to 50 disturbed by BLM-administered wells on BLM-administered mineral estate. 

Approximately 49 percent of these wells (conventional wells) would be drilled in the high potential areas 

(3,100 wells), 31 percent would be drilled in medium (2,000 wells), and 20 percent would be drilled in low 

potential areas (1,294 wells). 

The RFD for the MLP predicts up to 119 oil and gas wells drilled. Of those wells, 84 would be BLMadministered. The projected figure for wells (all ownerships) for the MLP area is 65 oil wells (46 BLMadministered) and 54 gas wells (38 BLM-administered). 

Of the 46 BLM-administered oil wells drilled in the MLP, 5 would be producing oil wells. Each well would 

need a reserve pit measuring 100 feet by 40 feet. Each well would need an access road for a total of 2 miles of 

road. Two miles of pipeline (to remove the associated gas) and 2 miles of buried power lines for these 

producing oil wells would be needed. Flaring of associated gas would be needed until pipelines were in place. 

Of the 38 BLM-administered gas wells predicted, approximately 4 gas wells would produce federal gas. The 4 

producing wells would need 12 miles of pipeline to deliver or distribute the gas and 12 miles of buried power 

lines (Table 26). Access would not be developed for the gas wells as it would be gained by driving across twotrack roads. 

The estimates within the RFD scenario were developed based on drilling trends, current state and federal laws 

and regulations, oil and gas leasing stipulations, and management policies using Alternative A as a baseline. 

Post-lease actions or authorizations (e.g., APDs or road or pipeline ROWs) would potentially be encumbered by 

timing and CSU stipulations for oil, gas, and geothermal leasing and development on a case-by-case basis and 

as required through project-specific NEPA analysis or other environmental review. 

Production life of each type of well varies. Typical production life of a conventional oil, gas, and CBNG well 

(from drilling to final abandonment) is approximately 20 to 30, 40, and 20 years. However, available 

technology and the specific geologic formation may alter the production life of a well. 

Typical drilling operations for each conventional oil well would require 30 days with an additional 5 days for 

completion operations while conventional gas wells and CBNG wells would require 3 to 5 days with an 

additional 2 to 3 days for completion work. 

The typical production life of a field, from discovery to final abandonment of the last well, is approximately 1 

to 100 years. Available technology and the specific geologic formation may alter the production life of the field. 

The average area disturbed varies by type of well (see Table 26 in the RFD in the Minerals Appendix).

No federal oil shale leasing would likely occur in either the short or the long term. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Oil, Gas, and Geothermal 

4-264

The potential for geothermal energy within the planning area is limited and BLM-administered geothermal 

leasing would not be likely to occur in either the short or the long term. The technology used to develop 

geothermal resources would be similar to technology used to develop the oil and gas resources. 

Acre figures in all tables, except where noted, may overlap, and adding these figures will not result in 

accurate total acreage values. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Restrictions for surface-disturbing or disruptive activities would require additional activities, features, 

mitigation, or buried infrastructure to minimize impacts to resources (Table 4-75). These restrictions would 

decrease lease values, increase operating costs, cause the relocation of wells and production sites, and hinder 

orderly and efficient field development. Restrictions applied to protect certain surface resources would 

prevent drilling of some BLM-administered wells. 

Some areas would be closed to geophysical exploration under Management Common to all Alternatives 

(Table 4-76). 

TABLE 4-75. 

TOTAL BLM-ADMINISTERED ACRES AFFECTED UNDER 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Oil and Gas Potential

Stipulation or 

Management 

Action

Surface Acres

High

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

Medium

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

Low

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

Total 

Mineral

Acres

NSO 47,000 15 23,000 67,000 91,000

CSU 5,900 0 0 4,200 4,200

Closed to Leasing 95,000 26,000 26,000 410,000 460,000

Open Acres 2,600,000 720,000 1,400,000 3,200,000 5,300,000

Geophysical 

Allowed 2,600,000

Geophysical management actions apply only to surface acres. Geophysical 

Prohibited 160,000

ALTERNATIVE A 

Restrictions for surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would require additional activities, features, 

mitigation, or buried infrastructure to minimize impacts to resources (Table 4-77). These restrictions would 

decrease lease values, increase operating costs, cause the relocation of wells and production sites, and hinder 

orderly and efficient field development. Restrictions applied to protect certain surface resources would 

prevent drilling of some BLM-administered wells. 

The placement of new oil and gas wells would be allowed on 80 percent of the BLM-administered mineral 

estate in the planning area currently subject to oil and gas leasing stipulations in effect under the Powder 

River and Big Dry RMPs. The identified oil and gas leasing stipulations would result in the pace of 

development identified in the RFD scenario. Oil and gas well development would be expected to be within 

the predicted RFD range of 2,142 to 2,746 conventional producing oil wells; 1,495 to 2,225 producing gas 

wells; and 96 to 1,152 producing CBNG wells. Of these wells, 497 to 637 BLM-administered conventional 

producing oil wells; 346 to 528 BLM-administered conventional producing gas wells; and 22 to 267 BLMadministered producing CBNG wells would be located on BLM-administered mineral estate (867 to 1,432 

total producing BLM-administered wells). 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Oil, Gas, and Geothermal 

4-265

TABLE 4-76.

BLM-ADMINISTERED ACRES CLOSED TO GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATION UNDER 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Area or Resource Surface Acres

Visual 

Class I areas 100,000

Special Desig. 

Areas

Big Sheep Mountain ACEC 360

Hoe ACEC 144

Jordan Bison Kill ACEC 40

Powder River Depot ACEC 1,404

Seline ACEC 80

Piping Plover ACEC 16

Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction ACEC 11,200

TABLE 4-77. 

TOTAL BLM-ADMINISTERED ACRES AFFECTED UNDER 

ALTERNATIVE A

Oil and Gas Potential

Stipulation 

or 

Management 

Action

Surface 

Acres

High

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

Medium

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

Low

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

Total 

Mineral

Acres

NSO 260,000 54,000 140,000 340,000 530,000

CSU 28,000 5,000 8,100 23,000 36,000

Timing 1,800,000 520,000 1,100,000 2,200,000 3,800,000

Closed to 

Leasing 1,800,000 520,000 1,100,000 2,200,000 3,800,000

Open Acres 290,000 140,000 170,000 590,000 910,000

Geophysical 

Allowed 2,400,000 Geophysical management actions apply only to 

Geophysical surface acres.

Prohibited 370,000

Geophysical exploration would be allowed on 2.4 million acres of BLM-administered surface estate and 

prohibited on 370,000 acres (Table 4-78). (An average of two geophysical projects is permitted each year on 

BLM-administered surfaces in the planning area.) 

This alternative would contain 990,000 acres of BLM-administered mineral estate with a Class II VRM 

status, with 77,000 acres containing high development potential, 40,000 moderate potential, and the 

remaining 870,000 acres low potential for conventional oil and gas and CBNG. While the management 

prescriptions for VRM would not prohibit drilling, companies would incur additional costs to develop oil and 

gas resources in the planning area. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Oil, Gas, and Geothermal 

4-266

ALTERNATIVE B 

Restrictions for surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would require additional activities, features, 

mitigation, or buried infrastructure to minimize impacts to resources. These restrictions would decrease lease 

values, increase operating costs, cause the relocation of wells and production sites, and hinder orderly and 

efficient field development. Restrictions applied to protect certain surface resources would prevent drilling of 

some BLM-administered wells. 

TABLE 4-78.

BLM-ADMINISTERED ACRES CLOSED TO GEOPHYSICAL

EXPLORATION UNDER ALTERNATIVE A

Area or Resource Surface 

Acres

Fish and 

Wildlife

Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks and Nesting Habitat, 0.25-mile lek 

buffer 20,000

Colonial Waterbirds (Big Dry RMP area), 1,000-foot buffer 90

Sage-grouse, 0.25-mile buffer 12,000

Paleo.

Paleontological Area closure 171

Rec.

Powder River Depot SRMA 161

Calypso SRMA 69

Matthews Recreation Area 91

Special 

Desig. 

Areas

Ash Creek Divide, Bug Creek, Hell Creek, and Sand Arroyo

ACECs 40,000

Battle Butte ACEC 121

Reynolds Battlefield ACEC 336

Habitat compensation would inhibit the efficient and orderly development of mineral activities in sage-grouse 

habitats. Applying restrictions for disruptive activities (including noise) to existing and future development 

would inhibit drilling and development (Table 4-79). Under this alternative, there would be 5.3 million BLMadministered minerals acres subject to sage-grouse restriction (NSO or CSU), which would be approximately 

91 percent of the 5.8 million BLM-administered mineral acres in the planning area. These restrictions would 

increase operating costs and reduce the amount of federal oil and gas resources recovered because fewer 

federal wells would be drilled. 

Applying closures and restrictions to BLM-administered minerals would result in a decrease in the number of 

conventional oil, gas, and CBNG wells developed over both the short and long term. 

Large, contiguous blocks of lands subject to NSO stipulations for oil and gas leasing and development, such 

as the Carter Master Leasing Plan (MLP) area, would considerably decrease the value of BLM-administered 

leases. Although these prescriptions would not prohibit drilling, companies would have to drill directionally 

to develop oil and gas reserves. These restrictions would increase operating costs and reduce the amount of 

BLM-administered oil and gas resources recovered because fewer federal wells would be drilled. 

This alternative would contain 1.0 million acres of BLM-administered mineral estate with a Class II VRM 

status. While the management prescriptions for VRM would not prohibit drilling, companies would incur 

additional costs to develop oil and gas resources in the planning area. 

Prohibiting geophysical operations on approximately 89 percent of the BLM-administered surface in the 

planning area under this alternative would result in the denial of any future permits to conduct geophysical 

exploration on BLM-administered surfaces in the planning area and impact the configuration of geophysical 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Oil, Gas, and Geothermal 

4-267

projects that would otherwise include BLM-administered surface (Table 4-80). Because subsurface data 

collected by geophysical operations would be used with other data and information to determine proposed oil 

and gas well sites, this action would impact the quality, accuracy, and extent of data collected by geophysical 

operations. 

TABLE 4-79. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED ACRES AFFECTED BY SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT 

CATEGORIZATION UNDER ALTERNATIVE B

Oil and Gas Potential

Area or 

Resource

Oil and Gas 

Mineral 

Acres

Surface 

Acres

High

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

Medium

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

Low

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

General 

Habitat 

Areas

2,800,000 1,200,000 360,000 550,000 1,900,000

Protection 

Priority 

ACEC

2,200,000 1,100,000 230,000 380,000 1,600,000

Restoration

Areas 410,000 250,000 33,000 340,000 42,000

Total 5,400,000 2,600,000 630,000 1,300,000 3,500,000

Under this alternative, there would be 2.6 million BLM-administered acres subject to NSO stipulations for oil 

and gas leasing and development; 400,000 subject to CSU stipulations for oil and gas leasing and development; 

and 2.2 million BLM-administered acres closed to leasing (Table 4-81). Under this alternative, there would be 

7,127 acres (approximately one-tenth of 1 percent) of the BLM-administered mineral estate open under lease 

terms. In other areas development would be allowed but criteria would need to be met before it occurred. 

Under this alternative, there would be from 372 to 758 fewer federal oil wells; 305 to 620 fewer conventional 

federal gas wells; and 127 to 258 fewer federal CBNG wells drilled than projected in the RFD. The increased 

amount of restrictions under this alternative would raise the cost of drilling on federal mineral estate. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Restrictions for surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would require additional activities, features, 

mitigation, or buried infrastructure to minimize impacts to resources (Table 4-82). These restrictions would 

decrease lease values, increase operating costs, cause the relocation of wells and production sites, and hinder 

orderly and efficient field development. Restrictions applied to protect certain surface resources would 

prevent drilling of some BLM-administered wells. These restrictions would increase processing time for 

APDs and sundry notices and, more importantly, possibly cause denial of APDs. Although these prescriptions 

would not prohibit drilling, companies would have to drill directionally to develop oil and gas reserves. Large 

contiguous blocks of restricted mineral estate would inhibit oil and gas leasing and development in the 

planning area. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Oil, Gas, and Geothermal 

4-268

TABLE 4-80. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED ACRES CLOSED TO GEOPHYSICAL 

EXPLORATION UNDER ALTERNATIVE B

Area or Resource Surface Acres

Soils

Slopes 140,000

Sensitive 1,800,000

Water

Floodplains 42,000

Waterbodies and streams 12,000

Veg.

Riparian and wetland 70,000

Invasive species Unknown

Fish and Wildlife

Aquatics, 0.5-mile sport-fish reservoir buffer 3,800

Big Game Crucial Winter Range 1,600,000

Colonial Waterbirds, 0.25-mile buffer 260

Bighorn Sheep Range 68,000

Special Status Species Raptors, 0.5-mile buffer 61,000

Piping Plover and Interior Least Tern, 0.25-mile buffer 9,300

Black-tailed Prairie Dogs, 0.5 mile buffer 130,000

Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas, 4-mile buffer 1,100,000

Protection Priority ACEC 1,000,000

Restoration Areas, 3 or fewer wells Unknown

Cult.

3.5-mile and 0.5-mile buffers 580

Rec.

Powder River Depot SRMA 161

Calypso SRMA 71

Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA 32,000

Howrey Island SRMA 591

Matthews Recreation Area 90

Dean S. Reservoir 161

Pumpkin Creek Ranch and Recreation Area 19,000

Glendive OHV 5,800

Terry OHV 72

Strawberry Hill Recreation Area 4,248

Moorhead Recreation Area 20

Special Desig. Areas

Ash Creek Divide, Bug Creek, Hell Creek, and Sand 

Arroyo ACECs 40,000

Battle Butte Battlefield ACEC 970

Reynolds Battlefield ACEC 18,000

Smoky Butte ACEC 280

Flat Creek Paleontological Area 1,500

Powderville Paleontological Area 27,000

Long Medicine Wheel Area 1,100

Walstein Area 2,045

Yonkee Area 80

Although overlaps remain between management actions, acreage within each management action 

does not include overlaps.

Habitat compensation actions would restrict mineral activities in sage-grouse habitats. Restricting disruptive 

activities (including noise) in sage-grouse areas to existing and future development would inhibit drilling and 

development. Under this alternative, there would be 5.3 million BLM-administered minerals acres subject to 

sage-grouse restrictions (NSO or CSU), approximately 91 percent of the 5.8 million BLM-administered 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Oil, Gas, and Geothermal 

4-269

mineral acres in the planning area (Table 4-83). These restrictions would not only hinder future development 

but also inhibit existing development within large blocks of BLM-administered mineral estate. 

TABLE 4-82. 

TOTAL BLM-ADMINISTERED ACRES AFFECTED UNDER 

ALTERNATIVE C

Oil and Gas Potential

Stipulation or 

Management 

Action

Surface Acres

High 

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

Medium 

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

Low 

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

Total 

Mineral

Acres

NSO 98,000 25,000 25,000 100,000 150,000

CSU 2,300,000 680,000 1,400,000 2,900,000 4,900,000

Timing Acres 0 0 0 0 0

Open Acres 23,000 22,000 36,000 160,000 210,000

Geophysical 

Allowed 1,800,000

Geophysical management actions apply only to surface acres. Geophysical 

Prohibited 780,000

Geophysical exploration would be allowed on 1.8 million acres of BLM-administered surface estate in the 

planning area and restricted on 780,000 acres (Table 4-84). Denial of geophysical exploration permits on 

BLM-administered surfaces in the planning area would impact the configuration of geophysical projects that 

would otherwise include BLM-administered surfaces. Because subsurface data collected by geophysical 

operations would be used with other data and information to determine proposed oil and gas well sites, this 

action would also impact the quality, accuracy, and extent of data collected by geophysical operations. 

Applying closures and restrictions to BLM-administered minerals would result in a decrease in the number of 

conventional oil, gas, and CBNG wells developed over both the short and long term. There would be 4,260 to 

7,409 wells drilled. Of these, 78 to 1,170 would be CBNG wells; 2,312 to 3,432 would be oil wells; and 

1,882 to 2,808 would be gas wells (all ownerships). 

This alternative would contain 1.1 million acres of BLM-administered mineral estate with a Class II VRM 

status, with 300,000 acres containing high development potential; 24,000 moderate potential; and the 

remaining 780,000 acres would be low potential for conventional oil and gas and CBNG. While the 

management prescriptions for VRM would not prohibit drilling, companies would incur additional costs to 

develop oil and gas resources in the planning area. 

TABLE 4-81. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED ACRES AFFECTED UNDER ALTERNATIVE B

Stipulation or 

Management 

Action

Surface 

Acres

Oil and Gas Potential 

Total

Acres

High 

Potential 

Acres

Medium

Potential Acres

Low

Potential 

Acres

NSO 940,000 430,000 940,000 1,300,000 2,700,000

CSU 400,000 25,000 82,000 300,000 410,000

Timing Acres 0 0 0 0 0

Closed to Leasing 1,100,000 270,000 390,000 1,500,000 2,200,000

Open Acres 6,800 1,800 5,100 200 7,100

Geophysical 

allowed 160,000

Geophysical management actions apply only to surface acres. Geophysical 

prohibited 2,400,000
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Oil, Gas, and Geothermal 

4-270

TABLE 4-83. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED ACRES AFFECTED BY SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT 

CATEGORIZATION UNDER ALTERNATIVE C

Oil and Gas Potential

Area or 

Resource

Oil and Gas

Mineral Acres

Surface 

Acres

High

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

Medium

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

Low

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

General Habitat 

Areas 3,700,000 1,700,000 490,000 900,000 2,300,000

Protection 

Priority Areas 1,400,000 760,000 100,000 160,000 1,100,000

Restoration

Areas 260,000 130,000 33,000 210,000 20,000

Total 5,400,000 2,600,000 630,000 1,300,000 3,500,000

TABLE 4-84. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED ACRES CLOSED TO GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATION 

UNDER ALTERNATIVE C

Area or Resource Surface Acres

Fish and 

Wildlife

Black-tailed Prairie Dog, 0.25-mile buffer 5,300

Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas, 3.1-mile buffer 760,000

Cult.

3.5-mile buffer Unavailable

300-foot buffer

Under this alternative, there would be from 65 to 88 fewer federal oil wells drilled, 53 to 72 fewer 

conventional federal gas wells drilled, and 22 to 30 fewer federal CBNG wells drilled than projected in the 

RFD. 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Restrictions for surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would require additional activities, features, 

mitigation, or buried infrastructure to minimize impacts to resources. These restrictions would decrease lease 

values, increase operating costs, cause the relocation of wells and production sites, and hinder orderly and 

efficient field development. Restrictions applied to protect certain surface resources would prevent drilling of 

some BLM-administered wells. 

Under this alternative, CSU stipulations for oil and gas leasing and development, including in the Carter MLP 

Area, would apply to 5.3 million acres, approximately 91 percent of the BLM-administered mineral acres in the 

planning area (Table 4-85). 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Oil, Gas, and Geothermal 

4-271

Habitat compensation would restrict mineral activities in sage-grouse habitat. Applying restrictions for 

disruptive activities (including noise) to existing and future development would inhibit drilling and 

development. Under this alternative, there would be 5.1 million BLM-administered minerals acres subject to 

sage-grouse restrictions (NSO or CSU), approximately 88 percent of the 5.8 million BLM-administered 

mineral acres in the planning area. These restrictions would not only limit future development, but also 

inhibit existing development within large blocks of BLM-administered minerals. Limiting surface disturbance 

in sage-grouse habitats would restrict development in oil or gas fields (Table 4-86). Based on CSU 

stipulations for oil and gas leasing and development for the area, conditions of approval would be applied to 

authorizations on existing leases. 

Geophysical exploration would be allowed on 1.9 million acres and prohibited on 700,000 acres of BLMadministered surface estate in the planning area (Table 4-87). Denial of geophysical exploration permits on 

BLM-administered surfaces in the planning area would impact the configuration of geophysical projects that 

would otherwise include BLM-administered surfaces. Because subsurface data collected by geophysical 

operations would be used with other data and information to determine proposed oil and gas well sites, this 

action would also impact the quality, accuracy, and extent of data collected by geophysical operations. 

Oil and gas development and leasing would be allowed under lease terms as defined in 43 CFR 3160 on 

110,000 BLM-administered mineral acres. The number of restricted acres under this alternative would 

decrease the number of conventional oil, gas, and CBNG wells developed over both the short and the long 

term. There would be 4,239 to 7,460 wells drilled. Of these, 78 to 1,175 would be CBNG wells; 2,312 to 

3,459 would be oil wells; and 1,882 to 2,819 would be gas wells (all ownerships). 

Under this alternative, there would be from 65 to 74 fewer federal oil wells drilled, 53 to 61 fewer 

conventional federal gas wells drilled, and 22 to 25 fewer federal CBNG wells drilled than projected in the 

RFD. 

Although management actions for ACECs under this alternative would impact oil and gas development very 

little overall, it would be possible that one to four fewer wells would be drilled than the number projected in 

the RFD. 

This alternative would contain 1.0 million acres of BLM-administered mineral estate with a Class II VRM 

status, with 290,000 acres containing high development potential; 21,000 moderate potential; and the 

remaining 730,000 acres low potential for conventional oil and gas and CBNG. While the management 

prescriptions for VRM would not prohibit drilling, companies would incur additional costs to develop oil and 

gas resources in the planning area. 

TABLE 4-85. 

TOTAL BLM-ADMINISTERED ACRES AFFECTED UNDER 

ALTERNATIVE D

Oil and Gas Potential

Stipulation 

or 

Management 

Action

Surface 

Acres

High

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

Medium

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

Low

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

Total 

Mineral

Acres

CSU 2,300,000 690,000 1,400,000 2,90,000 5,000,000

Closed to 

Leasing 3,000 2,400 2,100 1,800 6,300

Geophysical 

Allowed 2,100,000 Geophysical management actions apply only to 

Geophysical surface acres.

Prohibited 550,000

Although overlaps remain between management actions, acreage within each management 

action does not include overlaps.
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Oil, Gas, and Geothermal 

4-272

TABLE 4-86. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED ACRES AFFECTED BY SAGE-GROUSE 

HABITAT CATEGORIZATION UNDER ALTERNATIVE D

Oil and Gas Potential

Area or 

Resource

Oil and

Gas

Mineral 

Acres

Surface 

Acres

High

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

Medium

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

Low

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

General 

Habitat 

Areas

3,900,000 1,800,000 490,000 940,000 2,500,000

Protection 

Priority 

Areas

950,000 500,000 87,000 42,000 820,000

Restoration

Areas 220,000 100,000 33,000 :162005 20,000

Total 5,100,000 2,400,000 610,000 1,100,000 3,300,000

TABLE 4-87.

BLM-ADMINISTERED ACRES CLOSED TO GEOPHYSICAL 

EXPLORATION UNDER ALTERNATIVE D

Area or Resource Surface Acres

Fish and 

Wildlife

Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas, 2-

mile buffer 560,000

Sage-grouse Habitat – Restoration Areas, 200-

meter restriction 51,000

Special Desig. Areas

Ash Creek Divide 424

Hell Creek 681

Sand Arroyo ACEC 19

Battle Butte Battlefield ACEC 265

Reynolds Battlefield ACEC 984

Cedar Creek Paleontological Area 1,076

Flat Creek Paleontological Area 458

Powderville Paleontological Area 95

Long Medicine Wheel Area 53

Walstein Area 79

Yonkee Area 18

ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Restrictions for surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would require additional activities, features, 

mitigation, or buried infrastructure to minimize the impacts to resources. These restrictions would decrease 

lease values, increase operating costs, cause the relocation of wells and production sites, and hinder orderly 

and efficient field development. Restrictions applied to protect certain surface resources would prevent 

drilling of some BLM-administered wells. Large contiguous blocks of restricted mineral estate would inhibit 

oil and gas leasing and development in the planning area. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Oil, Gas, and Geothermal 

4-273

Restrictions for sage-grouse habitat under this alternative would impact oil and gas activities in the planning 

area (Table 4-88). Under this alternative, there would be 5.4 million BLM-administered minerals acres subject 

to sage-grouse restrictions (NSO or CSU), approximately 93 percent of the 5.8 million BLM-administered 

mineral acres in the planning area. 

Restrictions for 

disruptive activity 

(including noise) on 

existing and future 

development would 

inhibit drilling and 

development. These 

restrictions would not 

only hinder future 

development but also 

inhibit existing 

development within 

large blocks of BLMadministered mineral 

estate. 

Geophysical exploration 

would be allowed on 2.3 

million acres of BLMadministered surface 

estate in the planning 

area and restricted on 

140,000 acres (Table 4-89). Denial of geophysical exploration permits on BLM-administered surfaces in the 

planning area would impact the configuration of geophysical projects that would otherwise include BLMadministered surfaces. Because subsurface data collected by geophysical operations would be used with other 

data and information to determine proposed oil and gas well sites, this action would also impact the quality, 

accuracy, and extent of data collected by geophysical operations. 

The placement of new oil and gas wells would be allowed on 66,000 acres of BLM-administered mineral 

estate under lease terms (approximately 1 percent). A total of 1.5 million acres of BLM-administered mineral 

estate (31 percent) would be subject to NSO stipulations for oil and gas leasing and development and an 

additional 3.4 million (61 percent) to CSU stipulations for oil and gas leasing and development (including in 

the Carter MLP Area in which 28,000 acres would be subject to NSO stipulations and 280,000 acres to CSU 

stipulations) (Table 4-90). The remaining acreage would be closed or subject to timing restrictions. When 

combined, these oil and gas leasing stipulations would subject more than 57 percent of the BLM-administered 

mineral estate in the planning area to management actions in which development would be allowed but 

criteria would have to be met before it would occur. 

This alternative would contain 1.1 million acres of BLM-administered mineral estate with a Class II VRM 

status, with 300,000 acres containing high development potential; 24,000 moderate potential; and the 

remaining 780,000 acres low potential for conventional oil and gas and CBNG. While the management 

prescriptions for VRM would not prohibit drilling, companies would incur additional costs to develop oil and 

gas resources in the planning area. 

Under this alternative, there would be 4,262 to 6,972 wells drilled. Of these, 78 to 1,101 would be CBNG 

wells, 2,301 to 3,229 would be oil wells, and 1,883 to 2,642 would be gas wells (all ownerships). 

TABLE 4-88. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED ACRES AFFECTED BY SAGE-GROUSE 

HABITAT CATEGORIZATION UNDER ALTERNATIVE E

Oil and Gas Potential

Area or 

Resource

Oil and

Gas 

Mineral 

Acres

Surface 

Acres

High

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

Medium

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

Low

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

General 

Habitat 

Areas

3,600,000 1,600,000 490,000 880,000 2,200,000

Protection 

Priority 

Areas

1,500,000 830,000 100,000 180,000 1,200,000 

Restoration

Areas 330,000 130,000 45,000 260,000 20,000

Total 5,400,000 260,000 640,000 1,300,000 3,500,000
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Oil, Gas, and Geothermal 

4-274

Under this alternative, there would be 

from 64 to 291 fewer federal oil wells 

drilled, 52 to 238 fewer conventional 

federal gas wells drilled, and 22 to 99 

fewer federal CBNG wells drilled 

than projected in the RFD. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Historically, the Cedar Creek 

Anticline and the northeast Montana 

portion of the Williston Basin have 

experienced the majority of drilling 

and development activity in the 

planning area. These areas, which 

began producing oil in the 1950s, had 

gas wells installed as early as the 

1920s. Prior to the 1970s, most 

drilling on BLM-administered 

minerals was done with limited 

federal regulation. From the 1970s to the present, increasing resource protection has caused increases in 

restrictions to drilling and development on federal minerals. 

These restrictions have changed the pace of development by delaying or denying approvals and increasing 

drilling of offset wells. 

Cumulative impacts to oil and gas resources include continued increases in restrictions on oil and gas 

development, which would limit future development. Lease values would be reduced by increased oil and gas 

leasing stipulations and regulations. Lease developments would be affected by a reduced number of wells 

drilled on leases with oil and gas leasing stipulations, an increased number of wells drilled on leases with 

minimal constraints, and an increase in operating costs as a result of land use decisions, oil and gas leasing 

stipulations, and regulations. 

Restrictions on BLM-administered leases would impact the leasing and development of adjacent leasable 

minerals not administered by the BLM. An exploration company may forego development on BLMadministered acres or 

intensely develop 

leases on nearby state 

and private mineral 

estate because 

restrictions on BLMadministered mineral 

estate would leave the 

company unable to 

develop on the BLMadministered mineral 

estate. 

Alternative A 

Alternative A would 

not contribute to 

cumulative impacts to 

TABLE 4-89.

BLM-ADMINISTERED ACRES CLOSED TO GEOPHYSICAL 

EXPLORATION UNDER ALTERNATIVE E

Area or Resource Surface 

Acres

Rec.

Powder River Depot SRMA 161

Calypso SRMA 71

Howrey Island SRMA 108

Matthews Recreation Area 90

Dean S. Reservoir 161

Pumpkin Creek Ranch and Recreation Area 6,300

Moorhead Recreation Area 20

Special Desig. 

Areas

Battle Butte Battlefield ACEC 320

Reynolds Battlefield ACEC 864

Smoky Butte ACEC 280

Long Medicine Wheel Area 179

Walstein Area 2,045

Yonkee Area 40

TABLE 4-90. 

TOTAL BLM-ADMINISTERED ACRES AFFECTED UNDER 

ALTERNATIVE E

Oil and Gas Potential

Stipulation 

or 

Management 

Action

Surface 

Acres

High 

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

Medium 

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

Low 

Potential 

Mineral 

Acres

Total 

Mineral

Acres

NSO 830,000 130,000 210,000 1,200,000 1,500,000

CSU 1,600,000 590,000 190,000 1,800,000 2,600,000

Timing Acres 0 0 0 0 0

Open Acres 93,000 4,100 1,000,000 120,000 1,100,000

Geophysical 

Allowed 1,800,000 Geophysical management actions apply only to

Geophysical surface acres.

Prohibited 780,000
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Oil, Gas, and Geothermal 

4-275

the mineral estate. This alternative would allow drilling and development to continue at a slow, irregular pace 

under numerous restrictions for resource protection. Under this alternative, oil and gas well development 

would be expected to occur within the predicted RFD range. There would be 4,400 to 7,600 wells drilled. Of 

these, 100 to 1,200 would be CBNG wells; 2,365 to 3,520 would be oil wells; and 1,935 to 2,880 would be 

gas wells (all ownerships). The federal wells drilled would be from 25 to 278 CBNG wells, 544 to 816 oil 

wells, and 445 to 668 gas wells. Oil and gas well development would be expected to be within the predicted 

RFD range of 1,845 to 2,746 conventional producing oil wells; 1,507 to 2,275 producing gas wells; and 96 to 

1,152 producing CBNG wells. Of these wells, 424 to 637 BLM-administered conventional producing oil 

wells; 350 to 528 BLM-administered conventional producing gas wells; and 22 to 267 BLM-administered 

producing CBNG wells would be located on BLM-administered mineral estate (796 to 1,762 total producing 

BLM-administered wells). 

Alternative B 

Alternative B would contribute to cumulative impacts to the mineral estate. This alternative would be the 

most restrictive for drilling and development. The increased number of closures and restricted acres would 

limit development in the planning area. Applying closures and restrictions to BLM-administered minerals 

would result in a decrease in the number of conventional oil, gas, and CBNG wells developed over both the 

short and long term. There would be 2,764 to 6,796 wells drilled. Of these, 75 to 942 would be CBNG wells; 

1,607 to 3,148 would be oil wells; and 1,315 to 2,575 would be gas wells (all ownerships). 

Under this alternative, there would be from 372 to 758 fewer federal oil wells drilled, 305 to 620 fewer 

conventional federal gas wells drilled, and 127 to 258 fewer federal CBNG wells drilled than projected in the 

RFD. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C would contribute to cumulative impacts to the mineral estate. This alternative would restrict 

and limit drilling and development with an increased number of restricted acres. Applying closures and 

restrictions to BLM-administered minerals would result in a decrease in the number of conventional oil, gas, 

and CBNG wells developed over both the short and long term. There would be 4,260 to 7,409 wells drilled. 

Of these, 78 to 1,170 would be CBNG wells; 2,312 to 3,432 would be oil wells; and 1,882 to 2,808 would be 

gas wells (all ownerships). 

Under this alternative, there would be from 65 to 88 fewer federal oil wells drilled, 53 to 72 fewer 

conventional federal gas wells drilled, and 22 to 30 fewer federal CBNG wells drilled than projected in the 

RFD. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D would contribute to cumulative impacts to the mineral estate and reduce and slow drilling and 

development. This alternative would allow drilling and development under restrictions for resource 

protection. Under this alternative, there would be from 65 to 74 fewer federal oil wells drilled, 53 to 61 fewer 

conventional federal gas wells drilled, and 22 to 25 fewer federal CBNG wells drilled than projected in the 

RFD. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative E would contribute to cumulative impacts to the mineral estate. This alternative would restrict and 

limit drilling and development on BLM-administered minerals under an increased number of restricted acres. 

Under this alternative, there would be 4,262 to 6,972 wells drilled. Of these, 78 to 1,101 would be CBNG 

wells; 2,301 to 3,229 would be oil wells; and 1,883 to 2,642 would be gas wells (all ownerships). 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Oil, Gas, and Geothermal 

4-276

Under this alternative, there would be from 64 to 291 fewer federal oil wells drilled, 52 to 238 fewer 

conventional federal gas wells drilled, and 22 to 99 fewer federal CBNG wells drilled than projected in the 

RFD. 

LOCATABLE MINERALS 

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 

Although the potential for locatable minerals (including gold, chromium, titanium, zeolite, and associated 

minerals such as copper, lead, and zinc) in the planning area is very low, the potential for other locatable 

minerals (such as bentonite and uranium) is high. 

Although gold placer mining occurred in the Yellowstone River as far downstream as Miles City, there is no 

record of the quantity of the gold recovered. It is assumed that recreational collection of gold and agates and 

“rock hounding” will continue. 

Many locatable mineral commodities are higher in comparison to values over the last 25 years. It is assumed 

that commodity prices would fluctuate around the current price level or increase modestly over both the short 

and long term. It is assumed that sustained or increasing prices would generate interest in exploration and 

development of locatable minerals. 

Bentonite is exposed extensively in the planning area and contains the highest potential for development in 

the planning area. 

Five locatable mineral claims per year would be filed and two bentonite mines would be active over both the 

short and long term. It is also assumed that a uranium in situ leach mining operation would be developed in 

the long term. Each mining claim would cover an estimated 20 acres. Exploration for locatable minerals 

would also continue over the short and long term. See the Minerals Appendix for the locatable minerals RFD 

scenarios. 

Operators must submit a notice of intent (NOI) for exploration actions that would disturb less than 5 acres. A 

NEPA analysis is not conducted for NOIs, which do not constitute a federal action and are not subject to 

federal approval. 

Any proposed surface disturbance greater than 5 acres, a disturbance of any size proposed within a special 

management area (such as an ACEC), any bulk sampling that removes 1,000 tons or more of presumed ore for 

testing, or any surface-disturbing operations within lands or waters known to contain federally proposed or 

listed threatened or endangered species or their habitat requires a plan of operations (PO) be submitted to the 

BLM for approval. A detailed operations and reclamation plan is required and a NEPA analysis and public 

review of the PO or environmental document would be conducted. As a result, resource values and impacts are 

studied and documented and comprehensive reclamation plans that satisfy BLM requirements are incorporated 

into the PO. 

Activities, conditions, or practices that failed to comply with the performance standards found in 43 CFR 

3809.420, the terms and conditions of an approved PO, operations described in a complete NOI, or other state 

and federal laws related to environmental protection and the protection of cultural resources would constitute 

unnecessary and undue degradation. For example, if threatened and endangered species were present and the 

proposed actions caused impacts to species that could not be mitigated, the action would potentially be 

denied. Proposed activities under NOIs and POs cannot cause unnecessary or undue degradation. 

However, federal regulations allow reasonable and necessary disturbance. In the absence of requirements 

imposed by state or federal laws pertaining to the subject resource, such as threatened or endangered species 

or cultural resources, it may not be possible to deny operations. It would, however, be possible to impose 

reasonable mitigation measures to reduce impacts, which would subject the claimant or operator to delays, 

additional mitigation, additional expense, possible loss of revenue, and alteration of mining plans. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Locatable Minerals 

4-277

In the context of NOIs and POs, the BLM must require mitigation measures as needed to prevent unnecessary 

or undue degradation. Mitigation measures are developed based on a site-specific review of the NOI or PO and 

must be implemented by the operator. Although mitigation is not expected to eliminate all (or even most 

impacts), it is required to address potential impacts that would otherwise constitute undue degradation without 

mitigation. 

The definition of mitigation includes elimination of the action or parts of an action. However, for operators 

exercising their rights under the Mining Law of 1872, the BLM can only stipulate mitigation requiring that the 

operator eliminate the action or part of the action necessary to achieve compliance with a substantive 

environmental law (such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, or ESA). 

If the proposed action would not cause unnecessary or undue degradation, the NOI is accepted by the BLM and 

the PO would be approved. Although NOIs in the planning area would include exploratory drilling activity, they 

could include small-scale sampling of less than 1,000 tons. 

Most NOI activity in the planning area would result from bentonite exploratory drilling, which is conducted 

using an auger drill mounted on 1- or 2-ton trucks that travel overland from site to site. No roads, trails, or 

surface disturbance other than the auger hole usually occurs. Drilling could also occur for uranium exploration. 

Larger drill trucks similar to the ones used for water-well drilling would be required, as would support vehicles. 

Either a NOI or a PO may be required, depending on the level of surface disturbance. 

It is most likely that the only locatable mineral exploration and development conducted in the planning area 

would occur in the locatable mineral RFD area as described in the solid minerals assumption section (Maps 76 

and 77). However, there is also a possibility that exploration or development could occur outside the RFD. 

Because both NOIs and POs are required to be inspected on a regular basis, monitoring would occur. The 

surface management regulations only apply to the BLM-administered surface estate and some lands patented 

under the Stock Raising Homestead Act, under certain conditions. The surface management regulations do not 

apply to acquired lands such as those acquired under the Bankhead-Jones Act. Mining claims cannot be located 

on acquired lands; subsequently, the minerals are administered as a non-energy leasable mineral. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Under Management Common to all Alternatives, the BLM would conduct Section 7 consultation on all BLM 

management actions that potentially affected threatened and endangered species. Locatable mineral NOIs and 

POs would be required to comply with state and federal laws for protection of threatened and endangered 

species to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation. To avoid affecting the protected threatened and 

endangered species or their habitat, this management action would potentially result in protective mitigation 

measures or denial of operations. Additionally, this management action would potentially subject the proponent 

to delays, additional expense, and alteration of mining plans. 

Operators must comply with other federal and state laws related to environmental protection. If state or federal 

law protected a particular special status species, the locatable mineral NOIs and POs must comply with those 

laws to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation. These actions would potentially subject the proponent to 

delays, additional expense, loss of revenue, and alteration of mining plans. 

State and federal water quality laws must be complied with (and the necessary permits obtained) for proposed 

locatable mineral actions in riparian and wetland areas. If the appropriate permits could not be obtained, the 

proposal would be modified to eliminate unnecessary and undue degradation, which would result in delays, 

additional expense, additional mitigation, possible loss of revenue, and alteration of mining plans. Riparian 

areas would potentially be mined if the activity were completed without causing unnecessary and undue 

degradation. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Locatable Minerals 

4-278

Operators would be required to control invasive species on BLM-administered lands in their area of 

operations. Operators would be required to submit a pesticide use proposal for authorization to control 

invasive species on BLM-administered surfaces, which would cause additional expense for the operator. 

NOIs and POs must comply with federal and state laws pertaining to the protection of cultural resources, 

scientifically important paleontological resources, and the environment to prevent unnecessary and undue 

degradation. The BLM would potentially impose mitigation measures or require avoidance to reduce impacts 

to the subject resources, which would cause delays, additional expense, additional mitigation, and alteration 

or denial of mining plans for the proponent. 

As required, the BLM would consult with American Indian Tribes on proposed POs, which would potentially 

impact the claimant or operator through delays, altered mining plans or activities, additional mitigation or 

expense, and reduced revenue. 

VRM issues would be addressed during site-specific NEPA analysis of POs. Mitigation would be 

incorporated into approvals of POs to reduce impacts to visual resources. If VRM requirements, such as 

painting, were imposed, costs to the claimant or operator would increase. 

Coal, oil, or gas conflicts with locatable mineral resource needs would not be anticipated under all 

alternatives. The planning area’s primary locatable mineral development zone, as portrayed in the RFD, is not 

located within an area with coal development potential (see the Minerals Appendix). The zone is, however, 

located in an area with high potential for oil and gas development. If a conflict developed with coal, oil, or 

gas leasing, resolution of the conflict would be left primarily to the claimant, coal leaseholders, and oil and 

gas developers. The BLM would assist in conflict resolution if needed. Where allowed, the BLM would 

continue to process, within the scope of all pertinent rules and regulations, NOIs and POs for locatable 

mineral exploration and development and strive to ensure that those activities were conducted in an 

environmentally responsible manner. Conflict resolution would subject the claimant or operator to additional 

expense and delays. 

If mining claims were staked in special management lands, management actions in Management Common to all 

Alternatives would require validity examinations or possible mineral withdrawals in these areas (Table 4-91). A 

mining claim could be staked on about 2.2 million BLM-administered mineral acres in the planning area. 

Cattle grazing in the planning area 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Locatable Minerals 

4-279

Of this, about 38,000 acres of BLMadministered locatable mineral estate are 

located in SRMAs, 55,000 acres of locatable 

mineral ownership in existing (Bug Creek, 

Ash Creek Divide, Hell Creek, Sand 

Arroyo, Big Sheep, Hoe, Jordan Bison Kill, 

Powder River Depot, Seline, Battle Butte, 

Reynolds, Finger Buttes, Piping Plover, 

Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction, and 

Smoky Butte) ACECs, and 32,000 acres of 

locatable minerals in proposed (Yonkee, 

Walstein, Long Medicine Wheel, 

Powderville Paleontological Area, Flat 

Creek Paleontological Area, and Cedar 

Creek Battlefield Area) ACECs; 

subsequently, about 130,000 acres of BLMadministered mineral estate would be 

subject to validity exams and possible 

mineral withdrawal if mining claims were 

located within any of these lands. 

Although the validity exam could find that 

the claims are valid, invalid claims would be 

declared null and void. A mixture of valid 

and invalid claims would potentially also 

result. A withdrawal would be subject to 

valid existing rights. Existing valid mining 

claims would remain on the property and 

potentially mined if the proposal were in 

accordance with the surface management 

regulations found at 43 CFR 3809 and 

would not result in unnecessary or undue 

degradation. Withdrawals would cause 

delay, additional mitigation, additional 

expense, possible loss of revenue, and 

alteration of mining plans for the claimant 

or operator. 

In most situations, ROWs and land use 

authorizations would not be needed 

because an operator is entitled access to 

his operation; however, access must be 

built or utilized in accordance with the 

surface management regulations found in 

43 CFR 3809.420. If mining claims were 

present, all land exchanges would be 

subject to the valid existing rights of the 

mining claimant. 

Management actions that restricted 

surface-disturbing or disruptive activities 

would impact locatable minerals. NOIs for actions that disturbed less than 5 acres would not constitute a 

federal action and would not be subject to federal approval; subsequently, a NEPA analysis would not be 

conducted. The proposed activity, however, could not cause unnecessary or undue degradation. Activities, 

conditions, or practices that failed to comply with the performance standards found in 43 CFR 3809.420; the 

TABLE 4-91. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED LOCATABLE MINERAL

ACRES SUBJECT TO VALIDITY EXAMS IF MINING 

CLAIMS WERE PRESENT UNDER MANAGEMENT 

COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Area Acres

Rec.

Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA 12,000

Dean S. Reservoir 162

Pumpkin Creek Ranch 7,200

Glendive Short Pine OHV 3,100

Terry OHV SRMA 40

Strawberry Hill Recreation Area 2,300

Moorhead 13

Special Desig. Areas

Ash Creek Divide ACEC 7,900

Bug Creek ACEC 3,800

Hell Creek ACEC 19,000

Sand Arroyo ACEC 9,100

Jordan Bison Kill ACEC 120

Powder River Depot ACEC 290

Seline ACEC 80

Battle Butte Battlefield ACEC 121

Reynolds Battlefield ACEC 290

Finger Buttes ACEC 1,500

Piping Plover ACEC 12

Smoky Butte ACEC 80

Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction ACEC 1,100

Cedar Creek Battlefield 80

Flat Creek Paleontological 547

Powderville Paleontological Area 27,000

Long Medicine Wheel 179

Walstein Area 2,000

Yonkee 40
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Locatable Minerals 

4-280

terms and conditions of an approved PO; operations described in a complete NOI; or other state and federal 

laws related to environmental protection and the protection of cultural resources would constitute unnecessary 

and undue degradation. For example, if threatened and endangered species were present and the proposed 

actions caused impacts to the species that could not be mitigated, the action would potentially be denied. 

However, federal regulations allow reasonable and necessary disturbance. In the absence of requirements 

imposed by state or federal laws pertaining to the subject resource, such as threatened or endangered species 

or cultural resources, it may not be possible to deny operations. It would, however, be possible to impose 

reasonable mitigation measures to reduce impacts, which would subject the claimant or operator to delays, 

additional mitigation, additional expense, possible loss of revenue, and alteration of mining plans (Table 4-

92). 

In the context of NOIs and POs, the BLM must require mitigation measures as needed to prevent unnecessary 

or undue degradation. Mitigation measures are developed based on a site-specific review of the NOI or PO and 

must be implemented by the operator. Although mitigation is not expected to eliminate all (or even most 

impacts), it is required to address potential impacts that would otherwise constitute undue degradation without 

mitigation. 

The definition of mitigation includes elimination of the action or parts of an action. However, for operators 

exercising their rights under the Mining Law of 1872, the BLM can only stipulate mitigation requiring that the 

operator eliminate the action or part of the action necessary to achieve compliance with a substantive 

environmental law (such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, or ESA). 

NOIs and POs must 

comply with federal and 

state laws pertaining to 

the protection of cultural 

resources, scientifically 

important paleontological 

resources, and the 

environment to prevent 

unnecessary and undue 

degradation. The BLM 

would potentially impose 

mitigation measures or 

require avoidance to 

reduce impacts to the 

subject resources, which 

would cause delays, 

additional expense, 

additional mitigation, and 

alteration or denial of 

mining plans for the 

proponent. 

Although activity that 

qualified as casual uses 

(e.g., staking claims, prospecting with hand tools) must observe the rules for Limited OHV areas, this 

classification would not impact NOIs and POs because access would be authorized for permitted uses. 

As required, the BLM would consult with American Indian Tribes on proposed POs, which would potentially 

impact the claimant or operator through delays, altered mining plans or activities, additional mitigation or 

expense, and reduced revenue. 

TABLE 4-92. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED LOCATABLE MINERAL ACRES 

REQUIRING MITIGATION UNDER ALTERNATIVE A

Area or Resource

Locatable 

Mineral

Acres

Bentonite

RFD 

Acres

Uranium

RFD 

Acres

Soils

Slopes 30,000 0 0

Fish and Wildlife

Double-crested Cormorant and 

great blue heron rookeries1 250 0 0

Sharp-tailed Grouse, 0.25-mile 

buffer 8,800 0 110

Sharp-tailed Grouse, 2-mile timing 

buffer 400,000 0 7,300

Sage-grouse, 2-mile timing buffer 850,000 14,000 43,000

Sage-grouse lek, 0.25-mile buffer 22,000 320 1,400

Paleo.

Paleontological locality special 

management areas1 171 0 0

1Mitigation would potentially include denial of the activity or some part of the proposed 

activity.
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Locatable Minerals 

4-281

Special management of locatable minerals is analyzed under Management Common to all Alternatives, 

SRMAs and ACECs; refer to that section for complete analysis. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B requires withdrawing about 2.0 million acres of federal minerals within Sage-grouse Protection 

Priority ACECs from mineral entry. Approximately 1.0 million of these acres include BLM-administered 

surface estate and the remainder of the surface is privately owned. Withdrawing minerals under private surface 

would prevent exploration- and mining-related impacts and eliminate any income for the private surface owner 

related to surface damage or access fees from potential developers. The surface management regulations for 

locatable minerals apply only to BLM-administered surface. Withdrawals larger than 5,000 acres must be 

approved by the United States Congress, and smaller withdrawals are approved by the Secretary of the Interior. 

The locatable minerals within the subject lands would be removed (subject to valid existing rights) from future 

locatable mineral uses for as long as the withdrawal remained in effect. As a result, future mining claims would 

be invalid and would not be recorded, explored, and developed. Existing mining claims may constitute valid 

existing rights unless otherwise determined by the BLM. Mineral examination reports would be conducted by 

the BLM to determine validity of the claims. Mineral examination reports would potentially involve obtaining 

mineral samples from the mining claim, which might involve surface-disturbing activities such as drilling. 

Claims that the BLM determined to be invalid would potentially be subject to contest hearings for a final 

determination of the validity of the claims. Invalid claims would be declared null and void. If a final 

departmental decision declared the claim to be null and void, the operator must cease all operations except for 

reclamation. 

If the BLM had not completed the mineral examination report or if there were pending contest proceedings, the 

BLM may approve a PO or NOI that was limited to taking samples to confirm the existence of the locatable 

minerals or to allow the claimant to perform minimum annual assessment work. The following management 

actions would apply to proposed locatable mineral actions related to valid existing rights, those actions 

necessary to facilitate mineral examination reports, or actions allowed to enable the claimant to perform 

minimum annual assessment work as described above. 

Management actions that restricted surface-disturbing or disruptive activities would impact locatable minerals 

NOIs for actions that disturbed less than 5 acres would not constitute a federal action and would not be 

subject to federal approval; subsequently, a NEPA analysis would not be conducted. The proposed activity, 

however, could not cause unnecessary or undue degradation. Activities, conditions, or practices that failed to 

comply with the performance standards found in 43 CFR 3809.420; the terms and conditions of an approved 

PO, operations described in a complete NOI, or other state and federal laws related to environmental 

protection and the protection of cultural resources would constitute unnecessary and undue degradation. For 

example, if threatened and endangered species were present and the proposed actions caused impacts to the 

species that could not be mitigated, the action would potentially be denied. 

However, federal regulations allow reasonable and necessary disturbance. In the absence of requirements 

imposed by state or federal laws pertaining to the subject resource, such as threatened or endangered species 

or cultural resources, it may not be possible to deny operations. It would, however, be possible to impose 

reasonable mitigation measures to reduce impacts, which would subject the claimant or operator to delays, 

additional mitigation, additional expense, possible loss of revenue, and alteration of mining plans (Table 4-

93). For example, it is unlikely that activities located in mule deer winter range would be denied because it is 

likely that the proposed action (with appropriate mitigation) would not constitute unnecessary and undue 

degradation as defined in the surface management regulations. 

In the context of NOIs and POs, the BLM must require mitigation measures as needed to prevent unnecessary 

or undue degradation. Mitigation measures are developed based on a site-specific review of the NOI or PO and 

must be implemented by the operator. Although mitigation is not expected to eliminate all (or even most 

impacts), it is required to address potential impacts that would otherwise constitute undue degradation without 

mitigation. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Locatable Minerals 

4-282

The definition of 

mitigation includes 

elimination of the action 

or part of an action. 

However, for operators 

exercising their rights 

under the Mining Law 

of 1872, the BLM can 

only stipulate mitigation 

requiring that the 

operator eliminate the 

action or part of the 

action necessary to 

achieve compliance 

with a substantive 

environmental law 

(such as the Clean Air 

Act, Clean Water Act, 

or ESA). 

NOIs and POs must 

comply with federal and 

state laws pertaining to 

the protection of 

cultural resources, 

scientifically important 

paleontological 

resources, and the 

environment to prevent 

unnecessary and undue 

degradation. The BLM 

would potentially 

impose mitigation 

measures or require 

avoidance to reduce 

impacts to the subject 

resources, which would 

cause delays, additional 

expense, additional 

mitigation, and 

alteration or denial of 

mining plans for the 

proponent. 

As required, the BLM 

would consult with 

American Indian Tribes 

on proposed POs, which 

would potentially impact the claimant or operator through delays, altered mining plans or activities, additional 

mitigation or expense, and reduced revenue. 

If restrictions for disruptive activities (including noise) in sage-grouse areas served to prohibit development 

under this alternative, it is unlikely that the disruptive restrictions would be employed. 

TABLE 4-93.

BLM-ADMINISTERED LOCATABLE MINERAL ACRES REQUIRING 

MITIGATION UNDER ALTERNATIVE B

Area or Resource

Locatable 

Mineral

Acres

Bentonite

RFD Acres

Uranium

RFD Acres

Soils

Slopes 150,000 50 20

Sensitive 1,600,000 16,000 38,000

Water

Floodplain132,000 360 1,600

Veg.

Riparian and wetland16,400 30 400

Fish and Wildlife

Aquatics, 0.50-mile 

sport-fish reservoir

buffer4,100 0 0

Big Game Crucial 

Winter Range 1,400,000 12,000 23,000

Sharp-tailed Grouse, 4-

mile buffer 950,000 1,700 22,000

Colonial Waterbirds, 

0.25-mile buffer1 260 0 0

Bighorn Sheep Range 56,000 0 0

Special Status Species

Raptors, 0.5-mile buffer1 48,000 4,800 9,700

Piping Plover and 

Interior Least Tern, 

0.25-mile buffer1

6,900 0 0

Black-tailed Prairie Dog, 

0.5-mile buffer 99,000 0 130

Pallid Sturgeon 10,000 0 0

Sage-grouse Habitat –

General Habitat Areas, 

4-mile buffer

710,000 50 0

Protection Priority 

ACECs, surfacedisturbing restriction1,100,000 0 0

Restoration Areas, 

surface-disturbing 

restrictions

160,000 22,000 60,000

Cult.

3.5 mile buffer1380 0 0

Paleo.

0.5-mile buffer1171 0 0

1Mitigation would potentially include denial of the activity or some part of the proposed activity.
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Locatable Minerals 

4-283

Under this alternative, sage-grouse habitat compensation would be directly related to the amount of 

disturbance created. Because bentonite exploratory drilling usually causes minimal surface disturbance, it is 

unlikely that bentonite exploration drilling alone would reach habitat disturbance caps; however, depending 

on the scope of the project, uranium exploration drilling would potentially reach disturbance caps under this 

alternative. Although it is likely that mining would exceed all limits, it is not possible to predict if claimants 

would be required to pay a federal compensation fee in order to develop, use, and enjoy a private property 

right such as a mining claim. 

 

Special management of locatable minerals is analyzed under Management Common to all Alternatives, 

ACECs and SRMAs; refer to that section for complete analysis on locatable minerals actions in the Pumpkin 

Creek Ranch and Recreation Area and Strawberry Hill Recreation Area. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Management actions that restricted surface-disturbing or disruptive activities would impact locatable 

minerals. NOIs for actions that disturbed less than 5 acres would not constitute a federal action and would not 

be subject to federal approval; subsequently, a NEPA analysis would not be conducted. The proposed 

activity, however, could not cause unnecessary or undue degradation. Activities, conditions, or practices that 

failed to comply with the performance standards found in 43 CFR 3809.420; the terms and conditions of an 

approved PO, operations described in a complete NOI, or other state and federal laws related to 

environmental protection and protection of cultural resources would constitute unnecessary and undue 

degradation. For example, if threatened and endangered species were present and the proposed actions caused 

impacts to the species that could not be mitigated, the action would potentially be denied. 

However, federal regulations allow reasonable and necessary disturbance. In the absence of requirements 

imposed by state or federal laws pertaining to the subject resource, such as threatened or endangered species 

or cultural resources, it may not be possible to deny operations. It would, however, be possible to impose 

reasonable mitigation measures to reduce impacts, which would subject the claimant or operator to delays, 

additional mitigation, additional expense, possible loss of revenue, and alteration of mining plans (Table 4-

94). For example, it is unlikely that activities located in mule deer winter range would be denied because it is 

likely that the proposed action (with appropriate mitigation) would not constitute unnecessary and undue 

degradation as defined in the surface management regulations. 

In the context of NOIs and POs, the BLM must require mitigation measures as needed to prevent unnecessary 

or undue degradation. Mitigation measures are developed based on a site-specific review of the NOI or PO and 

must be implemented by the operator. Although mitigation is not expected to eliminate all (or even most 

impacts), it is required to address potential impacts that would otherwise constitute undue degradation without 

mitigation. 

The definition of mitigation includes elimination of the action or parts of an action. However, for operators 

exercising their rights under the Mining Law of 1872, the BLM can only stipulate mitigation requiring that the 

operator eliminate the action or part of the action necessary to achieve compliance with a substantive 

environmental law (such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, or ESA). 

NOIs and POs must comply with federal and state laws pertaining to the protection of cultural resources, 

scientifically important paleontological resources, and the environment to prevent unnecessary and undue 

degradation. The BLM would potentially impose mitigation measures or require avoidance to reduce impacts 

to the subject resources, which would cause delays, additional expenses, additional mitigation, and alteration 

or denial of mining plans for the proponent. 

As required, the BLM would consult with American Indian Tribes on proposed POs, which would potentially 

impact the claimant or operator through delays, altered mining plans or activities, additional mitigation or 

expense, and reduced revenue. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Locatable Minerals 

4-284

If restrictions for disruptive activities (including noise) in sage-grouse areas served to prohibit development 

under this alternative, it is unlikely that the disruptive restrictions would be employed. 

Under this alternative, sage-grouse habitat compensation would be directly related to the amount of 

disturbance created. Because bentonite exploratory drilling usually causes minimal surface disturbance, it is 

unlikely that bentonite exploration drilling alone would reach habitat disturbance caps; however, depending 

on the scope of the project, uranium exploration drilling would potentially reach disturbance caps under this 

alternative. Although it is likely that mining would exceed all limits, it is not possible to predict if claimants 

would be required to pay a federal compensation fee in order to develop, use, and enjoy a private property 

right such as a mining claim. 

Special management 

of locatable minerals 

is analyzed under 

Management 

Common to all 

Alternatives, ACECs 

and SRMAs; refer to 

that section for 

complete analysis on 

locatable minerals 

actions in the 

Pumpkin Creek 

Ranch and Recreation 

Area and Strawberry 

Hill Recreation Area. 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Management actions 

that restricted 

surface-disturbing or 

disruptive activities 

would impact 

locatable minerals. 

NOIs for actions that 

disturbed less than 5 

acres would not 

constitute a federal 

action and would not 

be subject to federal 

approval; 

subsequently, a 

NEPA analysis would 

not be conducted. The 

proposed activity, 

however, could not 

cause unnecessary or 

undue degradation. 

Activities, conditions, or practices that failed to comply with the performance standards found in 43 CFR 

3809.420; the terms and conditions of an approved PO, operations described in a complete NOI, or other state 

and federal laws related to environmental protection and the protection of cultural resources would constitute 

unnecessary and undue degradation. For example, if threatened and endangered species were present and the 

TABLE 4-94. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED LOCATABLE MINERAL ACRES 

REQUIRING MITIGATION UNDER ALTERNATIVE C

Area or Resource

Locatable 

Mineral

Acres

Bentonite

RFD 

Acres

Uranium

RFD 

Acres

Soils

Slopes 150,000 50 20

Sensitive 1,600,000 16,000 38,000

Water

Floodplain 32,000 360 1,600

Veg.

Riparian and wetland 6,400 30 400

Fish and Wildlife

Aquatics, 0.25-mile sport-fish

reservoir buffer 1,600 0 0

Big Game Crucial Winter Range 1,400,000 18,000 60,000

Sharp-tailed Grouse, 2-mile buffer 1,400,000 0 7,300

Bighorn Sheep Range 56,000 0 0

Special Status Species Raptors148,000 4,800 9,700

Piping Plover and Interior Least 

Tern, 0.25 mile buffer1 6,800 0 0

Black-tailed Prairie Dog, 0.25-mile 

buffer 34,000 0 20

Pallid Sturgeon 10,000 0 0

Sage-grouse Habitat – General 

Habitat Areas, 3.1-mile buffer 540,000 50 0

Protection Priority Areas, surfacedisturbing restrictions 730,000 0 0

Restoration Areas, surface-disturbing 

restrictions 100,000 22,000 60,000

Cultural 

3.5-mile buffer1380 0 0

1Mitigation would potentially include denial of the activity or some part of the proposed 

activity.
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Locatable Minerals 

4-285

proposed actions caused impacts to the species that could not be mitigated, the action would potentially be 

denied. 

However, federal regulations allow reasonable and necessary disturbance. In the absence of requirements 

imposed by state or federal laws pertaining to the subject resource, such as threatened or endangered species 

or cultural resources, it may not be possible to deny operations. It would, however, be possible to impose 

reasonable mitigation measures to reduce impacts, which would subject the claimant or operator to delays, 

additional mitigation, additional expense, possible loss of revenue, and alteration of mining plans (Table 4-

95). For example, it is unlikely that activities located in mule deer winter range would be denied because it is 

likely that the proposed action (with appropriate mitigation) would not constitute unnecessary and undue 

degradation as defined in the surface management regulations. 

TABLE 4-95. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED LOCATABLE MINERAL ACRES 

REQUIRING MITIGATION UNDER ALTERNATIVE D

Area or Resource

Locatable 

Mineral

Acres

Bentonite

RFD 

Acres

Uranium

RFD 

Acres

Soils

Slopes 150,000 50 20

Sensitive 1,600,000 16,000 38,000

Water

Floodplain 32,000 360 1,600

Veg.

Riparian and wetland 6,400 30 400

Fish and Wildlife

Big Game Crucial Winter Range 1,400,000 18,000 60,000

Sharp-tailed Grouse, 2-mile buffer 1,400,000 0 7,300

Bighorn Sheep Range 56,000 0 0

Special Status Species Raptors148,000 4,800 9,700

Piping Plover and Interior Least 

Tern, 0.25-mile buffer1 6,700 0 0

Black-tailed Prairie Dog, 0.5-mile 

buffer 0 0 130

Pallid Sturgeon 10,000 0 0

Sage-grouse Habitat – General 

Habitat Areas, 2-mile buffer 440,000 0 0

Protection Priority Areas, surfacedisturbing restrictions 730,000 0 0

Restoration Areas, timing and 

distance restrictions 83,000 22,000 60,000

Cult.

3.5-mile buffer1580 0 0

1Mitigation would potentially include denial of the activity or some part of the proposed activity.

In the context of NOIs and POs, the BLM must require mitigation measures as needed to prevent unnecessary 

or undue degradation. Mitigation measures are developed based on a site-specific review of the NOI or PO and 

must be implemented by the operator. Although mitigation is not expected to eliminate all (or even most 

impacts), it is required to address potential impacts that would otherwise constitute undue degradation without 

mitigation. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Locatable Minerals 

4-286

The definition of mitigation includes elimination of the action or parts of an action. However, for operators 

exercising their rights under the Mining Law of 1872, the BLM can only stipulate mitigation requiring that the 

operator eliminate the action or part of the action necessary to achieve compliance with a substantive 

environmental law (such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, or ESA). 

NOIs and POs must comply with federal and state laws pertaining to the protection of cultural resources, 

scientifically important paleontological resources, and the environment to prevent unnecessary and undue 

degradation. The BLM would potentially impose mitigation measures or require avoidance to reduce impacts 

to the subject resources, which would cause delays, additional expenses, additional mitigation, and alteration 

or denial of mining plans for the proponent. 

As required, the BLM would consult with American Indian Tribes on proposed POs, which would potentially 

impact the claimant or operator through delays, altered mining plans or activities, additional mitigation or 

expense, and reduced revenue. 

ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Under this alternative, a mineral examination report would be completed on any mining claims for which either 

a NOI or PO was filed. Mineral examination reports would be conducted by the BLM to determine validity of 

the claims. Existing mining claims may constitute valid existing rights unless otherwise determined by the 

BLM. Claims that the BLM determined to be invalid may be subject to contest hearings for a final 

determination of the validity of the claims. Invalid claims would be declared null and void. If a final 

departmental decision declared the claim to be null and void, the operator must cease all operations except for 

reclamation. Mineral examination reports would potentially involve obtaining mineral samples from the mining 

claim, which might involve surface-disturbing activities such as drilling. 

If the BLM had not completed the mineral examination report or if there were pending contest proceedings, the 

BLM may approve a PO or NOI that was limited to taking samples to confirm the existence of the locatable 

minerals or to allow the claimant to perform minimum annual assessment work. The following management 

actions would apply to proposed locatable mineral actions related to valid existing rights, those actions 

necessary to facilitate mineral examination reports, or actions allowed to enable the claimant to perform 

minimum annual assessment work as described above. 

Management actions that restricted surface-disturbing or disruptive activities would impact locatable 

minerals. NOIs for actions that disturbed less than 5 acres would not constitute a federal action and would not 

be subject to federal approval; subsequently, a NEPA analysis would not be conducted. The proposed 

activity, however, could not cause unnecessary or undue degradation. Activities, conditions, or practices that 

failed to comply with the performance standards found in 43 CFR 3809.420; the terms and conditions of an 

approved PO, operations described in a complete NOI, or other state and federal laws related to 

environmental protection and the protection of cultural resources would constitute unnecessary and undue 

degradation. For example, if threatened and endangered species were present and the proposed actions caused 

impacts to the species that could not be mitigated, the action would potentially be denied. 

However, federal regulations allow reasonable and necessary disturbance. In the absence of requirements 

imposed by state or federal laws pertaining to the subject resource, such as threatened or endangered species 

or cultural resources, it may not be possible to deny operations. It would, however, be possible to impose 

reasonable mitigation measures to reduce impacts, which would subject the claimant or operator to delays, 

additional mitigation, additional expense, possible loss of revenue, and alteration of mining plans (Table 4-

96). For example, it is unlikely that activities located in mule deer winter range would be denied because it is 

likely that the proposed action (with appropriate mitigation) would not constitute unnecessary and undue 

degradation as defined in the surface management regulations. Application of the prescribed mitigation is 

dependent on site-specific variables and may or may not be applied to proposed locatable mineral activity. 

In the context of NOIs and POs, the BLM must require mitigation measures as needed to prevent unnecessary 

or undue degradation. Mitigation measures are developed based on a site-specific review of the NOI or PO and 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Locatable Minerals 

4-287

must be implemented by the operator. Although mitigation is not expected to eliminate all (or even most 

impacts), it is required to address potential impacts that would otherwise constitute undue degradation without 

mitigation. 

The definition of mitigation 

includes elimination of the 

action or parts of an action. 

However, for operators 

exercising their rights under 

the Mining Law of 1872, the 

BLM can only stipulate 

mitigation requiring that the 

operator eliminate the action 

or part of the action necessary 

to achieve compliance with a 

substantive environmental law 

(such as the Clean Air Act, 

Clean Water Act, or ESA). 

NOIs and POs must comply 

with federal and state laws 

pertaining to the protection 

of cultural resources, 

scientifically important 

paleontological resources, 

and the environment to 

prevent unnecessary and 

undue degradation. The 

BLM would potentially 

impose mitigation measures 

or require avoidance to 

reduce impacts to the subject 

resources, which would 

cause delays, additional 

expense, additional 

mitigation, and alteration or 

denial of mining plans for 

the proponent. 

As required, the BLM would 

consult with American 

Indian Tribes on proposed 

POs, which would 

potentially impact the 

claimant or operator through 

delays, altered mining plans 

or activities, additional 

mitigation or expense, and 

reduced revenue. 

TABLE 4-96. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED LOCATABLE MINERAL ACRES 

POTENTIALLY REQUIRING MITIGATION UNDER 

ALTERNATIVE E

Area or Resource

Locatable 

Mineral

Acres

Bentonite

RFD 

Acres

Uranium

RFD 

Acres

Soils

Slopes 17,000 50 20

Sensitive 1,500,000 16,000 38,000

Water 

Floodplains 32,000 360 1,600

Waterbodies 730,000 5,800 12,000

Veg.

Riparian and wetland 460,000 4,600 11,000

Fish and Wildlife

Aquatics, 0.25-mile 

sport-fish reservoir

buffer

732,000 0

Big Game Crucial 

Winter Range 1,400,000 18,000 60,000

Sharp-tailed Grouse, 2-

mile buffer 380,000 0 7,300

Colonial Waterbirds 260 0 0

Bighorn Sheep Range 240,000 0 0

Prairie Falcon, 0.5-mile 

buffer 10,000 0 0

Special Status Species

Raptors1, 0.5-mile buffer 48,000 2,900 5,500

Piping Plover and 

Interior Least Tern 1,900 0 0

Black-tailed Prairie Dog 2,800 0 0

Pallid Sturgeon 12,000 0 0

Sage-grouse Habitat –

General Habitat Areas, 

2-mile buffer) 

820,000 0 0

Protection Priority Areas 1,400,000 0 0

Restoration Areas 89,000 22,000 60,000

Paleo.

Sites 150 0 0

Visual 

Class II and III 610,000 8,000 20,000

1Mitigation would potentially include denial of the activity or some part of the proposed 

activity.
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Locatable Minerals 

4-288

Special management of locatable minerals is analyzed under Management Common to all Alternatives, 

ACECs and SRMAs; refer to that section for complete analysis on locatable minerals actions in the Pumpkin 

Creek Ranch and Recreation Area and Strawberry Hill Recreation Area. 

If restrictions for disruptive activities (including noise) in sage-grouse areas served to prohibit development 

under this alternative, it is unlikely that the disruptive restrictions would be employed. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Locatable mineral entry, exploration, and mining would continue to be allowed in most areas on lands open to 

mineral location and administered through existing surface and mineral management regulations (43 CFR 3800, 

3809). However, there are some management actions that would prohibit surface-disturbing activities related to 

locatable mineral activities. 

Locatable mineral exploration and development activity is concentrated in the southeastern corner of the 

planning area, which has been actively mined for bentonite since about 1977. There are currently 150,000 

acres of federal and private lands under permit, and 5,000 acres of these have been disturbed by mining. 

Approximately 2,000 acres have been fully reclaimed and released from reclamation liability. 

Bentonite mining and exploration would continue over the short term. The BLM recently approved American 

Colloid Company’s amendment application to add lands to their existing permit. Amendment 12 represents 

the short-term development scenario and would increase the permitted area by 1,300 acres (of which 1,000 

acres is BLM-administered and 500 acres is private ownership). The disturbed area on Amendment 12, which 

would include mined areas plus mine-related disturbances (such as haul roads and stockpiles), would total 

approximately 600 acres. 

It is expected that mining permits would be sought within the bentonite RFD area over the next 20 years, 

which would include about 22,000 mixed public and private acres. There are about 12,000 acres of BLMadministered surface (58 percent) in the RFD area in which the BLM would have permitting responsibilities. 

In order to assist in developing mining plans and exploring for new reserves, bentonite exploratory drilling 

would also occur in advance of mining. 

There has been a recent resurgence of interest regarding in-situ recovery uranium mining operations 

nationwide. In 2008, there was interest in developing several known sandstone-hosted, roll-front type 

uranium deposits in Carter County to determine the economic viability of a potential uranium in-situ recovery 

operation. An RFD area (about 76,000 acres, of which approximately 34,000 are BLM-administered) for 

uranium has been established for analysis purposes (Map 77). 

Within the short and long term, exploratory drilling would occur within the uranium RFD area. The drill 

holes would range from 500 to 2,000 feet deep but it is 

not possible to predict if related surface disturbance 

would occur (such as road construction or pits for 

drilling fluids). It is also unknown how many 

exploratory sites would be drilled, but it is estimated to 

be several hundred or more. If reserves were proven 

and the economics favorable, it is possible (within the 

long term) that an in situ leaching facility for uranium 

extraction would be constructed and occupy or disturb 

from 2,500 to 16,000 acres. 

Sagebrush lizard near Glendive, Montana 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Locatable Minerals 

4-289

Although it is very likely that locatable mineral exploration and development would continue to occur in the 

long term, it is also possible that resource concerns (such as impacts to threatened and endangered species) 

would preclude mining in some areas. It is also likely that many more protective measures, design features, 

and other stipulations would be placed on POs to provide additional mitigation and protection for resource 

values such as sage-grouse. However, these mitigation measures must also comply with the Mining Law of 

1872 and may or may not include all measures described in this document. Because they are located within 

the same general area, there would also be some overlap of bentonite and uranium disturbances. 

Minerals that were mined would be made available for use and result in an irretrievable commitment of 

resources. Mitigation would be employed to reduce environmental harm and the disturbed lands would be 

reclaimed to support desired and required future uses. 

MINERAL MATERIALS

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 

The demand for mineral materials such as clinker, sand, gravel (primarily used for road construction), and 

construction or landscaping stone would remain at current rates over both the short and long term. 

It is assumed that 10 mineral material permits would be issued per year over both the short and long term. 

Increased oil development has resulted in increased demand for mineral materials in areas close to 

development. Each mineral material site would operate for approximately 5 years, disturb about 5 acres, and 

yield about 100,000 cubic yards of material. It is also assumed that recreational rock collecting on a casual 

use basis for collectable stones (such as petrified wood and agate) would continue at the current rate. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Management actions that protected cultural and paleontological resources, plants, wildlife, and habitat would 

impact mineral materials under all alternatives. Because mineral material 

authorizations would be required to comply with federal and state laws 

and BLM policies for the protection of environmental and cultural 

resources, mineral material authorizations would either be denied or 

modified to eliminate or reduce harmful impacts to the resource. Impacts 

would be reduced through special mitigation measures and project design 

features. 

Mitigation would cause additional delays and expense or result in the 

denial of operations. Currently, these minerals are often free of charge to 

local governments for use on county roads, which lowers building and 

maintenance costs for county infrastructure. Because materials sold under 

contract are usually used on public works projects such as road building or 

maintenance, private sales also serve the local public infrastructure. 

Mitigation or denial of operations for these public works project would 

ultimately increase taxpayer costs. 

Issuing free use mineral material sales permits and sales contracts would 

cause an irreversible commitment of resources commensurate with the 

number of new authorizations and the volume of materials removed. 

Closing mineral material sales and continuing ACEC designation in some 

ACECs would impact development of mineral materials in the planning 

area. The total number of BLM-administered mineral material acres in the 

planning area is 5.6 million, and a total of about 63,000 acres (less than 1 

percent) of these acres would be closed to mineral material use under this 

management action (Table 4-97). 

TABLE 4-97.

BLM-ADMINISTERED 

MINERAL MATERIAL

ACRES CLOSED 

UNDER MANAGEMENT 

COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES

ACEC Acres

Ash Creek Divide 8,100

Bug Creek 3,800

Hell Creek 26,000

Sand Arroyo 11,000

Big Sheep Mountain 360

Hoe 150

Jordan Bison Kill 120

Powder River Depot 1,200

Seline 80

Finger Buttes 1,500

Piping Plover 0

Smoky Butte 280

Black-footed Ferret 

Reintroduction 11,000

Total 63,000
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Mineral Materials 

4-290

ALTERNATIVE A 

Actions restricting surface-disturbing activities, disruptive activities, or mineral material sales or development 

would decrease the ability of developers (e.g., construction firms, county road departments) to explore and 

develop new BLM-administered reserves where needed (Table 4-98). Although the overall result would be 

fewer acres of mineral materials available and subsequently disturbed on BLM-administered mineral estate, 

these actions would not eliminate the disturbance because it is likely that the disturbance would shift to an 

area of private mineral acres not subject to these restrictions (possibly even adjacent to BLM-administered 

mineral acres). In some areas, if a mineral development operation could not be relocated, specialized design 

features would be employed to sufficiently mitigate impacts and allow the operation to occur. 

Mitigation would cause additional delays and expense or result in the denial of operations. Currently, these 

minerals are often free of charge to local governments for use on county roads, which lowers building and 

maintenance costs for county infrastructure. Because materials sold under contract are usually used on public 

works projects such as road building or maintenance, private sales also serve the local public infrastructure. 

Mitigation or denial of operations for these public works project would ultimately increase taxpayer costs. 

Under this alternative, mineral material 

operations would not be allowed on the 

Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA. The lands 

subject to the closure would include about 

21,000 acres (less than 1 percent) of the 5.6 

million acres of BLM-administered mineral 

material estate in the planning area. 

However, this figure represents only the total 

amount of mineral material ownership in the 

SRMA and does not represent the percentage 

of BLM-administered sand and gravel within 

the SRMA corridor. Because this SRMA is 

located over the Yellowstone and Missouri 

rivers, which contain some of the most 

abundant mineral materials (sand and gravel) in the planning area, the share of BLM-administered mineral 

materials as a percentage of the available reserves along these river corridors would be higher than the 

percentage of BLM-administered mineral material estate across the entire planning area. Subsequently, closure 

of the river corridors to mineral material activities would cause greater impacts to mineral material resources 

than closures in other areas. This closure would decrease the ability of developers (e.g., construction firms, 

county road departments) to explore and develop new reserves where needed. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Closing mineral material sales or development under this alternative would decrease the ability of developers 

(e.g., construction firms, county road departments) to explore and develop new BLM-administered reserves 

where needed (Table 4-99). The overall result would seriously curtail and possibly eliminate mineral material 

development on BLM-administered minerals in southeastern Montana. Although the overall result would be 

fewer acres of mineral materials available and subsequently disturbed on BLM-administered mineral estate, 

these actions would not eliminate the disturbance because it is likely that the disturbance would shift to an 

area of private mineral acres not subject to these restrictions (possibly even adjacent to BLM-administered 

mineral acres). 

Under Alternative B Sage-grouse habitat compensation actions, compensation would be directly related to the 

amount of disturbance created, which would likely result in fewer acres of developed mineral materials. 

Because sand and gravel operators are typically small construction firms that use mineral materials for nearby 

road jobs and county road departments and because the costs of habitat compensation would outweigh the 

TABLE 4-98.

BLM-ADMINISTERED MINERAL MATERIAL ACRES

CLOSED UNDER ALTERNATIVE A

Area or Resource Acres

Fish and 

Wildlife

Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks and Nesting 

Habitat, 0.25-mile buffer 41,000

Colonial Waterbirds, 1,000-foot buffer 300

Sage-grouse 19,000

Rec.

Powder River Depot SRMA 45

Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA 21,000

Total 81,000
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Mineral Materials 

4-291

value of the mineral materials, it is unlikely that these operators would be able to comply with these actions. 

In addition, this action would not eliminate the disturbances caused by mineral materials activities because it 

is likely that, again, the disturbance would shift to a new area of unrestricted private mineral acres. These 

actions would also increase haul distance and costs for the operator and, ultimately, the taxpayer because 

most mineral materials would be sold for public road projects. 

TABLE 4-99.

BLM-ADMINISTERED MINERAL MATERIAL ACRES CLOSED 

UNDER ALTERNATIVE B

Area or Resource Acres

Soils

Slopes, 25% or greater 410,000

Sensitive 3,900,000

Water

Floodplains 100,000

Waterbodies and streams 23,000

Veg.

Riparian and wetlands 170,000

Fish and Wildlife

Aquatics, 0.5-mile sport-fish reservoir buffer 11,000

Big Game Crucial Winter Range 2,400,000

Colonial Waterbirds, 0.25-mile buffer 290

Bighorn Sheep Range 98,000

Special Status Species Raptors, 0.5-mile buffer 180,000

Piping Plover, 0.25-mile buffer 49,000

Interior Least Tern, 0.25-mile buffer 54,000

Black-tailed Prairie Dogs, 0.5-mile buffer 270,000

Pallid Sturgeon 18,000

Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas 2,000,000

Protection Priority ACEC 2,000,000

Cult.

Battlefields 10,000

Paleo.

0.5-mile buffer 171

Rec.

Powder River Depot SRMA 50

Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA 21,000

Dean S. Reservoir SRMA 162

Pumpkin Creek Ranch and Recreation Area SRMA 7,200

Glendive Short Pine OHV Area SRMA 2,700

Terry OHV Area SRMA 72

Strawberry Hill Recreation Area SRMA 2,300

Special Desig. Areas

Reynolds Battlefield 2,600

Cedar Creek Battlefield 2,300

Flat Creek Paleontological 547

Powderville Paleontological Area 29,000

Long Medicine Wheel 1,100

Walstein 2,000

Yonkee, 0.5-mile buffer 780

Yonkee 40

Battle Butte 240

Carter MLP area 272,568

Total 12,400,000
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Mineral Materials 

4-292

Under this alternative, mineral material operations would not be allowed on the Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA. 

The lands subject to the closure would include about 21,000 acres (less than 1 percent) of the 5.6 million acres 

of BLM-administered mineral material estate in the planning area. However, this percentage represents only the 

amount of mineral material ownership in the SRMA and does not represent the percentage of BLMadministered sand and gravel within the SRMA corridor. Because this SRMA is located over the Yellowstone 

and Missouri rivers, which contain some of the most abundant mineral materials (sand and gravel resource) in 

the planning area, the share of BLM-administered mineral materials as a percentage of the available reserves 

along these river corridors would be higher than the 

percentage of BLM-administered mineral material 

estate across the entire planning area. Subsequently, 

closure of the river corridors to mineral material 

activities would cause greater impacts to mineral 

material resources than closures in other areas. This 

closure would decrease the ability of developers 

(e.g., construction firms, county road departments) to 

explore and develop new reserves where needed. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Actions restricting surface-disturbing activities, 

disruptive activities, or mineral material sales or 

development would decrease the ability of 

developers (e.g., construction firms, county road 

departments) to explore and develop new BLMadministered reserves where needed (Table 4-100). 

These actions would not eliminate the disturbance 

because it is likely that the disturbance would shift 

to an area of private mineral acres not subject to 

these restrictions (possibly even adjacent to BLMadministered mineral acres). In addition, these 

actions would also increase haul distance and costs for the operator and, ultimately, the taxpayer because 

most mineral materials would be sold for public road projects. 

Actions requiring special mitigation or specialized design features would increase costs and delays for 

developers (Table 4-101). In some areas, this action would cause avoidance of some deposits (and subsequent 

loss of this development) while other areas would be developed with specialized design features. These 

actions would decrease the ability of developers to explore and develop new reserves where needed. 

CSU stipulations for oil and gas leasing and development that required maintenance of habitat functionality 

in Sage-grouse Habitat – Restoration Areas would likely cause denial of some operations. Because sand and 

gravel operators are typically small construction firms that use mineral materials for nearby road jobs and 

county road departments and because the costs of habitat compensation would outweigh the value of the 

mineral materials, it is not likely that these operators would be able to comply with these actions. Although 

the overall result would be fewer acres of mineral materials available and subsequently disturbed on BLMadministered mineral estate, these actions would not eliminate the disturbance because it is likely that the 

disturbance would shift to an area of private mineral acres not subject to these restrictions (possibly even 

adjacent to BLM-administered mineral acres). 

Although permitting limited approvals for mineral material development in ACECs and SRMAs would result 

in a conditional decrease in the ability of developers (e.g., construction firms, county road departments) to 

explore and develop new reserves where needed, these actions would only be allowed if the removal and 

reclamation would not impair the special qualities of the resources being managed and the proponent 

demonstrated that it would not be economically or technologically feasible to obtain the materials elsewhere. 

TABLE 4-100.

BLM-ADMINISTERED MINERAL MATERIAL

ACRES CLOSED UNDER ALTERNATIVE C

Area or Resource Acres

Fish and Wildlife

Black-tailed Prairie Dogs, 0.5-mile 

buffer 94,000

Pallid Sturgeon 18,000

Sage-grouse Habitat – General 

Habitat Areas, 3.1-mile buffer 1,500,000

Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection 

Priority Areas 1,300,000

Sage-grouse Habitat – Restoration

Areas 210,000

Paleo.

300-foot buffer 171

Rec.

Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA 21,000

Total 3,300,000
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Mineral Materials 

4-293

ALTERNATIVE D 

Actions restricting surface-disturbing and disruptive 

activities would close areas to mineral material 

development, which would increase permitting costs, cause 

delays, and decrease the ability of developers (e.g., 

construction firms, county road department) to explore and 

develop new reserves where needed (Table 4-102). 

Although the overall result of these actions would be fewer 

acres of mineral materials available and subsequently 

disturbed on BLM-administered mineral estate, these 

actions would not eliminate the disturbance because it is 

likely that the disturbance would shift to an area of private 

mineral acres not subject to these restrictions (possibly 

even adjacent to BLM-administered mineral acres). In 

addition, these actions would also increase haul distance 

and costs for the operator and, ultimately, the taxpayer 

because most mineral materials would be sold for public 

road projects. Although most impacts would be mitigated, 

which would enable development, this action would 

decrease available mineral material acres for exploration if 

the disturbance could not be mitigated. Some areas would 

be subject to requirements for surface use plans (Table 4-

103). 

Impacts from Riparian and Wetland actions under this 

alternative would depend on the impacts of specialized design features (if they improved or maintained PFC). 

Habitat functionality stipulations would impact mineral material activities (Table 4-104). 

Surface-disturbing restrictions in Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority and Restoration Areas would 

increase mitigation and reclamation costs and cause the 

denial of some proposals. These actions would not 

eliminate the disturbance because it is likely that the 

disturbance would shift to private mineral acres not 

subject to these restrictions (possibly even adjacent to 

BLM-administered mineral acres). 

Under Alternative D Sage-grouse Habitat Compensation 

actions, compensation would be directly related to the 

amount of disturbance created, which would likely result 

in fewer acres of developed mineral materials. Because 

sand and gravel operators are typically small 

construction firms that use mineral materials for nearby 

road jobs and county road departments and because the 

costs of habitat compensation would outweigh the value 

of the mineral materials, it is unlikely that these 

operators would be able to comply with these actions. In 

addition, this action would not eliminate the disturbance 

caused by mineral materials activities because it is likely 

that, again, the disturbance would shift to a new area of 

unrestricted private mineral acres. These 

TABLE 4-101.

BLM-ADMINISTERED MINERAL 

MATERIAL ACRES SUBJECT TO 

HABITAT FUNCTIONALITY 

REQUIREMENTS UNDER 

ALTERNATIVE C

Area or Resource Acres

Soils

Slopes and sensitive soils 4,300,000

Water

Waterbodies 23,000

Veg.

Riparian and wetland 9,200

Fish and Wildlife

Aquatics, sport-fish

reservoirs 3,500

Big Game Winter Range 2,300,000

Sharp-tailed Grouse, 2-mile 

buffer 1,400,000

Colonial Waterbirds 290

Bighorn Sheep Range 98,000

Special Status Species 89,000

Piping Plover 49,000

Interior Least Tern 54,000

TABLE 4-102.

BLM-ADMINISTERED MINERAL 

MATERIAL ACRES CLOSED UNDER 

ALTERNATIVE D

Area or Resource Acres

Fish and Wildlife

Sage-grouse Habitat –

General Habitat Areas, 3.1-

mile buffer

1,700,000

Sage-grouse Habitat –

Protection Priority Areas 1,100,000

Sage-grouse Habitat –

Restoration Areas 180,000

Special Desig. 

Areas

Flat Creek 50

Total 3,000,000
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Mineral Materials 

4-294

actions would also increase haul distance 

and costs for the operator and, ultimately, 

the taxpayer because most mineral materials 

would be sold for public road projects. 

Under this alternative, mineral material 

operations would be allowed on the Lewis and 

Clark Trail SRMA. The lands open to 

development in the SRMA would include 

about 21,000 acres (less than 1 percent) of the 

5.6 million acres of BLM-administered 

mineral material estate in the planning area. 

However, this percentage represents only the 

amount of mineral material ownership in the 

SRMA and does not represent the percentage 

of BLM-administered sand and gravel within 

the SRMA corridor. Because this SRMA is 

located over the Yellowstone and Missouri 

rivers, which contain some of the most 

abundant mineral materials (sand and gravel) 

in the planning area, the share of BLMadministered mineral materials as a percentage 

of the available reserves along these river 

corridors would be higher than the percentage 

of BLM-administered mineral material estate 

across the entire planning area. Subsequently, opening the river corridors to mineral material activities would 

cause greater impacts to mineral material resources than opening other areas to these activities. This closure 

would increase the ability of developers (e.g., construction firms, county road departments) to explore and 

develop new reserves where needed. 

TABLE 4-104. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED MINERAL MATERIAL ACRES 

SUBJECT TO HABITAT FUNCTIONALITY REQUIREMENTS 

UNDER ALTERNATIVE D

Area or Resource Acres

Soils

Slopes and sensitive soils 4,300,000

Water

Waterbodies and streams 23,000

Veg.

Riparian and wetlands 9,200

Fish and Wildlife

Aquatics, sport-fish reservoirs 3,500

Big Game Crucial Winter Range 2,300,000

Sharp-tailed Grouse, 2-mile buffer 1,400,000

Colonial Waterbirds 290

Bighorn Sheep Range 98,000

Special Status Species 89,000

Piping Plover, 0.25-mile buffer 49,000

Interior Least Tern, 0.25-mile buffer 54,000

Black-tailed Prairie Dogs 11,000

Pallid Sturgeon 18,000

TABLE 4-103.

BLM-ADMINISTERED MINERAL MATERIAL

ACRES REQUIRING PLANS OF OPERATION 

UNDER ALTERNATIVE D

Area or Resource Acres

Cult.

300-foot buffer 190

3.5-mile and 300-foot buffers, Fort Union

Historic Site NHL, Rosebud Battlefield

NHL, Battle Butte (Wolf Mountain) 

Battlefield NHL, Hagen NHL, and NRHPnominated Ash Creek, Cedar Creek, and 

Reynolds Battlefields

1,800

Paleo.

300-foot buffer 171

Special Desig. Areas

Battle Butte ACEC 240

Cedar Creek Battlefield ACEC 1,100

Long Medicine Wheel 179

Powderville Area 29,00

0

Walstein ACEC 2,000

Yonkee ACEC 40
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Mineral Materials 

4-295

ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Closing mineral material sales or development under this alternative would decrease the ability of developers 

(e.g., construction firms, county road departments) to explore and develop new BLM-administered reserves 

where needed (Table 4-105). The overall result would seriously curtail and possibly eliminate mineral 

material development on BLM-administered minerals in southeastern Montana. Although the overall result 

would be fewer acres of mineral materials available and subsequently disturbed on BLM-administered 

mineral estate, these actions would not eliminate the disturbance because it is likely that the disturbance 

would shift to an area of private mineral acres not subject to these restrictions (possibly even adjacent to 

BLM-administered mineral acres). In addition, these actions would also increase haul distance and costs for 

the operator and, ultimately, the taxpayer because most mineral materials would be used for public road 

projects. 

TABLE 4-105.

BLM-ADMINISTERED MINERAL MATERIAL ACRES CLOSED UNDER 

ALTERNATIVE E

Area or Resource Acres

Cult. 

Sites and Battlefields 4,200

Recreation

Powder River Depot 45

Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA (BLM-administered 

surface acres) 11,000

Dean S. Reservoir 160

Pumpkin Creek Recreation Area 6,300

Glendive OHV 2,300

Terry OHV 72

Strawberry Hill 2,300

Special Desig. Areas

Battle Butte 1,100

Reynolds Battlefield 980

Cedar Creek Battlefield 1,500

Flat Creek Paleontological Site 550

Powderville Paleontological Area 9,300

Long Medicine Wheel 179

Walstein 2,000

Yonkee 40

Total 31,000

Actions requiring special mitigation or specialized design features would increase costs and delays for 

developers (Table 4-106). In some areas, this action would cause avoidance of some deposits (and subsequent 

loss of this development) while other areas would be developed with specialized design features. 

Restrictions for disruptive activities (such as noise) in Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas and 

Sage-grouse Habitat – Restoration Areas for example, would likely cause the denial of some operations in 

some areas. In other areas, the activity would be allowed if impacts could be mitigated. 

However, it is extremely difficult to determine with certainty at this time if the proposal would be denied or 

allowed because the decision would depend on many independent variables (type and size of equipment, 

location, and other activities). 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Minerals: Mineral Materials 

4-296

Ultimately, these restrictive 

actions would decrease the 

ability of developers to explore 

and develop new reserves on 

BLM-administered lands but not 

be likely to eliminate the 

disturbance because the 

disturbance would shift to other 

lands. These actions would also 

increase haul distance and costs 

for the operator and, ultimately, 

the taxpayer because most 

mineral materials would be used 

for public road projects. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Alternative A 

Alternative A would close 

81,000 acres to mineral 

material development. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B would close an 

additional 12.0 million acres 

of BLM-administered mineral 

material estate in the planning 

area (this is cumulative and 

does not account for 

overlapping closures). This 

closure would result in a 

downward trend in sales of 

mineral materials. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C would close an additional 3.3 million acres of BLM-administered mineral material estate (this 

is cumulative and does not account for overlapping closures). These closures, coupled with avoidance and 

mitigation requirements, would result in a downward trend for the development of mineral materials. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D would close about 3.1 million acres of BLM-administered mineral materials to development 

(this is cumulative and does not account for overlapping closures). These closures, coupled with avoidance 

and mitigation requirements, would result in a downward future trend in sales of mineral materials. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative E would close 31,000 acres to mineral material development. Some land use management actions 

requiring specialized design features, avoidance, or habitat requirements would eliminate development on an 

undetermined number of acres because of additional expenses or the BLM’s denial of the proposal. 

TABLE 4-106.

BLM-ADMINISTERED MINERAL MATERIAL ACRES SUBJECT 

TO SPECIALIZED DESIGN FEATURES, AVOIDANCE, OR 

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS UNDER ALTERNATIVE E

Area or Resource Acres

Soils

25% or greater slopes and sensitive soils 3,400,000

Water

Floodplains 99,000

Veg.

Riparian and wetland, 300-foot buffer 1,300,000

Fish and Wildlife

Aquatics, 0.25-mile buffer 3,500

Big Game Crucial Winter Range 2,300,000

Sharp-tailed Grouse, 2-mile buffer 1,400,000

Colonial Waterbirds 290

Bighorn Sheep Range 9,800

Prairie Falcon, 0.5-mile buffer 18,000

Special Status Species Raptors, 0.5-mile buffer 89,000

Piping Plover 49,000

Interior Least Tern 54,000

Black-tailed Prairie Dog 11,000

Pallid Sturgeon, 0.5-mile buffer 21,000

Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas, 2-mile 

buffer 820,000

Protection Priority Areas 1,400,000

Restoration Areas 190,000

Paleo.

Sites 171

Visual 

Class II and III 1,800,000

Rec.

Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA (Split estate) 9,500
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Recreation 

4-297

RECREATION

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 

It is assumed that demand for recreational use of public land would be expected to increase in the future. 

Increases would be expected in hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, wildlife viewing, and dispersed recreational 

uses. 

Demand for developed recreation areas would increase, as would demand for land for dispersed recreation. It 

is expected that in the long term, 10 to 50 recreational facilities would be developed for additional fishing, 

picnicking, and camping areas. Each development would disturb 5 to 10 acres while access into each area 

would disturb an additional 5 to 10 acres. 

The incidence of conflicts between various public user groups involved in motorized and non-motorized 

activities would increase with increasing use of public lands. Limited resources that are subject to the demands 

of larger populations stresses both natural resources and the visiting public’s social and economic needs. 

Conflict will not be limited to specific recreationists. 

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources and reviews of 

existing literature, BLM records, and information provided by other agencies and institutions. To analyze the 

potential impacts of the alternatives on the recreation program, information was gathered from administrative 

files for recreation in the planning area and other resource programs. The analysis is also based on the MCFO 

outdoor recreation planner’s knowledge of the area and the professional expertise of BLM specialists at the 

MCFO and the Montana State Office. Impacts are quantified where possible but, in the absence of 

quantitative data, best professional judgment is used. 

Because the current economy is unpredictable, maintaining current trends in recreation would show no net 

increase or decrease in current visitor use. Economic health impacts the number of trips, trip duration, and 

spending patterns while visitor use days depend on economic health and gas prices. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

An important component of recreation is scenic quality, so impacts that diminish or degrade scenic quality 

through the impacts of smoke, haze, or other air pollutants would potentially impact recreational opportunities 

that include scenic quality as part of the experience. Air quality actions common to all alternatives would have 

long-term impacts on recreation by reducing or mitigating potential impacts of prescribed burning through 

smoke management, timing, and monitoring. Mission reduction measures and prioritization of actions that 

reduced or mitigated emissions by enhanced energy efficiency, used lower GHG-emitting technologies, and 

adjusted the timing of BLM activities to accommodate long-term changes in seasonal weather patterns would 

also assist in reducing pollutants in the air, which would impact the scenic quality for recreational users. 

Relocating activities to a more suitable soil type or denying authorization for the activity would preclude the 

development of recreational campgrounds or more developed recreational sites in some areas. However, this 

action would maintain or enhance the recreational settings and supplemental values for public recreationists. 

Reducing contamination and meeting Montana water quality standards would protect water resources for any 

new developed recreational sites. Water and watershed management activities would indirectly protect 

existing flow conditions that affected recreational opportunities and river-related activities. 

Vegetative management actions, including riparian and wetland areas and invasive species, would improve 

recreational settings by meeting Rangeland Health Standards, using locally gathered native seed, and 

managing nonnative plant communities. Implementation of a combination of vegetation treatments (including 

prescribed fire, manual cutting, mechanical removal, root ripping, herbicides, and actions to create healthy 

stands of hardwood draw communities, and managed herbivory) would displace visitors, a short-term impact 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Recreation 

4-298

to recreational use. Long-term impacts would include improvement of the recreational settings, opportunities, 

and activities. 

Proactive management actions of threatened and endangered species habitat; predator control; and restoring, 

enhancing, and maintaining habitats for all birds would improve recreational settings and opportunities. Fish 

and wildlife management decisions would impact the habitat, health, and population of fish and wildlife 

species, and many recreational activities (such as hunting, wildlife viewing, bird watching, and fishing) would 

depend on the presence of healthy and abundant wildlife habitats and populations. Wildlife actions that 

maintained or improved wildlife habitat would impact the natural integrity of the recreational setting and 

influence activities and opportunities. 

Wildland fire and fuels management (prescribed fire) would cause short-term impacts (including temporary 

closure of areas during and after fire events) that displaced recreationists. Although the altered recreational 

setting would displace some recreationists in the long term, impacts from these actions would also create new 

recreational opportunities and experiences. Specific fire management plans that maintained recreational 

settings and activities would identify and include developed recreation sites and SRMAs. 

Protective management actions for cultural resources would impact recreational opportunities by moving or 

redesigning facilities or rerouting access, which would displace recreationists to other potentially less 

desirable areas. 

Management actions for paleontological resources would avoid impacts to significant paleontological remains 

through project redesign, project abandonment, or mitigation of impacts, all of which would have a minimal 

impact on recreational opportunities and settings. 

VRM actions would maintain the overall integrity of the scenic qualities while allowing for the development 

of existing and future uses. Visual resource designations would limit visual impacts associated with 

management actions in VRM Class I and Class II areas and allow more modification of the natural 

environment in VRM Class III and Class IV areas. Mitigation associated with VRM Class I and Class II areas 

would prevent contrast between projects and existing elements and subsequently retain or improve 

recreational settings. Mitigation in VRM Class III and Class IV areas would allow a wider range of scenic 

contrasts, which would detract from the recreational setting. Alteration of this setting would influence 

recreational activities and displace some recreationists who seek backcountry to middle-country recreational 

settings. 

Allowing harvests of minor wood products to maintain or enhance forest health would provide recreational 

opportunities (such as wood gathering) and improve recreational settings through the enhancement of scenic 

qualities and other values. However, altered recreational settings (such as increased traffic, dust, noise, and 

increased human presence) caused by woody and non-woody biomass removal and salvage of dead and dying 

timber would temporarily displace recreationists. 

Livestock management actions (including fencing) designed to maintain or improve vegetation conditions 

would enhance recreational opportunities through the maintenance of setting, opportunities, and experiences. 

Although the presence of livestock may not diminish the experience of most recreationists, some 

recreationists would be displaced (at a site-specific level) in response to water quality issues and livestock 

presence. Close proximity to livestock and behavioral concerns would influence recreationists’ safety, 

location choice, or overall recreational experience; reduce the quality of the experience; and displace 

recreationists to other, less satisfactory locations or periods without livestock. Promoting a shorter duration of 

livestock use and changing the season of use would consider recreation timing to reduce impacts to 

recreation. 

Development activities would impact recreation by altering values important for recreation such as scenic 

quality and natural, social, and administrative settings. The industrialized character associated with oil and 

gas activity would introduce new and contrasting elements, impact scenic quality, and displace some 

recreationists. Recreational settings would be changed to an industrialized landscape setting that impeded 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Recreation 

4-299

recreationists’ goals and degraded their experiences. However, new roads associated with mineral 

management would generate new primitive routes and create new access opportunities for recreationists. 

Short-term impacts to recreation from increased development would include expanded recreational 

opportunities and improved access to previously inaccessible areas. In the long term, values and resources 

such as scenic quality, solitude, and wildlife would be degraded and impede recreationists’ goals and degrade 

their experiences. 

The recreation program provides opportunities for outdoor recreation activities at both developed sites and 

dispersed areas. Under Management Common to all Alternatives, recreation attractions would be managed to 

provide for visitor health and safety, protect resources, enhance recreation, and coordinate with other 

programs to minimize conflicts and impacts to recreation opportunities. Short-term impacts from recreation 

management actions would preserve or increase visitor satisfaction through the quality of settings, 

opportunities, and experiences. Long-term impacts would include sustained recreational activity. Continuing 

to issue special recreation permits on a first-come, first-served basis would continue to allow large, organized 

recreational activities. 

Transportation management actions would maintain an adequate road network for public health and safety. In 

addition, the actions would facilitate recreational access that maintained recreational opportunities, activities, 

and experiences. Considering redesign, rerouting, closure, or decommissioning of existing roads and 

primitive roads or trails that contributed to resource impacts would reduce access and restrict recreational 

activities in these areas. 

Creating new facilities based on use demands would provide better service to the public while providing for 

the health and safety of visitors. However, contrasting elements (noise, visibility from a distance, and the 

height and size of facilities) would alter recreational opportunities and activities in the affected areas. 

Eliminating use of firearms, except during the State of Montana’s legal upland game bird and waterfowl 

hunting seasons, would reduce user conflict at the Matthews Recreation Area. Not allowing shooting at any 

time within the developed area would enhance safety for all users on the 91-acre site. 

Management of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail under all alternatives and continuing to manage the 

Big Sky Back Country Byway to enhance visitor experiences would increase recreational opportunities and 

maintain settings. Special protections and enhancements associated with special designation areas and the Back 

Country Byway would often enhance recreational settings and experiences, while maintaining dispersed 

recreation activities. The Big Sky Back Country Byway would be managed to enhance user experience and 

facilitate public access. Interpretation of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail would enhance public 

enjoyment of these trails and could slightly increase use along the routes. Recreation sites that overlap with the 

trail would be managed to increase user experience and visual quality. 

Renewable Energy actions (such as wind and solar exploration) would result in surface disturbance and create 

contrasting elements on the landscape that influenced recreational activities; possibly displaced recreationists 

to alternate areas; and altered recreational settings, opportunities, and activities in the area. 

Lands and realty management actions that considered acquisition of nonfederal lands would improve public 

access in areas with intermingled land ownership and facilitate increased or improved access to recreation 

resources such as WSAs, rivers, or SRMAs. Other lands and realty actions (such as major ROWs, 

improvement of the energy transportation network, and communication site requests) would result in surface 

disturbance and create contrasting elements on the landscape that influenced recreational activities; possibly 

displaced recreationists to alternate areas; and altered recreational settings, opportunities, and activities in the 

area. 

Although special protections and enhancements associated with special designation areas and SRMAs would 

often enhance recreational settings and experiences, these actions would restrict some recreation management 

activities and dispersed recreation uses. Under these management actions, ACECs would consist of settings 

for users seeking primitive or backcountry recreational opportunities. Such opportunities, however, would 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Recreation 

4-300

preclude and displace users seeking motorized activities in most SRMAs (except for the Glendive Short Pines 

OHV Area and Terry OHV Area). 

Special protections and enhancements associated with WSAs would often enhance backcountry and primitive 

recreation settings and experiences but potentially restrict recreational management activities that motorized 

users sought. 

Responding to hazardous material incidents and conducting cleanups in accordance with law and regulation 

would enhance recreational settings and experiences. 

ALTERNATIVE A 

Avoiding or limiting surface-disturbing activities on highly erodible soils would preclude the development of 

recreational campgrounds or more developed recreational sites in specific areas, but maintain or enhance the 

recreational settings and supplemental values for the recreating public. 

Harvesting of nonnative hay or seed and Vegetation, Invasive Species actions under this alternative would 

cause short-term impacts that displaced recreationists during implementation. Long-term impacts would 

include improvement of recreational settings, opportunities, and activities in these areas. 

Allowing land disposals of BLM-administered lands containing populations or habitats of special status 

species would reduce recreational access. 

Allowing oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation within riparian areas, on waterbodies and streams, 

within 0.25 miles of designated reservoirs with fisheries, and near areas with special status species would 

enhance recreational opportunities through the improvement of recreational settings, such as a visually 

pleasing setting with NSO stipulations. Because management decisions for special status species would 

impact the habitat, health, and population of these species and because many recreational activities (such as 

hunting, wildlife viewing, bird watching, and fishing) would depend on the presence of healthy and abundant 

wildlife populations and habitats, wildlife actions that maintained or improved wildlife habitat would improve 

the natural integrity of the recreational setting and recreational activities and opportunities by increased 

wildlife presence and visibility. 

Restricting the use of heavy equipment within 2 miles of sage-grouse leks from April 1 to June 30 would 

preclude development or maintenance of recreation areas or developed recreation sites. This action would 

reduce the value of the recreational setting and create an unsafe environment for recreationists. 

Wildland fire and fuels management (prescribed fire) would cause short-term impacts (including temporary 

closure of areas during and after fire events) that displaced recreationists. Although the altered recreational 

setting would displace some recreationists in the long term, impacts from these actions would also create new 

recreational opportunities and experiences. Specific fire management plans that maintained recreational 

settings and activities would identify and include developed recreation sites and SRMAs. 

VRM actions would maintain the overall integrity of the scenic qualities while allowing for the development 

of existing and future uses. Mitigation associated with VRM Class II would prevent projects from contrasting 

with existing elements that retained or improved the recreational settings. 

Managing forestlands for the enhancement of other resources would cause long-term impacts by improving 

forest health that enhanced the recreational settings and values. Allowing wood product sales for post and 

poles, Christmas trees, and firewood within specific areas would benefit recreation specific to those activities 

but displace recreationists seeking solitude. 

Livestock grazing systems and range improvements would be implemented to enhance wildlife, watershed, 

and riparian values. These systems and improvements would enhance recreational settings by improving 

water quality and wildlife habitat. Livestock management actions designed to maintain or improve vegetation 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Recreation 

4-301

conditions would enhance recreational opportunities through the maintenance of setting, opportunities, and 

experiences. Although the presence of livestock may not diminish the experience of most recreationists, some 

recreationists would be displaced (at a site-specific level) in response to water quality issues and livestock 

presence. Close proximity to livestock and behavioral concerns would influence recreationists’ safety, 

location choice, or overall recreational experience; reduce the quality of the experience; and displace 

recreationists to other, less satisfactory locations or periods without livestock. Promoting a shorter duration of 

livestock use and changing the season of use would consider recreation timing to reduce the impacts on 

recreation. 

Development activities would impact recreation by altering values important for recreation such as scenic 

quality and natural, social, and administrative settings. The industrialized character associated with oil and 

gas activity would introduce new and contrasting elements, impact scenic quality, and displace some 

recreationists. Recreational settings would be changed to an industrialized landscape setting that impeded 

recreationists’ goals and degraded their experiences. However, new roads associated with mineral 

management would generate new primitive routes and create new access opportunities for recreationists. 

Short-term impacts to recreation from increased development would include expanded recreational 

opportunities and improved access to previously inaccessible areas. In the long term, values and resources 

such as scenic quality, solitude, and wildlife would be degraded and impede recreationists’ goals and degrade 

their experiences. Additional protections identified under this alternative would maintain recreational settings, 

opportunities, and experiences. 

Travel Management and OHV management actions would provide recreational opportunities and activities, 

protect and mitigate resource damage, and resolve conflicts caused by OHV use. Direct, short-term impacts of 

OHV use (noise and decreased air quality) would diminish the recreational experience for recreationists 

seeking solitude and natural settings for camping, hiking, and related non-motorized recreational activities. 

Conflicts between recreationists, such as motorized and non-motorized users, would detract from the quality 

of the recreational experience. OHV use would provide additional recreational activities and opportunities for 

self-achievement such as driving for pleasure, wildlife viewing, and access to remote areas. 

Travel Management and OHV actions that prohibited off-road travel for big game retrieval would protect the 

recreational setting from route proliferation but also reduce accessibility and opportunities for big game 

retrieval for some recreationists. Under this alternative, 2,400 acres would be Open OHV use, 2.7 million 

Limited, and 80 acres Closed. 

The recreation program provides opportunities for outdoor recreation activities at both developed sites and 

dispersed areas. The recreation management emphasis under this alternative would be development and 

maintenance of opportunities for dispersed recreational activities, such as hunting, wildlife viewing, and 

driving for pleasure. In the short term, emphasis on activities instead of recreational benefit would diminish 

the experience for some recreationists. 

The Glendive Short Pine OHV area and the Terry OHV area would be managed as focus areas for OHV 

(motorized) trail use, with use limited in some areas to designated trails. The impacts on recreation resources 

would be minor in the long term because the area is currently managed for OHV motorized trail use with 

surface disturbances in the open area and limited to designated routes in some areas. Management that 

promotes this kind of activity would result in long-term impacts on motorized and specialized-motorized 

users. 

Glendive Short Pine OHV area’s designated shooting area would continue to remain open under this 

alternative, which would allow recreationists who use this area to continue use. However, it would decrease 

safety to OHV users and other recreationists in the area. 

Management of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail under this alternative would increase recreation 

opportunities and maintain settings. The SRMA management goals would be to provide scenic overlook 

facilities to enhance the visitor experience, provide quality camping experiences for users, and provide hiking 

and backpacking opportunities. The long-term impacts to recreational users under this alternative would 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Recreation 

4-302

reduce the likelihood of resource use conflicts and increase the likelihood of satisfying experiences for nonmechanized use along the trail. 

Lands and realty management actions would cause impacts similar to those identified under Management 

Common to all Alternatives except ROWs and other land use authorizations would be avoided on 

approximately 120,000 acres, excluded on approximately 960,000 BLM-administered surface acres, and 

allowed in the remainder of the planning area under this alternative. Popular recreation areas open to these 

types of developments would be affected by altered settings and values that influenced recreational settings, 

opportunities, and activities. Noise, visibility from a distance, and the height and size of facilities would 

create elements that contrasted with the existing settings and altered recreational opportunities and activities 

in the area. 

Although special protections and enhancements associated with special designation areas, SRMAs, and 

WSAs would often enhance recreational settings and experiences, these actions would restrict some 

recreation management activities and dispersed recreation uses. Under these management actions, ACECs 

would consist of settings for users seeking primitive or backcountry recreational opportunities. WSAs, 

managed to preserve wilderness character, would consist of settings for users seeking primitive recreational 

opportunities. Such opportunities, however, would preclude and displace users seeking motorized activities. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

With restrictions under this alternative, visitor experiences would be enhanced and more opportunities created 

for recreationists. RMIS data showed an approximately 13-percent increase in visitor use days for the last 5 

years. Changing economic conditions would reduce this figure by half for a total percent increase in visitor 

use days. 

Although prohibiting surface-disturbing activities would prevent the development of recreational 

campgrounds or more developed recreational sites in specific areas, these actions would maintain, enhance, or 

increase the recreational settings and supplemental values through an unaltered landscape, which would allow 

for a more natural recreation experience. 

Natural recovery and grazing restrictions would maintain or improve the natural qualities of the recreational 

setting. Treatment activities would temporarily displace recreationists and temporarily alter recreational 

settings. However, the long-term impacts of these treatment actions would maintain or enhance recreational 

settings and opportunities. 

Under this alternative, management actions pertaining to disposals of BLM-administered lands containing 

populations or habitats of special status species would protect recreational access. 

Wildland fire and fuels management (prescribed fire) would cause short-term impacts (including temporary 

closure of areas during and after fire events) that displaced recreationists. Although the altered recreational 

setting would displace some recreationists in the long term, impacts from these actions would also create new 

recreational opportunities and experiences. Specific fire management plans that maintained recreational 

settings and activities would identify and include developed recreation sites and SRMAs. 

VRM actions would maintain the overall integrity of the scenic qualities while allowing for the development 

of existing and future uses. Mitigation associated with VRM Class II and Class III areas would prevent 

projects from contrasting with the existing elements and retain or improve recreational settings. 

Eliminating management of forestlands for forest products would reduce forest health but reduce the shortterm displacement of recreationists and potential conflicts between recreationists and commercial timber 

activities, which would allow for a more primitive recreational experience. Improved forest health would 

benefit recreational settings and values and influence overall recreational opportunities. However, as the 

forest declined in health, impacts to game populations would impact recreational experiences. Declining 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Recreation 

4-303

forest health would also impact visual values and settings. Prohibiting wood product sales for post and poles, 

Christmas trees, and firewood would displace recreationists who seek those activities. 

Impacts from livestock grazing management actions would be similar to those described under Alternative A 

(except fewer acres would be open to grazing under this alternative). These actions would improve water 

quality, wildlife habitat, and recreational settings. Livestock management actions designed to maintain or 

improve vegetation conditions would enhance recreational opportunities through the maintenance of setting, 

opportunities, and experiences. Although the presence of livestock may not diminish the experience of most 

recreationists, some recreationists would be displaced (at a site-specific level) in response to water quality 

issues and livestock presence. Close proximity to livestock and behavioral concerns would influence 

recreationists’ safety, location choice, or overall recreational experience; reduce the quality of the experience; 

and displace recreationists to other, less satisfactory locations or periods without livestock. Promoting a 

shorter duration of livestock use and changing the season of use would consider recreation timing to reduce 

impacts to recreation. 

Impacts from coal exploration, leasing, and development and geophysical exploration would be similar to 

those described under Alternative A except these activities would be reduced by NSO stipulations for oil and 

gas leasing and development; lease terms; timing restrictions; and closures under this alternative. These 

protections would maintain recreational settings, opportunities, and experiences. 

Development activities would impact recreation by altering values important for recreation such as scenic 

quality and natural, social, and administrative settings. The industrialized character associated with oil and 

gas activity would introduce new and contrasting elements, impact scenic quality, and displace some 

recreationists. Recreational settings would be changed to an industrialized landscape setting that impeded 

recreationists’ goals and degraded their experiences. However, new roads associated with mineral 

management would generate new primitive routes and create new access opportunities for recreationists. 

Short-term impacts to recreation from increased development would include expanded recreational 

opportunities and improved access to previously inaccessible areas. In the long term, values and resources 

such as scenic quality, solitude, and wildlife would be degraded and impede recreationists’ goals and degrade 

their experiences. Additional protections identified under this alternative would maintain recreational settings, 

opportunities, and experiences. 

Travel Management and OHV management actions would provide recreational opportunities and activities, 

protect and mitigate resource damage, and resolve conflicts caused by OHV use. Direct, short-term impacts of 

OHV use (noise and decreased air quality) would diminish the recreational experience for recreationists 

seeking solitude and natural settings for camping, hiking, and related non-motorized recreational activities. 

Conflicts between various recreationists (such as motorized users and non-motorized users) would detract 

from the quality of the recreational experience. OHV use would provide additional recreational activities and 

opportunities for self-achievement such as driving for pleasure, wildlife viewing, and access to remote areas. 

Under this alternative, 2,900 acres would be designated Open OHV use, 2.8 million Limited, and 80 acres 

Closed. 

Travel Management and OHV actions that prohibited off-road travel for big game retrieval would protect the 

recreational setting from route proliferation; however, such actions would also impact accessibility and 

opportunities for big game retrieval for some recreationists. 

The recreation program provides opportunities for outdoor recreation activities at both developed sites and 

dispersed areas. Recreation management emphasis would be the development and maintenance of 

opportunities for dispersed recreational activities, such as hunting, wildlife viewing, and driving for pleasure. 

In the short term, emphasis on activities instead of recreational benefit would diminish the experience for 

some recreationalists. 

Prohibiting guiding and outfitting special recreation permits on publicly accessible, BLM-administered 

surface acres within 5 miles of vehicular access (on an existing or designated open road) would reduce user 

conflicts between the outfitter and the general public during the hunting season. For some recreationists, this 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Recreation 

4-304

action would impact their recreational value and experiences (by eliminating conflict) and increase 

opportunities for harvesting big game. However, this action would reduce acres of public land available for 

recreationists using guide and outfitter services. 

Prohibiting commercial camping permits within developed recreation sites during the Memorial to Labor Day 

season would reduce user conflicts between large groups and the everyday, recreating public. This action 

would also reduce resource conflicts, which would increase the value of the recreational setting and values 

and allow for a more enjoyable experience. However, this action would displace large groups of 

recreationists. 

Designating Pumpkin Creek Ranch and Recreation Area a SRMA and managing this area for local and 

regional public demand would provide the most protection for recreation resources. This action would 

decrease the potential for altering recreational settings and experiences and allow for increased recreation 

opportunities, activities, and values. OHV use would be limited to designated areas, which would reduce user 

conflicts between motorized and non-motorized users. Management actions that prohibited developed 

camping areas would allow for a more primitive recreation experience but reduce areas for more rural 

recreation activities. Prohibiting special recreation permits for outfitter and guides within the SRMA would 

reduce user conflicts between public land hunters and outfitters. 

Under this alternative, the Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA boundary would be modified to include 0.5 miles on 

each side of the trail and provide more protection for recreation resources within that boundary. This action 

would increase the recreational experiences within the SRMA and reduce the possibility of development 

adjacent to the river that affected river recreation experiences and visual resources. 

Designating the Glendive Short Pine OHV Area a SRMA, managing this area for local and regional 

recreation demands, and modifying the OHV boundary (dropping 339 acres from OHV use) would not detract 

from visitor experience or enjoyment. Restricting OHV use to existing roads and trails on the remaining 

2,753 acres would reduce user conflicts between motorized and non-motorized users. While the area would 

no longer be designated Open, the majority of roads and trails in use would remain open for motorized users. 

However, this action would relocate some recreationists to other Open areas and increase trails on adjacent or 

nearby public land. The designated shooting area would be closed and use of any firearms would be restricted 

except during the State of Montana’s legal hunting seasons, which would increase safety to OHV users and 

other recreationists. It would displace some recreationists who use the shooting range. 

Designating the Terry OHV Area a SRMA, managing this area for local and regional public demand, 

modifying the OHV boundary, and limiting OHV use to existing roads and trails would reduce user conflicts 

between motorized and non-motorized users. While the area would no longer be designated Open, the 

majority of roads and trails in use would remain open for motorized users. This action would relocate some 

recreationists to other Open areas and increase trails on adjacent or nearby public land. 

The Glendive Short Pine OHV area and the Terry OHV area would be managed as focus areas for OHV 

(motorized) trail use, with use limited in some areas to designated trails. The impacts on recreation resources 

would be minor in the long term because the area is currently managed for OHV motorized trail use with 

surface disturbances in the open area and limited to designated routes in some areas. Management that 

promoted this kind of activity would result in long-term impacts to motorized and specialized-motorized 

users. 

Designating Strawberry Hill Recreation Area a SRMA, managing this area for local and regional public 

demand, and closing OHV use beyond the established parking area would allow for a more primitive 

experience for some recreational uses (such as hiking, photography, and camping). 

Management of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail under this alternative would increase recreation 

opportunities and maintain settings. The SRMA management goals would be to provide scenic overlook 

facilities to enhance the visitor experience, provide quality camping experiences for users, and provide hiking 

and backpacking opportunities. The long-term impacts to recreational users under this alternative reduce the 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Recreation 

4-305

likelihood of resource use conflicts and increase the likelihood of satisfying experiences for non-mechanized 

use along the trail. 

Impacts from lands and realty management actions under this alternative would be similar to those identified 

under Alternative A. Popular recreation areas open to these types of developments would be affected by 

altered settings and values, which would influence recreational settings, opportunities, and activities. Noise, 

visibility from a distance, and the height and size of facilities would create elements that contrasted with the 

existing settings and subsequently altered recreational opportunity and activities in the area. 

Although special protections and enhancements associated with special designation areas, SRMAs, and 

WSAs would often enhance recreational settings and experiences, these actions would restrict some 

recreation management activities and dispersed recreation uses. Under these management actions, ACECs 

would consist of settings for users seeking primitive or backcountry recreational opportunities. WSAs, 

managed to preserve wilderness character, would consist of settings for users seeking primitive recreational 

opportunities. Such opportunities, however, would preclude and displace users seeking motorized activities. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C would enhance economic development and visitor experiences and create opportunities for 

recreationists. As in Alternative B, RMIS data showed an approximately 13-percent increase in visitor use 

day for the last 5 years. Because of changing economic conditions and fewer restrictions than Alternative B, a 

3-percent net increase was used for visitor use days. 

Management actions requiring avoidance of surface-disturbing activities on slopes and sensitive soils would 

prevent the development of recreational campgrounds or more developed recreational sites in these areas. 

However, by retaining an unaltered landscape, this action would maintain or enhance the recreational settings 

and supplemental values for the recreating public and allow for a more natural recreation experience. 

Avoiding surface-disturbing activities that would not benefit waterbodies, streams, or floodplains would 

protect recreational water-based activities and maintain or improve recreational settings and values on riverrelated activities. This action would preclude some development of recreational sites near water-based 

activities. 

Installing flow-control devices on all new water wells and spring developments would maintain or improve 

recreational settings and values needed for wildlife habitat. 

Allowing land disposals of BLM-administered lands containing populations or habitats of special status 

species plants would reduce recreational access. 

Avoiding surface-disturbing activities or disruptive activities would enhance recreational opportunities by 

enhancing long-term recreational settings and values for recreationists who desire a more natural recreational 

experience. 

Offering oil and gas leasing with a CSU stipulation would reduce recreational settings and values through 

impacts such as increased the traffic, noise, and loss of solitude caused by increased human presence, which 

would influence recreational opportunities and experiences. 

Compliance with management actions that required approved specialized design features within riparian and 

wetland areas would allow additional recreational site development, such as campground construction, within 

these areas. 

Vegetation, Invasive Species actions that allowed surface-disturbing activities would result in overall longterm impacts that maintained and improved recreational settings, opportunities, and activities by improving 

vegetative health and wildlife habitat. Short-term impacts of this management action would include visitor 

displacement during invasive species treatments. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Recreation 

4-306

Management actions that required avoidance of surface-disturbing and disruptive activities or required an 

NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing and development near designated sport-fish reservoirs would increase 

protection for most species and associated habitat and benefit recreational settings and opportunities. 

Enabling fish passage to protect habitat and water diversions would maintain fishery habitat and subsequently 

maintain or improve recreational settings and opportunities. Incorporating specialized design features for 

power lines and surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would maintain protection for most species (and 

their associated habitat) and benefit recreational settings and opportunities. Opportunities for recreational 

management projects or developments, such as campground developments, would increase recreational 

settings and values. 

Allowing surface-disturbing activities within 0.5 miles of raptor nests would improve or maintain recreation 

areas or developed recreation sites. Unless visitors were seeking pristine environments, this action would 

improve and increase recreational settings and values. 

Prohibiting surface-disturbing or disruptive activities within 0.25 miles of piping plover or interior least tern 

wetland habitat would preclude development or maintenance of recreation areas or developed recreation sites, 

which would reduce the value of the recreational setting and create an unsafe environment for recreationists. 

Wildland fire and fuels management (prescribed fire) would cause short-term impacts (including temporary 

closure of areas during and after fire events) that displaced recreationists. Although the altered recreational 

setting would displace some recreationists in the long term, impacts from these actions would also create new 

recreational opportunities and experiences. Specific fire management plans that maintained recreational 

settings and activities would identify and include developed recreation sites and SRMAs. Use of wildfire 

(unplanned ignitions) to meet multiple objectives, when appropriate, would allow wildland fire to play its 

natural role in the planning area. 

Offering oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation and allowing surface-disturbing activities would alter 

recreational settings with the increased traffic, noise, and loss of solitude caused by increased human 

presence, which would influence recreational opportunities and experiences. 

Management actions designed to protect cultural and paleontological sites would increase the value of these 

areas as potential recreational destinations and offer more opportunities and activities for some recreational 

activities. Overall, little or no impacts to recreation would be anticipated. 

VRM actions would maintain the overall integrity of scenic qualities while allowing for the development of 

existing and future uses. Mitigation associated with VRM Class II and Class III would prevent projects from 

contrasting with the existing elements and retain or improve recreational settings. 

Managing forestlands for a diversity of forest product production and resource enhancement would have 

long-term impacts to recreation, provide for improvements in forest health, and subsequently enhance 

recreational settings and values. Allowing wood product sales for post and poles, Christmas trees, and 

firewood within specific areas (in support of forest health and while meeting management objectives) would 

benefit recreation specific to those activities. Recreationists seeking solitude would be displaced by chainsaw 

noise. 

Impacts from livestock grazing management actions would be similar to those described under Alternative A 

except grazing systems and range improvements would be implemented to meet Standards for Rangeland 

Health under this alternative. These actions would improve water quality, wildlife habitat, and recreational 

settings. Livestock management actions designed to maintain or improve vegetation conditions would 

enhance recreational opportunities through the maintenance of setting, opportunities, and experiences. 

Although the presence of livestock may not diminish the experience of most recreationists, some 

recreationists would be displaced (at a site-specific level) in response to water quality issues and livestock 

presence. Close proximity to livestock and behavioral concerns would influence recreationists’ safety, 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Recreation 

4-307

location choice, or overall recreational experience; reduce the quality of the experience; and displace 

recreationists to other, less satisfactory locations or periods without livestock. Promoting a shorter duration of 

livestock use and changing the season of use would consider recreation timing to reduce impacts on 

recreation. 

Impacts from coal exploration, leasing, and development and geophysical exploration would be similar to 

those described under Alternative B. These actions would decrease the value of recreational settings, 

opportunities, and experiences. 

Development activities would impact recreation by altering values important for recreation such as scenic 

quality and natural, social, and administrative settings. The industrialized character associated with oil and 

gas activity would introduce new and contrasting elements, impact scenic quality, and displace some 

recreationists. Recreational settings would be changed to an industrialized landscape setting that impeded 

recreationists’ goals and degraded their experiences. However, new roads associated with mineral 

management would generate new primitive routes and create new access opportunities for recreationists. 

Short-term impacts to recreation from increased development would include expanded recreational 

opportunities and improved access to previously inaccessible areas. In the long term, values and resources 

such as scenic quality, solitude, and wildlife would be degraded and impede recreationists’ goals and degrade 

their experiences. Additional protections identified under this alternative would maintain recreational settings, 

opportunities, and experiences. 

Under Alternative C, OHV management actions administering off-road travel for big game retrieval would 

allow access and opportunity for big game retrieval for recreationists who may not otherwise be able to 

participate. However, this action would also alter existing settings and decrease values and resources for other 

recreationists. 

Travel Management and OHV management actions would provide recreational opportunities and activities, 

protect and mitigate resource damage, and resolve conflicts caused by OHV use. Direct, short-term impacts of 

OHV use (noise and decreased air quality) would diminish the recreational experience for recreationists 

seeking solitude and natural settings for camping, hiking, and related non-motorized recreational activities. 

Conflicts between various recreationists (such as motorized users and non-motorized users) would detract 

from the quality of the recreational experience. OHV use would provide additional recreational activities and 

opportunities for self-achievement such as driving for pleasure, wildlife viewing, and access to remote areas. 

Under this alternative, 660 acres would be designated Open OHV use, 2.8 million Limited, and 550 acres 

Closed. 

The recreation program provides opportunities for outdoor recreation activities at both developed sites and 

dispersed areas. Recreation management emphasis would be the development and maintenance of 

opportunities for dispersed recreational activities, such as hunting, wildlife viewing, and driving for pleasure. 

In the short term, emphasis on activities instead of recreational benefit would diminish the experience for 

some recreationalists. 

Prohibiting guiding and outfitting special recreation permits on publicly accessible, BLM-administered 

surface acres within 1 mile of vehicular access (on an existing or designated open road) would reduce user 

conflicts between the outfitter and the public during the hunting season. For some recreationists, this action 

would impact their recreational values (by eliminating conflict) and experiences and increase opportunities 

for harvesting big game. However, this action would reduce acres of public land available for recreationists 

using guide and outfitter services. Criteria would be set up and monitored for any change in conditions, such 

as changes in data from MFWP or the Board of Outfitting, habitat and wildlife needs, number of 

recreationists, law enforcement citations, private landowner concerns, or other indicators. Future variables 

involved with the special recreation permitting process would be monitored for specific criteria and new and 

renewal permits would be modified according to data collected through stipulations or limitations. 

Prohibiting commercial camping permits within developed recreation sites during the Memorial to Labor Day 

season would reduce user conflicts between large groups and the everyday, recreating public. This action 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Recreation 

4-308

would also reduce resource conflicts, which would increase recreational settings and values and allow for a 

more enjoyable experience. However, this action would displace large groups of recreationists. 

Designating Pumpkin Creek Ranch and Recreation Area a SRMA, managing the area for the local and 

regional public demand, and designating a Limited OHV area (and creating specific trails) would reduce user 

conflicts between motorized and non-motorized users within the rest of the Pumpkin Creek Ranch and 

Recreation Area. Closing livestock grazing within specific areas would decrease the risk of user conflict on 

approximately 2,250 acres (on the creek side), allow for more recreational opportunities, and designate 

approximately 640 acres for use as a Limited OHV area. These actions would create high quality recreational 

opportunities without user conflict. Other management actions would decrease the potential for altering the 

recreational settings and experiences and allow for increased recreational opportunities, activities, and values. 

Allowing developed camping areas within a specific area would provide for recreationists who desire more 

rural camp settings. Special recreation permit requests would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Modifying the Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA boundary to include 0.5 miles on each side of the trail would 

provide more protection for recreation resources within that boundary. This action would increase the 

recreational experience within the SRMA and reduce the possibility of development adjacent to the river that 

affected river recreation experiences and visual resources. 

Closing a portion of the Glendive Short Pine OHV Area (except for vegetation management activities), 

consisting of 330 acres, to livestock grazing would impact recreation in the planning area. Although livestock 

presence in a landscape setting may not diminish the experience of most recreationists, some recreationists 

would be displaced (at a site-specific level) in response to water quality issues and the presence of livestock. 

Close proximity to livestock and behavioral concerns would influence recreationists’ safety, location choice, 

or overall recreational experience; reduce the quality of the experience; and displace recreationists to other, 

less satisfactory locations or periods without livestock. This management action would also reduce user 

conflicts between motorized users and livestock. 

Modifying the Glendive Short Pine OHV boundary and dropping approximately 339 acres from OHV use 

would not reduce visitor experiences or enjoyment because the area is rarely used by motorized users. OHV 

use would be designated Open on approximately 640 acres and restricted to existing roads and trails on the 

remaining 2,091 acres, which would reduce user conflicts between motorized and non-motorized users. While 

the entire area would no longer be designated Open, the majority of roads and trails in use and a portion of the 

area would remain open for motorized users. The Glendive Short Pine OHV area’s designated shooting range 

would continue to remain open, which would allow recreationists who currently use this area to continue use. 

However, it would decrease safety to OHV users and other recreationists within the area. 

Designating the Terry OHV Area a SRMA, managing this area for local and regional public demand, 

modifying the OHV boundary, and limiting OHV use to existing roads and trails would reduce user conflicts 

between motorized and non-motorized users. While the entire area would no longer be designated Open, the 

majority of roads and trails in use would remain Open for motorized users. However, this action would 

displace some recreationists to other Open areas and increase trails on adjacent or nearby public land. 

The Glendive Short Pine OHV area and the Terry OHV area would be managed as focus areas for OHV 

(motorized) trail use, with use limited in some areas to designated trails. The impacts on recreation resources 

would be minor in the long term because the area is currently managed for OHV motorized trail use with 

surface disturbances in the open area and limited to designated routes in some areas. Management that 

promoted this kind of activity would result in long-term impacts to motorized and specialized-motorized 

users. 

Management of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail under this alternative would increase recreation 

opportunities and maintain settings. The SRMA management goals would be to provide scenic overlook 

facilities to enhance the visitor experience, provide quality camping experiences for users, and provide hiking 

and backpacking opportunities. The long-term impacts to recreational users under this alternative would be a 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Recreation 

4-309

reduced likelihood of resource use conflicts and an increased likelihood of satisfying experiences for nonmechanized use along the trail. 

Impacts from lands and realty management actions under this alternative would be similar to those identified 

under Alternative A. Popular recreation areas open to these types of developments would be affected by 

altered settings and values, which would impact recreational settings, opportunities, and activities. Noise, 

visibility from a distance, and the height and size of facilities would create elements that contrasted with the 

existing settings and subsequently altered recreational opportunities and activities in the area. 

Although special protections and enhancements associated with special designation areas, SRMAs, and 

WSAs would often enhance recreational settings and experiences, these actions would restrict some 

recreation management activities and dispersed recreation uses. Under these management actions, ACECs 

would consist of settings for users seeking primitive or backcountry recreational opportunities. WSAs, 

managed to preserve wilderness character, would consist of settings for users seeking primitive recreational 

opportunities. Such opportunities, however, would preclude and displace users seeking motorized activities. 

ALTERNATIVE D 

By allowing more resource development, Alternative D would decrease recreational experiences, which 

would also decrease recreational use. Data from RMIS showed a 13-percent increase in visitor use days for 

the last 5 years. Using these data, a net decrease of 6 percent was used. 

Management actions requiring of surface-disturbing activities be avoided on slopes and sensitive soils would 

prevent the development of recreational campgrounds or more developed recreational sites in these areas. 

However, by retaining an unaltered landscape, this action would maintain or enhance the recreational settings 

and supplemental values for the recreating public and allow for a more natural recreation experience. 

Water Resources management actions that allowed surface-disturbing activities with approved mitigation 

would maintain or improve recreational settings and values for river-related activities. Recreational 

development would be allowed with mitigation measures, which would improve the setting for recreationists. 

Installing flow-control devices on all new water wells and spring developments to benefit wildlife and their 

habitat would maintain or improve recreational settings and values. 

Harvesting of nonnative hay or seed would displace recreation use during harvest. However, long-term 

impacts would improve recreational settings, opportunities, and activities. 

Allowing land disposals of BLM-administered lands containing populations or habitats of special status 

species plants would reduce recreational access. 

Avoiding surface-disturbing activities or disruptive activities would enhance recreational opportunities by 

enhancing recreational settings and values, in the long term, for recreationists who desire a more natural 

recreational experience. If management actions that required approved specialized design features were met, 

additional recreational site development, such as campground construction, could be carried out within 

riparian and wetland areas. Offering oil and gas leasing with a CSU stipulation would reduce recreational 

settings and values. 

Vegetation, Invasive Species actions that allowed surface-disturbing activities would result in overall longterm impacts that maintained and improved recreational settings, opportunities, and activities by improving 

vegetation health and wildlife habitat. Short-term impacts would include visitor displacement during invasive 

species treatments. Depending on activities of private landowners, restricting priority treatment to areas in 

which surrounding private lands were within an active invasive species management treatment area would 

impact recreational settings and values. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Recreation 

4-310

Allowing surface-disturbing and disruptive activities and oil and gas leasing near designated sport-fish 

reservoirs would decrease protection for most species (and their associated habitat) and reduce recreational 

settings and opportunities. However, these management actions would improve opportunities for recreational 

management projects. Prohibiting livestock grazing when the activity would be incompatible with 

recreational activities would increase recreationists’ sense of safety and the quality of recreational experience 

at sport-fish reservoirs. 

 

Incorporating specialized design features for power lines and surface-disturbing or disruptive activities would 

maintain protection for most species (and their associated habitat), which would benefit recreational settings 

and opportunities. Opportunities for recreation management projects or developments, such as campground 

development, would increase recreational settings and values. 

Allowing surface-disturbing activities within 0.5 miles of a raptor nest would permit the improvement and 

maintenance of recreation areas or developed recreation sites. Unless visitors were seeking a pristine 

environment, this action would improve and increase recreational settings and values. 

Prohibiting surface-disturbing or disruptive activities within 0.25 miles of piping plover or interior least tern 

wetland habitat would preclude the development or maintenance of recreation areas or developed recreation 

sites, which would reduce the value of the recreational setting and provide an unsafe environment for 

recreationists. 

Wildland fire and fuels management (prescribed fire) under this alternative would cause short-term impacts 

(including temporary closure of areas during and after fire events) that displaced recreationists. In the long 

term, the altered recreational setting would displace some recreationists; however, these actions would also 

create new recreational opportunities and experiences. Developed recreational sites and SRMAs have been 

identified and included in specific fire management plans that maintained the recreational settings and 

activities. Use of wildfire (unplanned ignitions) to meet multiple objectives, when appropriate, would allow 

wildland fire to play its natural role. 

Offering oil and gas leasing with a CSU stipulation and allowing surface-disturbing activities would alter 

recreational settings through impacts such as increased the traffic, noise, and loss of solitude caused by 

increased human presence, which would influence recreational opportunities and experiences. 

Management actions designed to protect cultural sites would increase the value of these areas for potential 

recreational destinations and offer more opportunities and activities for some recreational activities. Overall, 

little or no impacts to recreation would be anticipated as a result of these management actions. 

VRM actions would maintain the overall integrity of the scenic qualities while allowing for the development 

of existing and future uses. Mitigation associated with VRM Class II and Class III areas would prevent 

projects from contrasting with the existing elements and retain or improve recreational settings. 

Managing forestlands for a diversity of forest product production and resource enhancement would have 

long-term impacts on recreation, provide for improvements in forest health, and subsequently enhance 

recreational settings and values. Allowing wood product sales for post and poles, Christmas trees, and 

firewood within specific areas (in support of forest health and while meeting management objectives) would 

benefit recreation specific to those activities. Recreationists seeking solitude would be displaced by chainsaw 

noise. 

Impacts from livestock grazing management actions would be similar to those described under Alternative A 

except grazing systems and range improvements would be implemented to meet Standards for Rangeland 

Health under this alternative. These actions would improve water quality, wildlife habitat, and recreational 

settings. Livestock management actions designed to maintain or improve vegetation conditions would 

enhance recreational opportunities through the maintenance of setting, opportunities, and experiences. 

Although the presence of livestock may not diminish the experience of most recreationists, some 

recreationists would be displaced (at a site-specific level) in response to water quality issues and livestock 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Recreation 

4-311

presence. Close proximity to livestock and behavioral concerns would influence recreationists’ safety, 

location choice, or overall recreational experience; reduce the quality of the experience; and displace 

recreationists to other, less satisfactory locations or periods without livestock. Promoting a shorter duration of 

livestock use and changing the season of use would consider recreation timing to reduce the impacts on 

recreation. 

Impacts from coal exploration, leasing, and development and geophysical exploration would be similar to 

those described under Alternative C except actions under this alternative would decrease the value of 

recreational settings, opportunities, and experiences. 

Development activities would impact recreation by altering values important for recreation such as scenic 

quality and natural, social, and administrative settings. The industrialized character associated with oil and 

gas activity would introduce new and contrasting elements, impact scenic quality, and displace some 

recreationists. Recreational settings would be changed to an industrialized landscape setting that impeded 

recreationists’ goals and degraded their experiences. However, new roads associated with mineral 

management would generate new primitive routes and create new access opportunities for recreationists. 

Short-term impacts to recreation from increased development would include expanded recreational 

opportunities and improved access to previously inaccessible areas. In the long term, values and resources 

such as scenic quality, solitude, and wildlife would be degraded and impede recreationists’ goals and degrade 

their experiences. Additional protections identified under this alternative would maintain recreational settings, 

opportunities, and experiences. 

Under Alternative D, management actions pertaining to off-road travel for big game retrieval would allow 

access and opportunity for big game retrieval for all recreationists. However, this action would also alter 

existing settings and decrease values and resources for other recreationists (those who hike or prefer primitive 

experiences). Route proliferation would intensify with increased off-road retrieval of big game. 

Travel Management and OHV management actions would provide recreational opportunities and activities, 

protect and mitigate resource damage, and resolve conflicts caused by OHV use. Direct, short-term impacts of 

OHV use (noise and decreased air quality) would diminish the recreational experience for recreationists 

seeking solitude and natural settings for camping, hiking, and related non-motorized recreational activities. 

Conflicts between various recreationists (such as motorized users and non-motorized users) would detract 

from the quality of the recreational experience. OHV use would provide additional recreational activities and 

opportunities for self-achievement such as driving for pleasure, wildlife viewing, and access to remote areas. 

Under this alternative, 2,000 acres would be designated Open OHV use, 2.8 million Limited, and no acres 

Closed. 

The recreation program provides opportunities for outdoor recreation activities at both developed sites and 

dispersed areas. Recreation management emphasis would be the development and maintenance of 

opportunities for dispersed recreational activities, such as hunting, wildlife viewing, and driving for pleasure. 

In the short term, emphasis on activities instead of recreational benefit would diminish the experience for 

some recreationalists. 

Allowing special recreation permits on BLM-administered surface acres on a case-by-case basis would 

reduce user conflicts between outfitters and the general public (depending on the type of permit). For some 

recreationists, this action would decrease their recreational value and experiences by increasing use in a 

specific area. However, this action would reduce conflicts between permitted uses already in existence. 

Criteria would be set up and monitored for any change in conditions, such as changes in data from MFWP or 

the Board of Outfitting, habitat and wildlife needs, number of recreationists, law enforcement citations, 

private landowner concerns, or other indicators. Future variables involved with the special recreation 

permitting process would be monitored for specific criteria and new and renewal permits would be modified 

according to data collected through stipulations or limitations. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Recreation 

4-312

Allowing nonnative hay production in Pumpkin Creek Ranch and Recreation Area would displace some 

recreationists during harvest. Limiting OHV use to existing roads and trails would cause user conflicts 

between motorized and non-motorized users but increase motorized OHV use of the area. 

Under this alternative, Glendive Short Pine OHV Area would be managed as an ERMA with Open OHV use 

on 1,900 acres and Limited OHV use on 810 acres. Modifying the Glendive Short Pine OHV area boundary 

by approximately 300 acres would still provide recreational opportunities and activities for motorized users. 

Direct, short-term impacts of OHV use (noise and decreased air quality) would diminish the recreational 

experience for other dispersed recreational users (such as campers and hikers). Conflicts between the 

congested OHV area and livestock grazing would detract from the quality of the recreational experience. 

However, conflicts should be low during this time of year because the livestock grazing season would be 

changed from November 1 to March 1 and because most recreational and OHV use would occur during the 

spring, summer, and fall months. OHV use would provide additional recreational activities and opportunities 

for self-achievement such as driving for pleasure, wildlife viewing, and access to remote areas. The Glendive 

Short Pine OHV area’s designated shooting range would continue to remain open, which would allow 

recreationists who currently use this area to continue use. However, it would decrease safety to OHV users 

and other recreationists within the area. 

Managing the Terry OHV Area as an ERMA with Open OHV use on 72 acres would provide recreational 

opportunities and activities for motorized users. Direct, short-term impacts of OHV use (noise and decreased 

air quality) would diminish the recreational experience for other dispersed recreational uses such as camping 

and hiking. Conflicts between the congested OHV area and livestock grazing activities would detract from the 

quality of the recreational experience. OHV use would provide additional recreational activities and 

opportunities for self-achievement such as driving for pleasure, wildlife viewing, and access to remote areas. 

The Glendive Short Pine OHV area and the Terry OHV area would be managed as focus areas for OHV 

(motorized) trail use, with use limited in some areas to designated trails. The impacts on recreation resources 

would be minor in the long term because the area is currently managed for OHV motorized trail use with 

surface disturbances in the open area and limited to designated routes in some areas. Management that 

promoted this kind of activity would result in long-term impacts on motorized and specialized-motorized 

users. 

Management of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail under this alternative would increase recreation 

opportunities and maintain settings. The SRMA management goals would be to provide scenic overlook 

facilities to enhance the visitor experience, provide quality camping experiences for users, and provide hiking 

and backpacking opportunities. The long-term impacts to recreational users under this alternative would 

reduce the likelihood of resource use conflicts and increase the likelihood of satisfying experiences for nonmechanized use along the trail. 

Impacts from lands and realty management action under this alternative would be similar to those identified 

under Alternative A. Popular recreation areas open to these types of developments would be affected by 

altered settings and values, which would impact recreational settings, opportunities, and activities. Noise, 

visibility from a distance, and the height and size of facilities would create elements that contrasted with the 

existing settings and subsequently altered recreational opportunities and activities in the area. 

Although special protections and enhancements associated with special designation areas, SRMAs, and WSAs 

would often enhance recreational settings and experiences, these actions would restrict some recreation 

management activities and dispersed recreation uses. Under these management actions, ACECs would consist 

of settings for users seeking primitive or backcountry recreational opportunities. WSAs, managed to preserve 

wilderness character, would consist of settings for users seeking primitive recreational opportunities. Such 

opportunities, however, would preclude and displace users seeking motorized activities. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Recreation 

4-313

ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Alternative E would enhance economic development and visitor experiences and create opportunities for 

recreationists in an environmentally sustainable manner. RMIS data from the last 5 years showed an 

approximately 13 percent increase in visitor use days. Because of changing economic conditions and fewer 

restrictions than Alternative B, a 3-percent net increase was used for visitor use days. Alternative E would 

balance current management while incorporating this increase in visitor use days, which would enhance 

recreationist’s benefits and experiences within recreation sites. 

Management actions requiring avoidance of surface-disturbing activities on slopes and sensitive soils would 

preclude the development of recreational campgrounds or more developed recreational sites in these areas. 

However, by retaining an unaltered landscape, this action would maintain or enhance the recreational settings 

and supplemental values for the recreating public and allow for a more natural recreation experience. 

Avoiding surface-disturbing activities that did not benefit waterbodies, streams, or floodplains would protect 

recreational water-based activities and maintain or improve recreational settings and values on river-related 

activities. However, this action would preclude some development of recreational sites near water-based 

activities. 

Allowing land disposals of BLM-administered lands containing populations or habitats of special status 

species plants would reduce recreational access. 

Avoiding surface-disturbing activities or disruptive activities would enhance recreational opportunities by 

enhancing long-term recreational settings and values for recreationists who desire a more natural recreational 

experience. 

Offering oil and gas leasing with a CSU stipulation would reduce recreational settings and values. 

Compliance with management actions that required approved specialized design features within riparian and 

wetland areas would allow additional recreational site development, such as campground construction, within 

these areas. 

Vegetation, Invasive Species actions that allowed surface-disturbing activities would result in overall longterm impacts that maintained and improved recreational settings, opportunities, and activities by improving 

vegetative health and wildlife habitat. Short-term impacts of this management action would include visitor 

displacement during invasive species treatments. 

Management actions that required avoidance of surface-disturbing and disruptive activities or required an 

NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing and development near designated sport-fish reservoirs would increase 

protection for most species and associated habitat and benefit recreational settings and opportunities. 

Enabling fish passage to protect habitat and water diversions would maintain fishery habitat and subsequently 

maintain or improve recreational settings and opportunities. Incorporating specialized design features for 

power lines and surface-disturbing or disruptive activities would maintain protection for most species (and 

their associated habitat) and benefit recreational settings and opportunities. Opportunities for recreational 

management projects or developments, such as campground developments, would increase recreational 

settings and values. 

Allowing surface-disturbing activities within 0.5 miles of raptor nests would improve or maintain recreation 

areas or developed recreation sites. Unless visitors were seeking pristine environments, this action would 

improve and increase recreational settings and values. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Recreation 

4-314

Prohibiting surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in piping plover or interior least tern habitat would 

preclude development or maintenance of recreation areas or developed recreation sites, which would reduce 

the value of the recreational setting and create an unsafe environment for recreationists. 

Prohibiting surface-disturbing and disruptive activities within 2 miles of leks in Sage-grouse Habitat – 

General Habitat Areas would preclude development or maintenance of recreation areas or developed 

recreation sites and reduce the value of the recreational setting. Prohibiting disruptive activities would impact 

organized recreational activities such as hunting and hiking by displacing those recreationists. 

Wildland fire and fuels management (prescribed fire) would cause short-term impacts (including temporary 

closure of areas during and after fire events) that would displace recreationists. Although the altered 

recreational setting would displace some recreationists in the long term, impacts from these actions would 

also create new recreational opportunities and experiences. Specific fire management plans that maintained 

recreational settings and activities would identify and include developed recreation sites and SRMAs. Use of 

wildfire (unplanned ignitions) to meet multiple objectives, when appropriate, would allow wildland fire to 

play its natural role in the planning area. Prescribed fire could occur more frequently in the SRMAs, which 

would potentially alter the recreation experiences through smoke and poor air quality. These impacts would 

be temporary and would potentially be mitigated or minimized with respect to timing, location, and methods 

used. Reducing the potential for future large-scale wildland fires would benefit recreation opportunities and 

experience levels over the long-term. 

Offering oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation and allowing surface-disturbing activities would alter 

recreational settings with the increased traffic, noise, and loss of solitude caused by increased human 

presence, which would influence recreational opportunities and experiences. 

Management actions designed to protect cultural and paleontological sites would increase the value of these 

areas as potential recreational destinations and offer more opportunities and activities for some recreational 

activities. Overall, little or no impacts to recreation would be anticipated. 

VRM actions would maintain the overall integrity of scenic qualities while allowing for the development of 

existing and future uses. Mitigation associated with VRM Class II and Class III would prevent projects from 

contrasting with the existing elements and retain or improve recreational settings. 

Managing forestlands for a diversity of forest product production and resource enhancement would have 

long-term impacts on recreation, provide for improvements in forest health, and subsequently enhance 

recreational settings and values. Allowing wood product sales for post and poles, Christmas trees, and 

firewood within specific areas (in support of forest health and while meeting management objectives) would 

benefit recreation specific to those activities. Recreationists seeking solitude would be displaced by chainsaw 

noise. 

Impacts from livestock grazing management actions would be similar to those described under Alternative A 

except grazing systems and range improvements would be implemented to meet Standards for Rangeland 

Health under this alternative. These actions would improve water quality, wildlife habitat, and recreational 

settings. Livestock management actions designed to maintain or improve vegetation conditions would 

enhance recreational opportunities through the maintenance of setting, opportunities, and experiences. 

Although the presence of livestock may not diminish the experience of most recreationists, some 

recreationists would be displaced (at a site-specific level) in response to water quality issues and livestock 

presence. Close proximity to livestock and behavioral concerns would influence recreationists’ safety, 

location choice, or overall recreational experience; reduce the quality of the experience; and displace 

recreationists to other, less satisfactory locations or periods without livestock. Promoting a shorter duration of 

livestock use and changing the season of use would consider recreation timing in order to reduce the impacts 

on recreation. 

Impacts to recreationists at Pumpkin Creek Ranch and Recreation Area, north and east of Highway 59, would 

reduce user conflicts between recreationists and livestock. Closing grazing in the Limited OHV area would 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Recreation 

4-315

reduce user conflicts between OHV users and livestock. Reduced grazing in these areas would also increase 

recreationists’ benefits and experiences. At the Glendive Short Pine OHV area, changing the season of use for 

grazing authorization would reduce user conflicts and create a better experience for OHV users of the area. 

Impacts from mineral material permits and sales, leasing, and development and geophysical exploration 

would be similar to those described under Alternative B except actions under this alternative would decrease 

the value of recreational settings, opportunities, and experiences. Closing geophysical exploration in 

designated, developed areas or in specific, identified areas (such as on the east side of Highway 59 within 

Pumpkin Creek Ranch and Recreation Area) would increase the value of recreational settings, opportunities, 

and experiences. 

Development activities would impact recreation by altering values important for recreation such as scenic 

quality and natural, social, and administrative settings. The industrialized character associated with oil and 

gas activity would introduce new and contrasting elements, impact scenic quality, and displace some 

recreationists. Recreational settings would be changed to an industrialized landscape setting that impeded 

recreationists’ goals and degraded their experiences. However, new roads associated with mineral 

management would generate new primitive routes and create new access opportunities for recreationists. 

Short-term impacts to recreation from increased development would include expanded recreational 

opportunities and improved access to previously inaccessible areas. In the long term, values and resources 

such as scenic quality, solitude, and wildlife would be degraded and impede recreationists’ goals and degrade 

their experiences. Additional protections identified under this alternative would maintain recreational settings, 

opportunities, and experiences. 

Proposed VRM management would continue to provide for mitigation of visual disturbances, which would 

have a positive impact on recreation resources and experiences by creating a landscape compatible with the 

recreation settings and SRMA management. 

Travel Management and OHV actions that prohibited off-road travel for big game retrieval would protect the 

recreational setting from route proliferation but also reduce accessibility and opportunities for big game 

retrieval for some recreationists. 

Travel Management and OHV management actions would provide recreational opportunities and activities, 

protect and mitigate resource damage, and resolve conflicts caused by OHV use. Direct, short-term impacts of 

OHV use (noise and decreased air quality) would diminish the recreational experience for recreationists 

seeking solitude and natural settings for camping, hiking, and related non-motorized recreational activities. 

Conflicts between recreationists, such as motorized and non-motorized users, would detract from the quality 

of the recreational experience. OHV use would provide additional recreational activities and opportunities for 

self-achievement such as driving for pleasure, wildlife viewing, and access to remote areas. 

Management of special recreation use permits for commercial, competitive, and special events would 

continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis with priority given to existing permittees. New permits that 

conflicted with existing permit uses would not be issued. 

SRMAs would be managed for the local and regional public demand. This emphasis would be to attract and 

provide opportunities and services for visitors and others who value public lands as recreation-tourism areas. 

This would also ensure quality recreation opportunities and experiences were provided. Intensive 

management in these priority areas would be dedicated to providing quality settings and experiences for 

recreation opportunities in response to identified market demands. 

The recreation program provides opportunities for outdoor recreation activities at both developed sites and 

dispersed areas. The emphasis for recreation management would be the development and maintenance of 

opportunities for dispersed recreational activities, such as hunting, wildlife viewing, and driving for pleasure. 

In the short term, emphasis on activities instead of recreational benefit would diminish the experience for 

some recreationalists. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Recreation 

4-316

Designating Pumpkin Creek Ranch and Recreation Area a SRMA, managing the area for local and regional 

public demand, and designating a Limited OHV area (and creating specific trails) would reduce user conflicts 

between motorized and non-motorized users in the rest of the Pumpkin Creek Ranch and Recreation Area. 

Closing livestock grazing within specific areas would decrease the risk of user conflict on approximately 

2,200 acres (on the creek side), allow for more recreational opportunities, and designate approximately 640 

acres for use as a Limited OHV area. These actions would create high quality recreational opportunities 

without user conflict. 

Allowing special recreation permits on BLM-administered surface acres as appropriate for commercial, 

competitive, and special events on a first-come basis would reduce user conflicts between outfitters and the 

general public (depending on the type of permit). For some recreationists, this action would decrease their 

recreational value and experiences by increasing use in a specific area. However, this action would reduce 

conflicts between permitted uses already in existence. Criteria would be set up and monitored for any change 

in conditions, such as changes in data from MFWP or the Board of Outfitting, habitat and wildlife needs, 

number of recreationists, law enforcement citations, private landowner concerns, or other indicators. Future 

variables involved with the special recreation permitting process would be monitored for specific criteria and 

new and renewal permits would be modified according to data collected through stipulations or limitations. 

Modifying the Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA boundary to include 0.5 miles on each side of the trail would 

provide more protection for recreation resources within that boundary. This action would increase the 

recreational experience within the SRMA and reduce the possibility of development adjacent to the river that 

affected river recreation experiences and visual resources. 

Closing OHV use on the east side of the walking trail at Howrey Island would reduce user conflicts between 

motorized and non-motorized users but would displace some recreationists who rely on travel to the east 

portion by vehicle. 

Eliminating the use of firearms, except during the State of Montana’s legal upland game bird and waterfowl 

hunting seasons, would reduce user conflict at the Matthews Recreation Area. Not allowing shooting at any 

time within the developed area would enhance safety for all users on the 91-acre site. 

Designating the Glendive Short Pine OHV Area a SRMA, managing this area for the local and regional 

public demand, and modifying the OHV boundary (dropping 320 acres from OHV use) would not detract 

from visitor experiences or enjoyment. However, this action would relocate a few recreationists to other Open 

areas and would potentially increase trails on adjacent or nearby public land. The 320 acres removed from 

Open OHV use is rarely used because it contains limited access and steep terrain. The rest of the OHV area 

would remain open to OHV use. Closing the designated shooting area and restricting the use of any firearms 

(except during the State of Montana’s legal hunting seasons) would increase safety to OHV users and other 

recreationists but displace some recreationists who use the shooting range. 

Designating the Terry OHV Area a SRMA, managing this area for local and regional public demand, 

modifying the OHV boundary, and limiting OHV use to existing roads and trails would reduce user conflicts 

between motorized and non-motorized users but displace some recreationists to other Open areas and increase 

trails on adjacent or nearby public land. While the entire area would no longer be designated Open, the 

majority of roads and trails in use would remain Open for motorized users. 

The Glendive Short Pine OHV area and the Terry OHV area would be managed as focus areas for OHV 

(motorized) trail use, with use limited in some areas to designated trails. The impacts on recreation resources 

would be minor in the long term because the area is currently managed for OHV motorized trail use with 

surface disturbances limited to designated routes. Management that promoted this kind of activity would 

result in long-term impacts on motorized and specialized-motorized users. 

Management of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail under this alternative would increase recreation 

opportunities and maintain settings. The SRMA management goals would be to provide scenic overlook 

facilities to enhance the visitor experience, provide quality camping experiences for users, and provide hiking 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Recreation 

4-317

and backpacking opportunities. The long-term impacts to recreational users under this alternative would be a 

reduced likelihood of resource use conflicts and an increased likelihood of satisfying experiences for nonmechanized use along the trail. 

Impacts from the lands and realty management ROW action under this alternative would be similar to those 

identified under Alternative A. Popular recreation areas visible within ROWs would be affected by altered 

settings and values, which would impact recreational settings, opportunities, and activities. Noise, visibility 

from a distance, and the height and size of facilities would create elements that contrasted with the existing 

settings and subsequently altered recreational opportunities and activities in the area. 

Although special protections and enhancements associated with special designation areas, SRMAs, and 

WSAs would often enhance recreational settings and experiences, these actions would restrict some 

recreation management activities and dispersed recreation uses. Under these management actions, ACECs 

would consist of settings for users seeking primitive or backcountry recreational opportunities. WSAs, 

managed to preserve wilderness character, would consist of settings for users seeking primitive recreational 

opportunities. Such opportunities, however, would preclude and displace users seeking motorized activities. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Cumulative impacts to recreation would result from BLM actions that authorized surface disturbance and 

disruptive activities in combination with similar activities on private and state lands. These impacts would 

result primarily from oil, gas, or wind power developments that reduced the quality of most recreational 

settings and experiences through increased improved roads, night lighting, industrial traffic, noise, and visual 

resource degradation through industrial development. Creation of additional improved roads in areas that 

historically contained only primitive vehicle routes would detract from the middle country experience 

preferred by most recreationists in the region. Because mitigation is not required when developing private 

lands, impacts on private lands may be much more severe than impacts occurring on federal lands. For 

example, facilities may be brightly colored or located prominently on ridgelines, roads may be poorly 

designed, or pad sizes may be larger than would be desirable. All of these impacts would detract from the 

quality of the recreational setting, and this kind of development would cause long-term reductions in the 

quality of recreational experiences available and reduce recreation use in these areas. Additionally, the risk of 

traffic accidents would increase as development progressed and additional roads were created, particularly 

when hunters were added to the industrial traffic on the primary access roads. 

Although the impacts of mineral development on recreation were discussed throughout the RMP, it is 

important to note that recreation use would not occur equally within the planning area. Recreation use is 

generally highest in areas closer to local towns or communities. The impacts of minerals development to 

recreation are higher in areas receiving high recreation use, and lower in areas receiving less recreation use. 

The majority of impacts upon recreation users from mineral development would remain whether or not the 

area was managed as a SRMA because SRMAs, for the most part, would not restrict mineral development. 

Since the projected levels of mineral development would not be likely to impact current levels of recreation 

use, this use would most likely continue to occur (or increase) regardless of management direction. 

Block management areas, in which MFWP leases rights for public hunting access, provide additional public 

access across a landscape with a checkerboard-ownership pattern by allowing access to private and public 

lands that otherwise have no legal public access. This program helps reduce hunter concentrations on blocked 

federal lands, which are preferred by many hunters because landowner permission is not required. Hunters 

displaced by oil and gas development may increase their use of block management areas containing less 

development. 

In the planning area, the Custer National Forest (the Ashland and Sioux ranger districts) has completed travel 

management planning opportunities and provides alternative recreational settings for recreationists displaced 

from BLM-administered land by oil and gas development. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Recreation 

4-318

Increased recreational demand for dispersed recreational opportunities would conflict with approved land 

uses, such as development activities that altered recreational settings. Recreational experiences would be 

degraded by increased visual impacts, noise, dust, industrial traffic, and public health and safety hazards. 

Displacement or loss of game animals would diminish hunting opportunities in developed areas, and 

restrictions such as road closures would reduce recreational access in some areas. Although short-term 

impacts would impact all recreationists as management activities occurred, long-term impacts would improve 

most recreational activities (such as hunting, camping, fishing, and wildlife viewing). Overall, although net 

impacts for recreational visitation days would be maintained, impacts may not be able to keep up with 

increased public use. 

Special recreation permits for outfitter and guides would be monitored to determine any conflicts that may 

arise between the general public and outfitters. This data would determine a possible change in permit 

numbers or additional stipulations. 

Outdoor recreation is dependent on the natural resource base and weather for the quality experiences 

recreationists desire. Climate creates opportunities and limitations for outdoor recreation. Higher 

temperatures could result in increased opportunities for warm season activities for a longer portion of the year 

(fall and winter) in the planning area, such as swimming or river-related recreation. However, a decrease in 

the quantity of water and quality of the resource would reduce swimming or fishing. Decreased opportunities 

for warm season activities could also happen during the hottest part of the year from higher heat, forest fires, 

low water levels, or reduced air quality caused by climate changes to the natural resource base. Decreased 

snowpack could result in reduced opportunities and length of time available for cold season recreation 

activities such as sledding or snowmobiling. Vegetation changes resulting in movement of wildlife could 

affect hunting and wildlife viewing, and hunting activities could shift with the any shift in wildlife. The extent 

of the potential impacts is highly dependent on the type of activity and the climate change that occurs. 

The extent of the potential impacts is highly dependent on the type of activity and on the climate change that 

occurs. 

Alternative A 

Alternative A would maintain current trends in recreation, with no net increase or decrease in recreational use. 

Fish- and wildlife-related recreational experiences would account for approximately 67 percent of all visits 

within the planning area while other recreational opportunities would remain at approximately 33 percent. 

Increased recreational demand for dispersed recreational opportunities would conflict with approved land uses, 

such as development activities that altered recreational settings. However, reducing acreage available to mineral 

development and surface-disturbing activities would increase resource protection under this alternative. 

Minerals management actions would cause long-term elimination of recreation in oil and gas development 

areas. However, most of the impacts identified under this alternative would improve the quality of recreational 

settings. 

Impacts to most recreational activities would improve net impacts on typical recreational activities within the 

planning area, primarily through increased use restrictions. Management actions would increase protections for 

fish and wildlife habitat, which would enhance the recreational settings and recreational opportunities related to 

these resources (activities that account for approximately two-thirds of the recreation activities in the planning 

area and which include fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing). However, some organized recreational activities 

would be prohibited (including permitted or organized recreational activities such as trail runs or outfitterguided hunting) by wildlife management actions under this alternative. This alternative would increase 

recreational activities by an overall 6 percent (generally, visitation would continue to increase but economic 

impacts would cause a decrease of one-half of normal). 

Most programs would increase in overall net recreational use as result of maintenance or improvement of 

recreational settings within the planning area. Some management actions would impact activities such as 

campground development and displace campers who desire a rural setting. Reductions and timing restrictions 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Recreation 

4-319

in livestock grazing would reduce conflicts between motorized recreationists and livestock, which would 

allow a cumulative net increase in recreation use within these areas. The overall net increase in recreation use 

would be approximately 3 percent (although this reflects an increase, economic impacts would cause a 

decrease of three-quarters of normal). 

Decreases in protective measures under this alternative would reduce fish and wildlife habitat and subsequently 

alter fish and wildlife-related activities (such as hunting and fishing) recreational settings, opportunities, and 

experiences in developed areas, the impacts of which would displace recreationists to alternative areas. 

The loss of natural recreational settings to oil and gas development would displace recreationists seeking a 

natural landscape setting and eliminate recreational use in a large area over the long term. The net impact 

would reduce activities for hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing, all of which account for approximately 65 

percent of the recreational activities within the planning area. Overall, there would be a net loss of 6 percent 

in visitor use days. 

Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, increased recreational demand for dispersed recreational opportunities would conflict 

with approved land uses, such as development activities that altered recreational settings. However, because 

fewer acres would be available for mineral development and surface-disturbing activities, resource protection 

would increase under this alternative. However, although most impacts identified under this alternative would 

improve the quality of recreational settings, the long-term elimination of recreation use in oil and gas 

development areas under Alternative B minerals actions would continue to impact recreation 

Impacts to most recreational activities would improve net impacts on typical recreational activities within the 

planning area, primarily through increased use restrictions. Management actions under this alternative would 

increase protections for fish and wildlife habitat, which would enhance recreational settings and opportunities 

related to fish and wildlife activities (activities that account for approximately two-thirds of the recreation 

activities in the planning area and which include fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing). However, some 

organized recreational activities would be prohibited (including permitted or organized recreational activities 

such as trail runs or outfitter-guided hunting) by wildlife management actions under this alternative. 

Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, most programs would increase in overall net recreational use through maintenance or 

improvement of recreational settings within the planning area. Some management actions would impact 

activities, such as campground development, and displace campers who desire a rural setting. However, some 

organized recreational activities would be prohibited (including permitted or organized recreational activities 

such as trail runs or outfitter-guided hunting) by wildlife management actions under this alternative. 

Reductions and timing restrictions for livestock grazing would reduce conflicts between motorized 

recreationists and livestock and allow a cumulative net increase in recreation use in these areas. 

Alternative D 

A decrease in protective measures under Alternative D would reduce fish and wildlife habitat, which would 

alter fish- and wildlife-related activities (such as hunting and fishing), recreational settings, opportunities, and 

experiences in developed areas. The impacts of these actions would displace recreationists to alternative 

areas. 

Increased demand for dispersed recreational opportunities under Alternative D would conflict with approved 

land uses, such as development activities that would alter recreational settings. Recreational experiences 

would be degraded by increased visual impacts, noise, dust, industrial traffic, and public health and safety 

hazards under this alternative. Displacement or loss of game animals would diminish hunting opportunities. 

Restrictions such as road closures would reduce recreational access in some areas. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Recreation 

4-320

The loss of natural recreational settings through oil and gas development would displace recreationists 

seeking a natural landscape setting, which would eliminate recreational use in a large area over the long term. 

The net impact would reduce activities for hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing, activities that account for 

approximately two-thirds of the recreational activities within the planning area. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Under Alternative E, most programs would increase in overall net recreational through maintenance or 

improvement of recreational settings within the planning area. Some management actions would impact 

activities, such as campground development, and displace campers who desire a rural setting. However, some 

organized recreational activities would be prohibited (including permitted or organized recreational activities 

such as trail runs or outfitter-guided hunting) by wildlife management actions under this alternative. 

Reductions and timing restrictions for livestock grazing would reduce conflicts between motorized 

recreationists and livestock and allow a cumulative net increase in recreation use in these areas. Proposed 

invasive species treatments would impact recreationists seeking natural setting with fewer invasive weeds, 

who could benefit from this alternative. Impacts to most recreational activities under this alternative would 

improve net impacts on typical recreational activities within the planning area, primarily through increased 

use restrictions and SRMA designation. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY (WIND AND SOLAR) 

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 

The BLM encourages the development of wind and solar energy within acceptable areas, consistent with the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58) and the BLM Energy and Mineral Policy (BLM 2008a). The 

demand for renewable energy development on public lands within the planning area (particularly for wind 

and possibly solar resources) would increase, provided both the technological and economic climate for these 

uses improved. As energy costs increased, the potential for co-generation facilities, in which alternative 

energy sources supplement traditional sources, would also be expected to increase. 

Any renewable energy wind or solar developments proposed for public lands managed by the MCFO would 

result in requests for ROWs. Military training routes, military operating areas, steep slopes, timbered areas, 

and wildlife habitat areas for species such as sage-grouse and bald and golden eagles would influence the 

selection of proposed sites for renewable energy projects. 

Based on potential wind resources in the planning area and current development on private lands as described 

in Chapter 3, it is projected there would be one ROW issued for a utility-scale (defined as any project that 

proposes to generate electricity that enters the electric transmission grid, according to BLM’s 2008 IM 2009-

013) wind energy project in the planning area in the short term and seven ROWs issued for utility-scale wind 

energy projects in the long term. Each project would result in surface disturbance of 25 acres. During staging 

and construction, it is assumed that each wind energy turbine would disturb 2 to 3 acres with a minimum of 

25 turbines, each with a capacity of 1.5 megawatts, which would result in 50 to 75 acres of short-term surface 

disturbance for each project. In the long term, there would be one ROW issued for a utility-scale solar energy 

project in the planning area (with a surface disturbance of 500 acres). 

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources, reviews of 

existing literature, BLM records, and information provided by other agencies and institutions. To analyze the 

potential impacts of the alternatives on renewable energy resources, information was gathered from 

administrative files for lands and realty actions in the planning area and other resource programs. The 

analysis is also based on the professional expertise of BLM specialists at the MCFO and Montana State 

Office (including realty specialists). Although ROW avoidance areas are areas that must be avoided when 

implementing ROWs, these areas may be available for location of ROWs with special stipulations. ROW 

exclusion areas are areas that would not be available for ROW locations under any conditions. Impacts are 

quantified where possible but, in the absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment is used and the 

impacts qualified.
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Renewable Energy 

4-321

Acres excluded and avoided were determined based on GIS analysis that considered resource constraints and 

management actions proposed under each alternative. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Managing BLM-administered lands to protect air, soils, water quality, vegetation (including hardwood draws, 

special status plant species, and riparian and wetland areas), wildlife, fisheries, and other aquatic habitat 

(including special status wildlife species habitat), cultural and paleontological resources, visual resources, 

special designation areas, and WSAs would impact the issuing of renewable energy ROWs in the planning 

area. 

In areas that not excluded from development, proposals for renewable energy ROWs would be evaluated on a 

case-by-case basis. Past studies have found a 1 to 4.5 percent reduction in wind speeds associated with 

climate change over a 100-year period. One study that investigated scenarios of climate change impacts on 

wind power generation potential in a five-state region within the Northwest United States )including a site at 

Great Falls, Montana) suggested that summertime wind speeds in the Northwest may decrease by 5 to 10 

percent, while wintertime wind speeds may decrease by relatively little, or possibly increase slightly. The 

studies project results much further into the future than what can be analyzed in this plan, but the studies 

would suggest that there would be little to no effects to wind energy from climate change in the next 20 years. 

(Sailor, Smith, and Hart 2008). Impacts from the facilities and actions authorized under renewable energy 

ROWs would need to be mitigated by actions such as the application of restrictions or relocation to 

acceptable alternative locations. In some cases, the proposed project would be denied. Renewable energy 

activities would not be expected to impact climate change because of period analyzed in this plan; however, it 

is possible that there would be limited impacts caused by renewable energy projects replacing other type of 

energy facilities. BMP would be used on such projects. As a result of these impacts and required inventories, 

applicants for such proposals would incur time delays and greater costs for project development. In some 

cases, with appropriate justification and documentation, the authorized officer (AO) may modify or waive a 

management action or determine the project would be exempt from a management action, which would result 

in some flexibility in the location of the proposed project. 

Applicants for renewable energy ROWs would incur time delays and greater costs for project development as 

a result of the following management actions: requiring inventories for various resources, requiring distance 

and timing stipulations for various wildlife species (there is potential for a project to be delayed from 

December 1 through August 1 by timing stipulations), following the most recent guidance from the Avian 

Power Line Interaction Committee, currently 2006 (APLIC 2006), for overhead power lines, requiring 

certified weed-free seed for reseeding of authorized renewable energy projects, requiring equipment to be 

power-washed, requiring Section 7 consultation, requiring cultural resource surveys and Section 106 

consultation for NHPA and consultations with interested tribes and American Indian Tribes as Sovereign 

nations, and requiring surveys for black-footed ferrets prior to surface disturbance for wind or solar ROWs in 

black-footed ferret habitat. Additionally, surveying of black-footed ferret habitat would result in restrictions 

for the proposed project, relocation of construction, or, in some cases, cause denial of the project. 

In conformance with BLM policy, the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail would be excluded from wind 

energy and solar ROWs but is addressed under the various alternatives to reflect acre changes. Managing 

97,000 acres of land within the seven WSAs as exclusion areas for wind and solar ROWs as outlined in BLM 

policy would prevent development of 4 percent of the BLM-administered surface in the planning area. 

Managing areas as avoidance areas for renewable energy ROWs, especially in high wind potential areas, 

would limit opportunities for renewable energy development in the planning area by increasing costs and 

processing time if applications were submitted. Applicants would incur time delays and greater costs for 

project development in areas with inventory or mitigation needs. Restrictions on facility placement, limited 

access, increased administrative costs, and installation of facilities in less-than-optimum sites could all result 

if applicants applied for authorizations in avoidance areas. Placement or operation of turbines to avoid 

resources of concern or mitigate impacts (such as increasing cut-in speeds or other measures) would result in 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Renewable Energy 

4-322

less-than-optimum generation. In some instances, an area that is not closed to wind would become 

uneconomical to develop due to the cost of implementing mitigation measures and the decrease in general 

potential. Areas managed as avoidance areas under all alternatives would include the Big Sheep Mountain, 

Hoe, Jordan Bison Kill, Powder River Depot, Seline, Finger Buttes, Piping Plover, and Black-footed Ferret 

Reintroduction ACECs on a total of 15,000 acres, less than 1 percent of BLM-administered surface acres in 

the planning area. Other ACECs are addressed individually by alternative. 

Renewable energy ROW facilities would need to meet objectives for the particular VRM class in which a 

project was proposed; actions required would include mitigation (such as applying restrictions), relocation, or 

elimination of certain facilities; all of which would result in additional time and costs in project development. 

ROWs for wind and solar projects would be excluded on VRM Class I areas and potentially be excluded on 

VRM Class II lands (if allowed in these areas, ROWs would be subject to restrictive mitigation measures, 

which would be cost prohibitive at times). Visual resources restrictions would reduce lands available for wind 

and solar projects by 97,000 acres, approximately 4 percent of the BLM-administered surface in the planning 

area. 

The management and location of leasable, mineral materials, and locatable minerals projects would cause the 

possible relocation of wind and solar projects or necessitate implementation of other mitigation measures 

(such as applying restrictions or special project design) to eliminate conflict with other authorized uses. As a 

result, applicants for such proposals would incur time delays and greater costs for project development. 

SRMA designation and Recreation, and Back Country Byways management actions would require mitigation 

of renewable energy wind and solar ROWs, require relocation of the ROWs, or, in some cases, cause denial 

of the project. These management actions would cause delays and greater project development costs for 

proposal applicants and are addressed further under the various alternatives. 

Fire and fuels management would generally help protect renewable energy facilities authorized by ROWs by 

reducing fuel loads and suppressing fires. 

Requests for ROWs for proposed renewable energy wind and solar projects would be considered on a case-bycase basis (with appropriate stipulations applied to protect resource values) and processed and authorized as 

ROWs under Title V of FLPMA and Title 43, Part 2800, of the CFR. Projects would need to be consistent with 

resource management goals and mitigated or relocated in some cases. Wind and solar energy exploration and 

development authorization would be subject to the same laws, regulations, and guidance as other commercial 

ROWs. The DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory maps and information would be used when 

considering and evaluating wind and solar project proposals and applications. Renewable energy ROWs would 

be subject to BMPs and policies related to renewable energy development, including, but not limited to, 

programmatic policies and BMPs in the Wind Energy Development Program (BLM 2005c and 2005f) (for 

BMPs see Attachment 1 of BLM’s 2008 WO IM 2009-043; for policies see the Lands and Realty-Renewable 

Energy Appendix) and additional BLM guidance found at: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/renewable

_energy.html. The policies and BMPs from BLM’s 2008 IM 2009-043 are applicable to all wind energy 

development projects on BLM-administered public lands. These policies address the administration of wind 

energy development activities, and the BMPs identify required mitigation measures that would be incorporated 

into project-specific plans of development and ROW authorization stipulations. Additional mitigation measures 

would be applied to individual projects, in the form of stipulations in the ROW authorization as appropriate, to 

address site-specific and species-specific issues. 

The planning area includes approximately 550,000 acres rated in Wind Power Class 4 or above as determined 

by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Class 4 areas and above are considered good resources for 

wind energy. Class 3 areas may be suitable for utility-scale wind development. 

Requests for solar energy project ROWs would be processed according to BLM’s 2010 WO IM 2011-003. 

BMPs from the Solar Energy Development Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, which is being 

prepared by the DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program and the BLM for six western states 

(Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah), would also be used for processing solar 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Renewable Energy 

4-323

ROW applications upon completion of the document (for more information, see http://solareis.anl.gov/). The 

study area has been limited to these six states because they include the greatest prospective solar energy 

resources suitable for utility-scale development over the next 20 years. As a result, applicants for such 

proposals would incur time delays and greater costs for project development, or, in some cases, the 

application would be denied. As a result of these requirements, wind and solar projects would be excluded 

from lands that are part of the National Landscape Conservation System (e.g., wilderness areas, WSAs, 

national monuments, national conservation areas, and national historic and scenic trails) and overall lands 

available for wind and solar projects would be reduced. 

Market demand would drive the development and proposals for renewable energy ROWs for wind and solar 

projects. Because the BLM encourages renewable energy development, the BLM would attempt to 

accommodate the demand for such projects and facilitate a clean energy future by providing sites for 

environmentally sound development of renewable energy on public lands, assisting to diminish dependence 

on foreign sources of oil, and providing an opportunity to create new jobs to support local communities.

Renewable energy ROWs that involved hazardous materials would be subject to the appropriate stipulations 

and bonding, which would protect the lands and environment. The bond requirement would provide assurance 

that any potential accidental hazardous materials occurrence would undergo proper cleanup. Unauthorized 

uses of public land would be resolved in an expeditious manner and result in continued use under short-term 

authorizations in some circumstances. 

Exclusion of portions of the planning area, and in some instances, mitigation restrictions in avoidance areas 

would have the potential to affect proposals on non-BLM-administered lands if facilities or development were 

contingent on public land availability and authorization. The areas that lie outside of the exclusion and 

avoidance areas would provide the best opportunity for generation of renewable energy to meet agency goals 

and potentially assist in reducing reliance on other energy sources and, in turn, reduce emissions from other 

generating sources. Impacts from specific management actions that would apply to renewable energy 

development are summarized under each alternative to indicate the percentage of the area affected. The exclude 

and avoid acres under Management Common to all Alternatives are not included in the analysis of the various 

alternatives below. 

ALTERNATIVE A 

Renewable energy ROWs would be allowed with few or no restrictions on 2.7 million open acres (97 percent) 

of the BLM-administered surface in the planning area, and allowed on 530,000 open acres (97 percent) of the 

Wind Power Class 4 and above acres in the planning area. Potential Wind Development Areas for wind 

(where wind energy project ROW applications would be considered) were not developed under Alternative 

A. 

Under Alternative A, renewable energy ROWs for wind and solar projects would be excluded on 57,000 acres 

of BLM-administered surface in the planning area, and ROWs for wind energy projects would be excluded on 

11,000 acres (2 percent of the total 550,000 acres) rated in Wind Power Class 4 and above in the planning 

area (Tables 4-107 and 4-108). This alternative would leave 530,000 acres (93 percent) of Class 4 and above 

acres available for potential wind power projects (some of the excluded acres would be subject to a timing 

stipulation and available only during specific periods). These actions would prohibit ROWs or limit 

implementation of ROWs for wind and solar projects at certain times. Overall, exclusion restrictions would 

impact 2 percent of BLM-administered surface in the planning area. 

Renewable energy ROWs for wind and solar projects would be avoided on 34,000 acres of BLMadministered surface within the planning area and ROWs for wind energy projects would be avoided on 7,200 

acres (1 percent of the 550,000 acres) rated in Wind Power Class 4 and above in the planning area (Tables 4-

107 and 4-109). Overlaps with excluded areas were removed. These actions would increase the cost and time 

of proposed projects and reduce ROWs available to the public for wind and solar projects. In some cases, 

these actions would result in denial of the proposed project. Management actions that required avoidance of 

specific areas would impact 1 percent of the BLM-administered surface in the planning area. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Renewable Energy 

4-324

Requiring special design or 

mitigation for renewable energy 

ROWs for wind and solar 

projects, such as meeting VRM 

class objectives, would result in 

an increase in the cost and time 

of proposed projects and reduce 

wind and solar ROWs available 

to the public for proposed 

projects. Additionally, in some 

cases, this action would result 

in denial of the proposed 

project or cause areas to be 

avoided. 

Timing stipulations would 

increase the cost and time of 

proposed projects, and noise 

restrictions would result in the 

denial of some projects 

Allowing prescribed fire on 300,000 acres would protect renewable energy ROW facilities on BLMadministered surfaces by reducing fuel loads. Fire suppression measures would also protect these ROWs. 

This management action would impact approximately 11 percent of the BLM-administered surface in the 

planning area. 

TABLE 4-108.

BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES SUBJECT TO EXCLUSION OF RENEWABLE 

ENERGY ROWS UNDER ALTERNATIVE A

Area or Resource

BLMadministered 

Surface Acres

Percentage of 

BLMadministered 

Surface in the 

Planning Area 

(%)

Fish and Wildlife

Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks and Nesting Habitat, 

0.25-mile lek buffer (Big Dry RMP area) 21,000 <1

Colonial Waterbirds, 1,000-foot buffer (Big 

Dry RMP area) 90 <1

Sage-grouse, 0.25-mile lek buffer (Big Dry 

RMP area) 12,000 <1

Visual

Class I 97,000 4

Rec.

Howrey Island 592 <1

Lewis and Clark Trail 16,350 <1

Special 

Desig. 

Areas

Smoky Butte and Battle Butte Battlefield 

ACECs 201 <1

Flat Creek paleontological locality 50 <1

TABLE 4-107. 

TOTAL BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES AFFECTED 

FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY ROWS UNDER ALTERNATIVE A

Stipulation

BLMadministered 

Surface Acres

Percentage of BLMadministered Surface 

in the Planning Area 

(%)

Renewable energy ROWs

excluded 57,000 2

Class 4 and above Wind 

energy ROWs excluded 11,000 2

Renewable energy ROWs

avoided 34,000 1

Class 4 and above Wind 

energy ROWs avoided

7,200 1

Renewable energy ROWs 

open

2,700,000 97

Class 4 and

above Wind

energy

ROWs open

530,000 97
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Renewable Energy 

4-325

TABLE 4-109.

BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES SUBJECT TO AVOIDANCE OF 

RENEWABLE ENERGY ROWS UNDER ALTERNATIVE A

Area or Resource

BLMadministered 

Surface Acres

Percentage of BLMadministered 

Surface in the 

Planning Area (%)

Soils, slopes (Big Dry RMP area) 48,000 2

Special Desig. Areas, Reynolds

Battlefield ACEC 336 <1

ALTERNATIVE B 

Renewable energy ROWs would be allowed with few or no restrictions on 1.1 million open acres (41 percent 

percent) of the BLM-administered surface in the planning area and allowed on 259,000 open acres (47 

percent) of the Wind Power Class 4 and above acres in the planning area. 

Under Alternative B, 

renewable energy ROWs for 

wind and solar projects would 

be excluded on 1.6 million 

acres of BLM-administered 

surface in the planning area, 

and ROWs for wind energy 

projects (including associated 

aboveground power lines) 

would be excluded on 290,000 

acres (53 percent of the 

550,000 acres) rated in Wind 

Power Class 4 and above in 

the planning area (Tables 4-

110 and 4-111). This 

alternative would leave 

260,000 acres (47 percent) of 

Class 4 and above acres 

available for potential wind 

power projects. These actions 

would prohibit ROWs or limit 

implementation of ROWs for wind and solar projects at certain times. Exclusion restrictions under this 

alternative would impact 59 percent of the BLM-administered surface in the planning area. (Although the 

acres in this paragraph do not include invasive species acres or cultural and paleontological 0.5-mile buffers 

other than those listed in Table 4-111, exclusion areas under Management Common to all Alternatives are 

included.) 

Under this alternative, the presence of invasive species would result in relocation of the proposed project. 

Excluding aboveground power lines would prohibit overhead power line ROWs for wind and solar projects in 

these areas. Burial of all power lines would increase the cost and time of such projects, possibly cause 

conflicts (if power lines on adjoining lands were aboveground power lines), cause the area to be avoided in 

some cases or, in areas in which it would not be technologically feasible to bury the lines, cause denial of the 

proposed wind and solar project ROWs. Additionally, buried power lines would increase the surface 

disturbance of the proposed project in comparison to aboveground power lines. Requiring burial of the power 

lines (unless it was not technologically feasible) for renewable-energy-related power lines under this 

TABLE 4-110.

TOTAL BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES AFFECTED 

FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY ROWS

UNDER ALTERNATIVE B

Stipulation

BLMadministered 

Surface Acres

Percentage of BLMadministered 

Surface in the 

Planning Area (%)

Renewable energy ROWs

excluded 1,600,000 59

Class 4 and above Wind Energy 

ROWs excluded 290,000 53

Renewable energy ROWs

avoided 0

1

0

Class 4 and above Wind Energy 

ROWs avoided 0

1

0

Renewable Energy ROWs open 1,100,000 41

Class 4 and above Wind Energy

ROWs open 260,000 47

1The overlap with excluded areas would preclude avoided acres.
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Renewable Energy 

4-326

alternative would result in the denial of aboveground power line ROWs on most power line projects in the 

planning area. 

TABLE 4-111. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES SUBJECT TO EXCLUSION OF

RENEWABLE ENERGY ROWS UNDER ALTERNATIVE B

Area or Resource

BLMadministered 

Surface Acres

Percentage 

of BLMadministered 

Surface in 

the Planning 

Area (%)

Soils

Slopes 150,000 5

Sensitive 1,600,000 58

Water

Floodplains 42,000 2

Waterbodies and streams 12,000 <1

Veg.

Riparian and wetland areas1 3,500 to 

73,000 <1 to 3

Invasive Species, areas of invasive species Unknown

Fish and Wildlife

Aquatics, 0.5-mile sport-fish reservoir buffer 10,000 <1

Big Game Crucial Winter Range 1,600,000 58

Bighorn Sheep Range 68,000 3

Prairie Falcon, 0.5-mile buffer 10,000 <1

Special Status Species Raptors, 0.5-mile buffer 61,000 ~2

Piping Plover, 0.25-mile buffer 3,400 <1

Interior Least Tern, 0.25-mile buffer 9,300 <1

Black-tailed Prairie Dog, 0.5-mile buffer 130,000 5

Pallid Sturgeon, 0.5-mile buffer 14,000 <1

Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas, 4-mile lek 

buffer 1,000,000 36

General Habitat Areas, 4-mile aboveground power line

buffer for leks 1,100,000 40

Protection Priority ACEC, surface-disturbing restriction 1,100,000 40

Restoration Areas, 1-mile buffer 260,000 9

Cult. 

and 

Paleo.

0.5-mile buffers Unknown

Visual

Class I 97,000 4

Rec.

Howrey Island (subject to prior existing rights) 592 <1

Powder River Depot, Calypso, Lewis and Clark, 

Matthews Recreation Area, Dean S. Reservoir, Pumpkin 

Creek Ranch and Recreation Area, Glendive Short Pine 

OHV, Terry OHV, Strawberry Hill Recreation Area, and 

Moorhead Recreation Area SRMAs

43,000 2

Special Desig. 

Areas

Battle Butte Battlefield (0.5-mile buffer) and Smoky 

Butte ACECs (subject to prior existing rights) 314 <1

Reynolds Battlefield ACEC, 0.5-mile buffer 922 <1

ROWs: Cedar Creek Battlefield Area, Flat Creek and 

Powderville Paleontological Areas, Long Medicine 

Wheel Area, Walstein Area, and Yonkee Area ACECs

31,000 1

1Because needed data have not been collected, a range of acres was used.
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Renewable Energy 

4-327

The acres and percentage of BLM-administered surface within winter occurrence points and sage-grouse 

winter concentration areas are unknown and applications on the subject lands would be considered on a caseby-case basis. 

Surface-disturbing and disruptive restrictions in Sage-grouse Habitat – Restoration Areas would prohibit 

renewable energy ROWs within 1 mile of a lek based on the number of oil and gas wells in the area, increase 

the cost and time of proposed projects, or, in some cases, cause the denial of the proposed ROW. 

Excluding renewable energy ROWs near paleontological localities or cultural site boundaries would prohibit 

authorizations for wind and solar project ROWs, potentially increase the cost and time of proposed projects, 

and reduce ROWs available to the public. The average paleontological locality size with a 0.5-mile buffer is 

approximately 539 acres, while the average cultural site size with a 0.5-mile buffer is approximately 706 

acres. 

Requiring special design or timing restrictions for renewable energy ROWs for wind and solar projects would 

increase the cost and time of proposed projects and reduce opportunities to apply for wind and solar ROWs. 

In some cases (many cases for VRM management actions), these management actions would result in denial 

of the proposed project or cause areas to be avoided. 

Restricting prescribed fire on 2.5 million (91 percent) of BLM-administered surface in the planning area 

would increase the susceptibility of renewable energy ROW facilities (for wind and solar projects) to damage 

by wildfire through untreated fuel loads; subsequently, holders of wind and solar ROWs would lose facilities 

and incur additional costs for repairs or replacement. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Renewable energy ROWs 

would be allowed with few or 

no restrictions on 560,000 open 

acres (20 percent) of the BLMadministered surface in the 

planning area, and allowed on 

130,000 open acres (23 percent) 

of the Wind Power Class 4 and 

above acres in the planning 

area. 

Excluding renewable energy 

ROWs for wind and solar 

projects on 860,000 acres of 

BLM-administered surface, and 

excluding ROWs for wind 

energy projects (including 

associated aboveground power 

lines) on 140,000 acres (25 

percent of 550,000 acres) rated 

in Wind Power Class 4 and 

above in the planning area 

would prohibit (unless the projects would benefit the habitat or maintain the functionality of the specific 

habitat) ROWs for wind and solar projects in these areas, leaving 130,000 acres (23 percent) of Class 4 and 

above acres available for potential wind power projects (Tables 4-112 and 4-113). These restrictions would 

impact 31 percent of the BLM-administered surface in the planning area. (These acres do not consider 

cultural and paleontological site and locality buffers other than those listed in Table 4-113.) 

TABLE 4-112. 

TOTAL BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES AFFECTED 

FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY ROWS

UNDER ALTERNATIVE C

Stipulation BLM-administered 

Surface Acres

Percentage of 

BLMadministered 

Surface in the 

Planning Area 

(%)

Renewable energy ROWs

excluded 860,000 31

Class 4 and above Wind 

Energy ROWs excluded 140,000 25

Renewable energy ROWs

avoided 1,400,000 49

Class 4 and above Wind 

Energy ROWs avoided 280,000 52

Renewable Energy ROWs

open

560,000 20

Class 4 and above Wind 

Energy

open

130,00 23
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Renewable Energy 

4-328

Avoiding renewable energy ROWs for wind and solar projects on 1.4 million acres of BLM-administered 

surface and avoiding ROWs for wind energy projects on 280,000 (52 percent of 550,000 acres) acres rated in 

Wind Power Class 4 and above in the planning area would increase the cost and time of proposed projects, 

reduce ROWs for wind and solar projects available to the public, and, in some circumstances, cause the 

denial of the proposed project (Table 4-114). If the surface-disturbing activity would not or could not be 

avoided, approved mitigation measures (such as applying restrictions or relocating the project) would be 

applied to reduce the impacts to the resource; however, mitigation activities would add additional time and 

costs for the applicant. Avoidance restrictions on BLM-administered surface acres would impact 49 percent 

of the BLM-administered surface in the planning area. (Overlaps with excluded areas were removed for these 

acres.) 

TABLE 4-113. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES SUBJECT TO 

EXCLUSION FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY ROWS UNDER

ALTERNATIVE C

Area or Resource

BLMadministered 

Surface 

Acres

Percentage 

of BLMadministered 

Surface in 

the Planning 

Area (%)

Fish and Wildlife

Piping Plover, 0.25-mile buffer 3,400 <1

Interior Least Tern, 0.25-mile 

buffer 9,300 <1

Black-tailed Prairie Dog, 0.25-

mile buffer 48,000 2

Pallid Sturgeon, 0.5-mile buffer 14,000 <1

Sage-grouse Habitat – General 

Habitat Areas, 3.1-mile lek 

buffer

760,000 28

Cult. 

and 

Paleo.

300-foot site boundary buffers Unknown

Visual

Class I 97,000 4

Rec.

Lewis and Clark Trail 15,000 <1

Special 

Desig. 

Areas

Flat Creek paleontological 

locality 50 <1

Excluding aboveground power lines that did not maintain functionality of specific habitat would prohibit 

aboveground power line ROWs for wind and solar projects in these areas. Burial of all power lines would 

increase the cost and time of such projects, possibly cause conflicts (if power lines on adjoining lands were 

aboveground power lines), result in avoidance of the area in some cases, or, in situations in which it would 

not be technologically feasible to bury the lines, cause denial of the proposed wind and solar project ROWs. 

Additionally, buried power lines would increase the surface disturbance of the proposed project in 

comparison to implementation of aboveground power lines. Unless the power lines could be sited or designed 

in a manner that maintained specific habitat functionality, management actions that required burial of power 

lines would prohibit power line ROWs (particularly aboveground power lines) for proposed projects. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Renewable Energy 

4-329

The acres of BLM-administered surface within winter occurrence points and sage-grouse winter 

concentration areas are unknown and applications on the subject lands would be considered on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Surface-disturbing restrictions in Sage-grouse Habitat – Restoration Areas under this alternative would 

prohibit renewable energy ROWs based on the number of oil and gas wells in the area and increase the cost 

and time of proposed projects or, in some cases, cause the denial of the proposed ROW. 

Restrictions for disruptive activities would result in the denial of some projects. 

Excluding renewable energy ROWs near paleontological localities or cultural site boundaries would prohibit 

ROWs for wind and solar projects in these areas, potentially cause an increase in the cost and time of proposed 

projects, and reduce ROWs available to the public. The average paleontological locality size with a 300-foot 

buffer is 10 acres, while the average cultural site size with a 300-foot buffer is 39 acres. 

TABLE 4-114.

BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES SUBJECT TO AVOIDANCE

OF RENEWABLE ENERGY ROWS UNDER ALTERNATIVE C

Area or Resource

BLMadministered 

Surface 

Acres

Percentage of 

BLMadministered 

Surface in the 

Planning 

Area (%)

Soils

Slopes 150,000 5

Sensitive 1,600,000 58

Water

Floodplains 42,000 2

Waterbodies and streams 12,000 <1

Veg.

Riparian and wetland areas1 3,500 to 

73,000 <1 to 3

Fish and 

Wildlife

Aquatics, 0.25-mile sport-fish reservoir buffer 3,800 <1

Sage-grouse Habitat Protection Priority Areas, surface 

disturbance cap 730,000 26

Sage-grouse Habitat – Restoration Areas, habitat 

functionality 120,000 4

Rec.

Howrey Island 592 <1

Powder River Depot, Calypso, Matthews Recreation 

Area, Dean S. Reservoir, Pumpkin Creek Ranch and 

Recreation Area, Glendive Short Pine OHV, Terry OHV, 

Strawberry Hill Recreation Area, and Moorhead

Recreation Area SRMAs

29,000 1

Special Desig. 

Areas

Battle Butte Battlefield and Smoky Butte (subject to 

prior existing rights) 314 <1

Reynolds Battlefield 922 <1

Cedar Creek Battlefield Area, Flat Creek and 

Powderville Paleontological Areas, Long Medicine 

Wheel Area, Walstein Area, and Yonkee Area

31,000 1

1Because needed data have not been collected, a range of acres was used.

Requiring special design, timing restrictions, or VRM restrictions for renewable energy ROWs for wind and 

solar projects would increase the cost and time of proposed projects and reduce wind and solar ROWs 

available to the public for proposed projects. In some cases (many cases for VRM management actions), 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Renewable Energy 

4-330

these management actions would result in the denial of the proposed project or cause some areas to be 

avoided. 

Allowing prescribed fire on the 2.8 million acres of BLM-administered surface in the planning area would 

protect renewable energy ROW facilities by reducing fuel loads. Fire suppression measures would also 

protect these ROWs. 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Renewable energy ROWs would be allowed with few or no restrictions on 730,000 open acres (27 percent) of 

the BLM-administered surface in the planning area, and allowed on 170,000 open acres (30 percent) of the 

Wind Power Class 4 and above acres in the planning area. 

Excluding renewable energy ROWs for wind and solar projects on 560,000 acres of BLM-administered 

surface, and excluding ROWs for wind energy projects (including associated aboveground power lines) on 

86,000 acres (16 percent) rated in Wind Power Class 4 and above in the planning area would prohibit (unless 

they would benefit or maintain the functionality of the specific habitat) ROWs for wind and solar projects in 

these areas, leaving 170,000 acres (30 percent) of Class 4 and above acres available for potential wind power 

projects (Tables 4-115 and 4-116). Exclusion restrictions on BLM-administered surface in the planning area 

would impact 20 percent of the BLM-administered surface. 

Avoiding renewable energy 

ROWs for wind and solar 

projects on 1.5 million acres of 

BLM-administered surface and 

avoiding ROWs for wind 

energy projects on 300,000 (54 

percent) rated in Wind Power 

Class 4 and above in the 

planning area would increase 

the cost and time of proposed 

projects, reduce ROWs for 

wind and solar projects 

available to the public, and, in 

some cases, cause denial of the 

proposed project on these acres 

(Table 4-117). (These acres do 

not include overlap with 

excluded acres or cultural and 

paleontological site or locality 

buffers other than those shown 

in Table 4-117.) If the surface-disturbing activity could not be avoided, applying approved mitigation 

measures would add additional time and costs for the applicant. Avoidance restrictions on BLM-administered 

surfaces would impact 53 percent of the BLM-administered surface in the planning area. 

Excluding aboveground power lines that did not maintain functionality of the specific habitat would prohibit 

aboveground power line ROWs for wind and solar projects in these areas. Burial of all power lines would 

increase the cost and time of such projects, possibly cause conflicts (if power lines on adjoining lands were 

aboveground power lines), result in avoidance of the area in some cases or, in situations in which it would not 

be technologically feasible to bury the lines, cause denial of the proposed wind and solar project ROWs. 

Buried power lines would increase surface disturbance for the proposed projects in comparison to 

implementation of aboveground power lines. Unless the power lines could be sited or designed in a manner 

that maintained habitat functionality, management actions that required burial of power lines would prohibit 

power line ROWs (particularly aboveground power lines) for proposed projects. 

TABLE 4-115. 

TOTAL BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES AFFECTED 

FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY ROWS

UNDER ALTERNATIVE D

Stipulation

BLMadministered 

Surface 

Acres

Percentage 

of BLMadministered 

Surface in 

the Planning 

Area (%)

Renewable energy ROWs excluded 560,000 20

Class 4 and above Wind energy ROWs

excluded 86,000 16

Renewable energy ROWs avoided 1,500,000 53

Class 4 and above Wind Energy ROWs

avoided 300,000 54

Renewable energy ROWs open 730,000 27

Class 4 and above Wind Energy Rows 

open

170,000 30
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Renewable Energy 

4-331

TABLE 4-116. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES SUBJECT TO EXCLUSION 

FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY ROWS UNDER ALTERNATIVE D

Area or Resource

BLMadministered 

Surface 

Acres

Percentage 

of BLMadministered 

Surface in 

the Planning 

Area (%)

Fish and 

Wildlife

Piping Plover, 0.25-mile habitat buffer 3,400 <1

Interior Least Tern, 0.25-mile habitat buffer 9,300 <1

Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat 

Areas, 2-mile lek buffer 560,000 20

Visual

Class I 97,000 4

Rec.

Lewis and Clark Trail 15,000 <1

Special 

Desig. 

Areas

Flat Creek paleontological locality 50 <1

TABLE 4-117. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES 

SUBJECT TO AVOIDANCE OF 

RENEWABLE ENERGY ROWS UNDER ALTERNATIVE D

Area or Resource

BLMadministered 

Surface Acres

Percentage of 

BLMadministered 

Surface in the 

Planning Area 

(%)

Soils

Slopes 150,000 5

Sensitive 1,600,000 58

Water

Floodplains 42,000 2

Veg.

Riparian and wetland areas13,500 to 73,000 <1 to 3

Invasive species Unknown

Fish and 

Wildlife

Pallid Sturgeon, 0.5-mile buffer 14,000 <1

Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas, 2-

mile power line buffer 560,000 20

Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas, 

surface disturbance cap 620,000 22

Cult.

300-foot buffer requiring a mitigation plan Unknown

1Because needed data have not been collected, a range of acres was used.

The acres of BLM-administered surface within winter occurrence points and sage-grouse winter 

concentration areas are unknown and applications on the subject lands would be considered on a case-by-case 

basis. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Renewable Energy 

4-332

Restrictions for disruptive activities would result in the denial of some projects. 

Requiring special design or timing restrictions for renewable energy ROWs for wind and solar projects would 

increase the cost and time of proposed projects and reduce wind and solar ROWs available to the public for 

proposed projects. In some cases (many cases for VRM management actions), these management actions 

would result in the denial of the proposed project or cause some areas to be avoided. 

Cultural resources management actions under this alternative would increase the cost and time for the 

proposed projects (the average cultural site size with a 300-foot buffer is 39 acres). Avoiding paleontological 

localities to prevent affecting the quality or setting of the localities would increase the cost and time of 

proposed projects and reduce the availability of ROWs that located in these areas. 

Allowing prescribed fire on the 2.8 million acres of BLM-administered surface in the planning area would 

protect authorized renewable energy ROW facilities by reducing the fuel load on BLM-administered surface. 

Fire suppression measures would also protect these ROWs. 

ALTERNATIVE E 

(PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE) 

Renewable energy ROWs 

would be allowed with few or 

no restrictions on 530,000 

open acres (19 percent) of the 

BLM-administered surface in 

the planning area and allowed 

on 130,000 open acres (23 

percent) of the Wind Power 

Class 4 and above acres in the 

planning area. 

Excluding renewable energy 

ROWs for wind and solar 

projects on 16,000 acres of 

BLM-administered surface, 

and excluding ROWs for wind energy projects on 150 acres (less than 1 percent of 550,000 acres) rated in 

Wind Power Class 4 and above in the planning area would prohibit ROWs for wind and solar projects in 

these areas, leaving 130,000 acres (23 percent) of Class 4 and above acres available for potential wind power 

projects (Table 4-118 and 4-119). These restrictions would impact 1 percent of the BLM-administered 

surface in the planning area. 

Avoiding renewable energy ROWs for wind and solar projects on 2.2 million acres of BLM-administered 

surface, and avoiding ROWs for wind energy projects on 420,000 (77 percent of 550,000 acres) acres rated in 

Wind Power Class 4 and above in the planning area would increase the cost and time of proposed projects, 

reduce ROWs for wind and solar projects available to the public, and, in some circumstances, cause the 

denial of the proposed project (Table 4-120). If the surface-disturbing activity would not or could not be 

avoided, approved mitigation measures (such as applying restrictions or relocating the project) would be 

applied to reduce the impacts to the resource; however, mitigation activities would add additional time and 

costs for the applicant. Avoidance restrictions on BLM-administered surface acres would impact 80 percent 

of the BLM-administered surface in the planning area. (Overlaps with excluded areas were removed for these 

acres.) 

If renewable energy ROWs would not or could not be avoided in riparian and wetland areas; waterbodies and 

streams; designated sport-fish reservoirs; colonial waterbird habitat; piping plover and interior least tern 

habitat; pallid sturgeon habitat; and Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat, Protection Priority, and 

TABLE 4-118.

TOTAL BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES AFFECTED 

FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY ROWS UNDER ALTERNATIVE E

Stipulation

BLMadministered 

Surface 

Acres

Percentage of 

BLMadministered 

Surface in the 

Planning Area 

(%)

Renewable energy ROWs excluded 16,000 1

Class 4 and above Wind Energy 

ROWs excluded 150 <1

Renewable energy ROWs avoided 2,200,000 80

Class 4 and above Wind Energy 

ROWs avoided 420,000 77

Renewable Energy ROWs open 530,000 19

Class 4 and above Wind Energy 

open

130,000 23
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Renewable Energy 

4-333

Restoration Areas, activities would be authorized in these areas subject to a stipulation that required approved 

special design or mitigation to minimize impacts or improve or maintain habitat; in some cases the project 

would be denied. 

Requiring burial of low-voltage power lines if feasible or requiring special design to maintain habitat would 

increase the cost and time of some proposed projects. Management actions that required burial of some power 

lines would possibly cause conflicts with aboveground power lines on adjoining lands, cause more surface 

disturbance than aboveground power lines, and increase the cost and time of such projects. 

TABLE 4-119. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES SUBJECT TO EXCLUSION OF

RENEWABLE ENERGY ROWS UNDER ALTERNATIVE E

Area or Resource

BLMAdministered 

Surface Acres

Percentage of 

BLMAdministered 

Surface in the 

Planning Area (%)

Cult.

Excluded, subject to impacts Unknown

Visual

Class I 97,000 4

Rec.

Lewis and Clark Trail 15,000 <1

Special Desig. 

Areas

Battle Butte Battlefield 

ACEC (subject to prior 

existing rights) 

320 <1

Long Medicine Wheel Area 

and Yonkee Area 219 <1

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Cumulative impacts to renewable energy ROWs include continued increases in restrictions on renewable energy 

development, which would limit future development. The cost of developing renewable energy would increase 

through additional restrictions, resulting in an increase in the cost of that energy to the energy companies and 

their customers. Available locations for renewable energy development would also be limited. With the 

scattered land pattern in the planning area, these restrictions would affect the development of renewable energy 

on adjoining lands, such as state, private, and other ownerships. Projects on these other lands would have to 

avoid some BLM-administered lands or would be subject to these restrictions on or crossing BLM-administered 

lands. Tables 4-121 and 4-122 show the effects of the various restrictions in each alternative and the resulting 

effect on the number and percentage of available acres for renewable energy development. 

Requiring special design or timing restrictions for renewable energy ROWs for wind and solar projects would 

increase the cost and time of proposed projects and reduce wind and solar ROWs available to the public for 

proposed projects. 

Allowing prescribed fire on the 2.8 million acres of BLM-administered surface in the planning area would 

protect renewable energy ROW facilities by reducing fuel loads. Fire suppression measures would also protect 

these ROWs. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Renewable Energy 

4-334

TABLE 4-120.

BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES SUBJECT TO AVOIDANCE 

OF RENEWABLE ENERGY ROWS UNDER ALTERNATIVE E

Area or Resource

BLMadministered 

Surface Acres

Percentage of 

BLMadministered 

Surface in the 

Planning Area 

(%)

Soils

Slopes, 25% or greater 150,000 5

Sensitive 1,600,000 58

Water

Floodplains 42,000 2

Waterbodies and streams 12,000 <1

Veg.

Riparian and wetlands, 300-foot buffer 580,000 21

Invasive species Unknown

Fish and Wildlife

Aquatics, 0.25-mile sport-fish reservoir buffer 3,800 <1

Interior Least Tern, 0.25-mile buffer 9,300 <1

Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas, 2-mile 

buffer 560,000 20

General Habitat Areas, 2-mile buffer for power lines 560,000 20

Protection Priority Areas 790,000 29

Restoration Areas, habitat improvement or maintenance 110,000 4

Rec.

Howrey Island (subject to existing rights) 592 <1

Powder River Depot, Calypso, Matthews Recreation 

Area, Dean S. Reservoir, Pumpkin Creek Ranch and 

Recreation Area, Glendive Short Pine OHV, Terry OHV, 

Strawberry Hill Recreation Area, and Moorhead

Recreation Area SRMAs

27,000 <1

Special 

Designation 

Areas

Smoky Butte ACEC (subject to prior existing rights) 80 <1

Reynolds Battlefield ACEC 922 <1

Cedar Creek Battlefield Area, Flat Creek and Powderville

Paleontological Areas, and Walstein Area 13,000 <1

Reynolds Battlefield in the planning area of 

Miles City 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Renewable Energy 

4-335

TABLE 4-121. 

TOTAL CUMULATIVE BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES AFFECTED 

FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY ROWS UNDER ALL ALTERNATIVES

Stipulation Acres and Percentage of BLM-administered Surface in the Planning Area (%)

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Renewable 

Energy ROWs

Excluded

150,000 (5) 1,700,000 (63) 950,000 (35) 650,000 (24) 110,000 (4)

Class 4 and 

Above Wind 

Energy ROWs

Excluded

15,000 (3) 290,000 (53) 140,000 (26) 91,000 (17) 4,600 (1)

Renewable 

Energy ROWs

Avoided

43,000 (2) 9,600 (<1) 1,400,000 (49) 1,500,000 (54) 2,200,000 (80)

Class 4 and 

Above Wind 

Energy ROWs

Avoided

10,000 (2) 1,300 (<1) 290,000 (52) 300,000 (54) 430,000 (77)

Renewable 

Energy ROWs 

Open

Class 4 and 

Above

2,600,000 (93) 1,000,000 (37) 450,000 (16) 630,000 (22) 430,000 (16)

Wind Energy

ROWs Open 520,000 (95) 250,000 (47) 120,000 (22) 160,000 (29) 120,000 (22)

Pronghorn at Pumpkin Creek Ranch and Recreation Area, south of Miles City 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Renewable Energy 

4-336

TABLE 4-122.

SUMMARY OF ALLOCATIONS ON BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE FOR 

RENEWABLE ENERGY CLASS 4 AND ABOVE WIND AND ROWS AND OTHER LAND 

USE AUTHORIZATIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

Authorization Acres and Percentage of BLM-administered Surface in the Planning Area (%)

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Open Areas

Renewable Energy 2,700,000 (97) 1,100,000 

(41) 560,000 (20) 730,000 (27) 530,000 (19)

Class 4 and Above 

Wind1 530,000 (97) 260,000 (47) 130,000 (23) 170,000 (30) 130,000 (23)

ROWs and Other 

Land Use 

Authorizations

2,700,000 (97) 1,100,000 

(38) 530,000 (19) 720,000 (26) 540,000 (19)

Exclusion Areas

Renewable Energy 57,000 (2) 1,600,000 

(59) 860,000 (31) 560,000 (20) 16,000 (1)

Class 4 and Above 

Wind1 11,000 (2) 290,000 (53) 14,000 (49) 86,000 (16) 150 (<1)

ROWs and Other 

Land Use 

Authorizations

58,000 (2) 1,700,000 

(62) 890,000 (32) 570,000 (21) 15,000 (1)

Avoidance Areas

Renewable Energy 34,000 (1) 0 (0) 1,400,000 

(49)

1,500,000 

(53)

2,200,000 

(80)

Class 4 and Above 

Wind1 7,200 (1) 0 (0) 280,000 (52) 300,000 (54) 420,000 (77)

ROWs and Other 

Land Use 

Authorizations

34,000 (1) 0 (0) 1,400,000 

(49)

1,500,000 

(53)

2,200,000 

(80)

1Renewable energy: of 550,000 acres total rated in Wind Power Class 4 or above in the planning area.

TRANSPORTATION (ROAD DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE 

(INCLUDING BRIDGES, CULVERTS, PRIMITIVE ROADS, AND TRAILS) 

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 

Road Design, Construction, and Maintenance 

Transportation management includes road design, construction, and maintenance (including bridges, culverts, 

primitive roads, and trails). 

Methods and assumptions used in this impact analysis include those described below. 

 While maintenance intensities are identified for roads, funding often does not allow the BLM to meet 

the maintenance provisions. 

 BLM-administered roads would continue to be maintained, with priority placed on public safety and 

health and those roads most heavily used by the public. 

 Road maintenance would be conducted on routes designated open yearlong or open with restrictions. 

 Road maintenance needs are expected to gradually increase based on anticipated increases in oil and 

gas activity and recreational use demands. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Transportation 

4-337

 Additional roads would be constructed, as needed, to support anticipated increases in expanded oil and 

gas operations, recreation, and access demands. 

 Road design, construction, and maintenance would consider resource programs to minimize impacts. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Road design, location, construction, or maintenance would be affected by management actions under all 

alternatives. Roads that did not maintain, restore, or improve a sensitive resource would need to be mitigated, 

redesigned, sited in acceptable alternative locations, or, in some cases, denied altogether. The limitations and 

restrictions placed on road proposals would depend on the locations and types of sensitive resources and the 

potential environmental impacts to those resources. Proposals that would require limitations or restrictions 

would incur time delays, greater costs for project development, or increased maintenance (depending on the 

need for additional maintenance to ensure efficacy of these protective features). 

Lands and Realty-Access management actions would cause a gradual increase in the number of public roads 

and improvement in the multi-use opportunities on public lands, subsequently causing a gradual increase in the 

amount of maintenance and a very gradual increase in construction.

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT AND OHV 

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 

There are minimal impacts to travel management. Travel management is prepared in response to competing 

demands for resource uses or protection. Travel management proposals and subsequent decisions are 

influenced the most by demands for administrative or recreational uses, to provide access for resource uses, 

and to mitigate wildlife management concerns. Certain areas or roads might also be closed, rerouted, or 

otherwise managed to accomplish a resource objective, such as a reduction in soil erosion or residual impacts 

(e.g., contributions to stream sedimentation or actions affecting fisheries). 

Within the planning area, annual ATV and motorcycle user numbers would be expected to rise to 20,000 by 

2015 based on an average 20 percent increase each year. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Existing air quality rules and regulations, including participation in air quality monitoring programs and 

consideration for use of emission reduction BMPs during project-level planning, would cause minor and shortterm impacts to Travel Management and OHV along unpaved travel routes that required road surfacing related 

dust abatement measures because travelers would potentially experience some travel delays or re-routing 

around the affected road sections during any mitigation or maintenance project. 

Soil management actions that used BMPs and if necessary, on-site inspections would protect and enhance travel 

management by preventing degradation of areas that are often focal points for OHV use when pursuing related 

recreational activities. Relocation to suitable soil types would reduce unacceptable erosion levels. 

Remediation of hazardous materials, protection of riparian and wetland areas, or case-by-case management of 

soil-disturbing activities would potentially cause temporary or permanent closure, decommissioning, or 

restriction of some access roads to motorized and non-motorized travel. Highly traveled recreation areas 

would be monitored for sediment reduction, which would limit access to certain recreation places. Protection 

or establishment of buffer zones to protect riparian and wetland habitat and ensuring that standards for water 

quality were met would protect and enhance opportunities to improve the scenic qualities of affected travel 

management settings. 

Short-term impacts of vegetation treatment or manipulation, prescriptive treatments, or wildland fire 

management activities would include temporary road closures, which would displace recreationists. The 

potential for, and degree of, these impacts would depend largely on acres treated and miles affected. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Travel Management and OHV 

4-338

However, these activities would provide additional roads for consideration for designation under the travel 

management system. Vegetative manipulations meeting Standards for Rangeland Health would improve the 

quality of the Travel Management and OHV experience by improving scenery and stabilizing soils. 

Weed management prescriptions for invasive species, if effective, would increase the setting. If ineffective, 

these species would continue to degrade the quality of Travel Management and OHV settings. 

Short-term impacts from wildland fire management and mineral activities would include increased traffic on 

BLM-administered routes and routes that remained accessible during these activities. However, OHV use 

would potentially increase as a result of new trails created by suppression activities. With full suppression, the 

long-term health of the vegetation in Travel Management and OHV settings would be likely to decline 

because wildland fire would not be used for multiple objectives. Additionally, access roads developed for 

mineral, renewable energy, or forestry (timber harvest) activities would enhance travel opportunities through 

public road development (if the roads were located in a TMA). New permanent routes established for mineral 

development would increase public access. Until successful rehabilitation and revegetation was completed, 

fire-treated areas would become less desirable for OHV use, and visual qualities in these areas would be 

reduced. 

Visual resources are an important determinant of the quality of Travel Management and OHV settings. VRM 

classifications would limit the type, location, and density of roads in TMAs. Management activities in 

sensitive visual areas would be more restrictive for transportation system expansion. Depending on the VRM 

classification, changes would be made to keep routes open such as following basic elements of form, line, 

color, and texture. If routes were in non-compliance with VRM management objectives, they would 

potentially have to be modified, rerouted, or closed. 

Timber harvesting actions would change the natural setting that many users seek by creating an expanded 

network of road and vehicle routes. 

Although most impacts would be short term and occur only during development activities, minerals 

management actions, including heavy equipment and truck traffic would impact public access. Minerals 

activities in areas with special status or priority species would be designed to mitigate impacts, which would 

prohibit or restrict public access to roads. Facilities associated with development would convert an area from 

a predominately natural setting to a more industrialized setting, which would degrade the scenic quality for 

users, resulting in avoidance of the area by some users. 

Travel management prescriptions and activities would designate Open, Closed, or Limited areas and routes 

would be designated Open Yearlong, Open with Restrictions, Closed Yearlong, Decommissioned, or Game 

Retrieval Roads. These routes would be completed during site-specific travel management planning and the 

BLM’s 2003 Record of Decision, Off-Highway Vehicle Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan 

Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota would be followed. Under the OHV ROD, 

motorized, wheeled cross-country travel would be allowed during any military, fire, search and rescue, or law 

enforcement emergency action. 

Impacts to travel management (short and long term) would depend on specific restrictions. Closures for 

resource protection would cause an overall net decrease of available routes within TMAs. Activities to 

maintain and restore riparian habitat would lead to the relocation of roads and trails outside riparian areas. If 

travel routes would need to be relocated or closed, implementation of recovery programs, mitigation 

activities, or projects to avoid impacts or enhance riparian and wetland resources (or designated plants) would 

impact travel management. These impacts would be short term if closures were temporary and long term if 

closures were permanent. 

Constructing new roads, primitive roads, and trails to approved engineering standards would increase travel 

management access. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Travel Management and OHV 

4-339

New easement agreements with private landowners would increase accessibility for motorized and nonmotorized travel into BLM-administered lands. Agreements for ROWs within TMAs would lead to improved 

trail accessibility, which would increase route connectivity. Land acquisitions and easements would improve 

public access and expand both motorized and non-motorized opportunities. Land use authorizations would 

increase and improve the BLM’s transportation network by providing additional roads and increasing public 

access. Closing or decommissioning roads or identifying lands for disposal would decrease public access. 

Road restrictions or road development would limit travel opportunities or reduce overall available routes. 

Because a direct correlation exists between travel management decisions and conflict levels amid motorized 

and non-motorized users, travel management decisions that created separate use areas would reduce conflicts 

between motorized and non-motorized users. Conversely, travel management designations that mixed 

motorized and non-motorized recreation use would lead to increased conflict. 

There is also a direct correlation between area and route management decisions and the level and quality of 

recreational opportunities available to motorized or non-motorized users. For motorized users, reductions in 

the availability of motorized areas and designated routes would mean fewer areas and fewer miles of 

designated roads or motorized trails available for recreational driving or access of full-sized or OHV vehicles. 

Conversely, for non-motorized users, fewer motorized areas and designated routes would mean more areas 

and more miles of closed roads or trails available for quiet, non-motorized (hiking, biking, or horseback 

riding) recreation. 

Regardless of the type of recreation activity (motorized or non-motorized), dispersing use activity within 

areas managed primarily for motorized or non-motorized use would increase the quality of the recreational 

experience. Dispersing users over a larger area would result in fewer encounters, improve road and trail 

safety, and increase the quality of the recreational experience. 

Regardless of the character of recreational settings on public lands, the public’s desired experiences and other 

quality of life benefits would not be met. Limited routes or closures would assist with keeping the recreation 

character setting, however, various public trips would potentially not be possible and negative consequences 

would potentially occur with visitors going elsewhere to achieve outcomes, or illegal off-road activities to 

achieve their expeditions. If the character of public land’s recreation settings was disregarded, the public’s 

desired experiences and other quality of life benefits would not be met. Although limited routes or closures 

would assist with keeping the recreation character setting, various public expeditions would potentially not be 

met and impacts would potentially occur, including decreased use (as visitors go elsewhere to achieve desired 

outcomes), or illegal off-roading activities to achieve desired recreational experiences. 

Wind power development and new utility ROWs would create new visual intrusions that altered scenic 

qualities and OHV and travel management settings in localized areas. 

To restrict public access to hazardous sites, activities related to cleanup, remediation, and closure of 

contaminated or abandoned mine sites would close system roads and trails. 

ALTERNATIVE A 

Protective measures for cultural resources or restricting surface-disturbing activities and off-road big game 

retrieval would decrease the number of roads and trails available for motorized use for all or part of the year 

(if roads were closed or decommissioned) or modify the locations and routes of proposed roads and road 

realignments. 

Allowing native hay or seed harvest; surface-disturbing, disruptive, mineral, or renewable energy activities; 

prescriptive treatments, or vegetation treatments or manipulations would provide additional roads for 

consideration for designation under the travel management system. Access roads developed for mineral, 

renewable energy, or forestry (timber harvest) activities would enhance travel opportunities through public 

road development (if the roads were located in a TMA). New permanent routes established for mineral 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Travel Management and OHV 

4-340

development would increase public access. OHV use may increase as a result of new trails created by fire 

suppression activities. 

Timber harvesting actions would change the natural setting that many users seek by creating an expanded 

network of road and vehicle routes.

Minerals activities in areas with special status or priority species would be designed to mitigate impacts, 

which would prohibit or restrict public access to roads. 

Short-term impacts from wildland fire management and mineral activities would include increased traffic on 

BLM-administered routes and routes that remained accessible during these activities. 

Until successful rehabilitation and revegetation was completed, fire-treated areas would become less desirable 

for OHV use and visual qualities in these areas would be reduced. 

Road restrictions on roads would cause an overall reduction in available routes. Designated and proposed 

travel management routes would be rerouted or closed within VRM Class II areas. Route restrictions and 

closures would occur during wildland fire management activities, prescriptive treatments, and vegetation 

treatment or manipulation, which would directly impact travel management by displacing recreationists. The 

potential for, and degree of, these impacts would depend largely on acres treated and miles of roads affected. 

All existing travel plans, including sub-planning and emergency area closures, would be carried forward and 

remain in effect under this alternative. Wheeled travel management would continue in accordance with the 

BLM’s 2003 Record of Decision, Off-Highway Vehicle Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan 

Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. However, the BLM, during its travel 

management planning process, will be moving from an interim designation of “limited to existing roads, 

primitive roads, and trails,” to a designation of “limited to designated roads, primitive roads and trails” upon 

completion of a travel management plan. 

Regardless of the type of recreation activity (motorized or non-motorized), dispersing users over a larger area 

would result in fewer encounters, which would improve road and trail safety and increase the quality of the 

recreational experience. 

Avoidance and exclusion for renewable energy ROWs would protect desirable settings sought by Travel 

Management and OHV users on public lands. Facilities developed on approved public land would still 

potentially affect the same settings by creating contrasting elements to the existing settings with presence 

(i.e., the size and height of the structure), noise, and visual intrusions. 

New easement agreements with private landowners would increase accessibility for motorized and nonmotorized travel into BLM-administered lands. Agreements for ROWs within travel management areas 

would lead to improved trail accessibility and increased route connectivity. Land acquisitions and easements 

would improve public access and expand both motorized and non-motorized opportunities. Land use 

authorizations would increase and improve the BLM’s transportation network by providing additional roads 

and increasing public access. Management actions that identified lands for disposal would decrease public 

access. 

OHV restrictions in the Howrey Island ACEC would disperse users over a larger area and result in fewer 

encounters between recreationists. However, these actions would also decrease miles of roads available for 

OHV use. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Prioritizing treatment areas in which invasive species were present would decrease the amount of invasive 

species, and would, in turn, increase the desirability of the Travel Management and OHV setting. However, 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Travel Management and OHV 

4-341

since surface-disturbing activities to control invasive species would not be allowed, the species would continue 

to degrade the quality of the setting desired by the recreationist. 

Protective measures for cultural resources or restricting surface-disturbing and disruptive activities or off-road 

big game retrieval would decrease the number of roads and trails available for motorized use for all or part of 

a year (if roads were closed or decommissioned) or modify the locations and routes of proposed roads and 

road realignments. 

Timber harvesting actions would change the natural setting that many users seek by creating an expanded 

network of road and vehicle routes.

Minerals activities in areas with special status or priority species would include mitigation of impacts, which 

would prohibit or restrict public access to roads. 

Allowing mineral or renewable energy activities would provide additional roads to be considered for 

designation under the travel management system. Access roads developed for mineral, renewable energy, or 

forestry (timber harvest) activities would enhance travel opportunities through public road development (if 

the roads were located in a TMA). New permanent routes established for mineral development would 

increase public access. Additionally, OHV use may increase as a result of new trails created by fire 

suppression activities. 

Short-term impacts from wildland fire management and mineral activities would include increased traffic on 

BLM-administered routes and routes that remained accessible during these activities. 

Until successful rehabilitation and revegetation was completed, fire-treated areas would become less desirable 

for OHV use and visual qualities in these areas would be reduced. 

Road restrictions would cause an overall reduction in available routes. Designated and proposed travel 

management routes would be rerouted or closed within VRM Class II areas. Route restrictions and closures 

would occur during wildland fire management activities, prescriptive treatments, and vegetation treatments or 

manipulation, which would directly impact travel management through displacement of recreationists. The 

potential for, and degree of, these impacts would depend largely on acres treated and miles of road affected. 

All existing travel plans, including sub-planning and emergency area closures, would be carried forward and 

remain in effect under this alternative. Wheeled travel management would continue in accordance with the 

BLM’s 2003 Record of Decision, Off-Highway Vehicle Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan 

Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. However, the BLM, during its travel 

management planning process, will be moving from an interim designation of “limited to existing roads, 

primitive roads, and trails,” to a designation of “limited to designated roads, primitive roads and trails” upon 

completion of a travel management plan. 

Regardless of the type of recreation activity (motorized or non-motorized), dispersing users over a larger area 

would result in fewer encounters, which would improve road and trail safety and increase the quality of the 

recreational experience. 

Allowing OHV use on roads and trails and designating other OHV uses with a specific travel management in 

the Pumpkin Creek Ranch and Recreation Area would potentially decrease the experience of the motorized 

user and increase conflict (through trail sharing with non-motorized users). 

Glendive Short Pine OHV Area restrictions would reduce Open OHV use, limit the area available for OHV 

users, and decrease the recreational experience in this area. 

Closing OHV use beyond the established parking area in the Strawberry Hill Recreation Area would reduce 

the amount of OHV use by approximately 2 miles. This action would decrease available OHV use areas and 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Travel Management and OHV 

4-342

the experience of the OHV users in this area. However, this management action would assist law enforcement 

to protect the TMA from increased use and illegal off-road use near the trail. 

OHV restrictions in the Howrey Island ACEC would decrease miles of road available for OHV use. 

Avoidance and exclusion for renewable energy ROWs would protect desirable settings sought by Travel 

Management and OHV users on public lands. Facilities developed on approved public land would still 

potentially affect the same settings by creating contrasting elements to the existing settings with presence 

(i.e., the size and height of the structure), noise, and visual intrusions. 

New easement agreements with private landowners would increase accessibility for motorized and nonmotorized travel into BLM-administered lands. Agreements for ROWs within travel management areas 

would lead to improved trail accessibility and increase route connectivity. Land acquisitions and easements 

would improve public access and expand both motorized and non-motorized opportunities. Land use 

authorizations would increase and improve the BLM’s transportation network by providing additional roads 

and increasing public access. Management actions that identified lands for disposal would decrease public 

access. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Invasive species actions that allowed surface-disturbing activities in areas with invasive species infestations and 

used Early Detection Rapid Response in publicly accessible areas would decrease the amount of invasive 

species and improve the quality of the Travel Management and OHV setting desired by recreationists. 

Restricting surface-disturbing activities or requiring protective measures for cultural resources would 

decrease the number of roads and trails available for motorized use for all or part of the year (if roads were 

closed or decommissioned) or modify the locations and routes of proposed roads and road realignments. 

However, in some areas, the number of roads and trails would potentially increase (or remain the same) 

because approved mitigation measures would be applied. 

Allowing native hay or seed harvest; vegetation treatments or manipulations; off-road big game retrieval; 

surface-disturbing, disruptive, mineral, or renewable energy activities; or prescriptive treatments would 

provide additional roads to be considered for designation under the travel management system. Access roads 

developed for mineral, renewable energy, or forestry (timber harvest) activities would enhance travel 

opportunities through public road development (if the roads were located in a TMA). New permanent routes 

established for mineral development would increase public access. OHV use may increase as a result of new 

trails created by fire suppression activities. 

Timber harvesting actions would change the natural setting that many users seek by creating an expanded 

network of road and vehicle routes. Managing forestlands to enhance the health and resiliency of the forest 

and woodland resources for sustainable resource health would create an undesirable setting for users in the 

short term. In the long term, the actions would create a healthy forest ecosystem, which would increase the 

visual setting for users.

Minerals activities in areas with special status or priority species would be designed to mitigate impacts, 

which would prohibit or restrict public access to roads. 

Short-term impacts from wildland fire management and mineral activities would include increased traffic on 

BLM-administered routes and routes that remained accessible during these activities. 

Until successful rehabilitation and revegetation was completed, fire-treated areas would become less desirable 

for OHV use and visual qualities in these areas would be reduced. 

Wildfire management implementation plans for natural ignition to achieve multiple objectives would be used 

to protect, maintain, and enhance resources, which would help retain the quality of the Travel Management 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Travel Management and OHV 

4-343

and OHV setting over the long term since excessive fuel loads would be less likely to build up and drive 

high-intensity fires that sterilized soils and complicated reclamation. More frequent, less-intense fires would 

serve to rejuvenate vegetation and enhance the setting following revegetation. 

All existing travel plans, including sub-planning and emergency area closures, would be carried forward and 

remain in effect under this alternative. Wheeled travel management would continue in accordance with the 

BLM’s 2003 Record of Decision, Off-Highway Vehicle Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan 

Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. However, the BLM, during its travel 

management planning process, will be moving from an interim designation of “limited to existing roads, 

primitive roads, and trails,” to a designation of “limited to designated roads, primitive roads and trails” upon 

completion of a travel management plan. 

Road restrictions would cause an overall reduction in available routes. Designated and proposed travel 

management routes would be rerouted or closed within VRM Class II areas. Route restrictions and closures 

would occur during wildland fire management activities, prescriptive treatments, and vegetation treatments or 

manipulation, which would directly impact travel management by displacing recreationists. The potential for, 

and degree of, these impacts would depend largely on acres treated and miles of road affected. 

Because a direct correlation exists between travel management decisions and conflict levels amid motorized 

and non-motorized users, travel management decisions that created separate use areas would reduce conflicts 

between motorized and non-motorized users. Conversely, travel management designations that mixed 

motorized and non-motorized recreation use would lead to increased conflict. 

There is also a direct correlation between area and route management decisions and the level and quality of 

recreational opportunities available to motorized or non-motorized users. For motorized users, reductions in 

the availability of motorized areas and designated routes would mean fewer areas and fewer miles of 

designated roads or motorized trails available for recreational driving or access of full-sized or OHV vehicles. 

Conversely, for non-motorized users, fewer motorized areas and designated routes would mean more areas 

and more miles of closed roads or trails available for quiet, non-motorized (hiking, biking, or horseback 

riding) recreation. 

Regardless of the type of recreation activity (motorized or non-motorized), dispersing use activity within 

areas managed primarily for motorized or non-motorized use would increase the quality of the recreational 

experience. Dispersing users over a larger area would result in fewer encounters, improve road and trail 

safety, and increase the quality of the recreational experience. 

Except for 640 acres of Limited OHV use, Pumpkin Creek Ranch and Recreation Area management actions 

under this alternative would allow OHV use on existing roads and trails. These actions would increase the 

quality of the recreational experience for OHV users and decrease chances for user conflict on the remainder 

of the proposed SRMA. 

New easement agreements with private landowners would increase accessibility for motorized and nonmotorized travel into BLM-administered lands. Agreements for ROWs within TMAs would lead to improved 

trail accessibility and increased route connectivity. Land acquisitions and easements would improve public 

access and expand both motorized and non-motorized opportunities. Land use authorizations would increase 

and improve the BLM’s transportation network by providing additional roads and increasing public access. 

Management actions that identified lands for disposal would decrease public access. 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Prioritizing invasive species treatment areas and allowing surface-disturbing activities in areas in which 

invasive species were present would decrease the amount of invasive species, and would, in turn, increase the 

desirability of the Travel Management and OHV setting. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Travel Management and OHV 

4-344

Restricting surface-disturbing activities or requiring protective measures for cultural resources would 

decrease the number of roads and trails available for motorized use for all or part of the year (if roads were 

closed or decommissioned) or modify the locations and routes of proposed roads and road realignments. 

However, in some areas, the number of roads and trails would potentially increase (or remain the same) 

because approved mitigation measures would be applied. 

Allowing native hay or seed harvest; off-road big game retrieval; surface-disturbing, disruptive, mineral, or 

renewable energy activities; prescriptive treatments; or vegetation treatments or manipulations would provide 

additional roads to be considered for designation under the travel management system. Access roads 

developed for mineral, renewable energy, or forestry (timber harvest) activities would enhance travel 

opportunities through public road development (if the roads were located in a TMA). New permanent routes 

established for mineral development would increase public access. OHV use may increase as a result of new 

trails caused by fire suppression activities. Off-road big game retrieval would also create unauthorized roads 

within a TPA. 

Timber harvesting actions would change the natural setting that many users seek by creating an expanded 

network of road and vehicle routes. Managing forestlands to enhance the health and resiliency of the forest 

and woodland resources for sustainable resource health would create an undesirable setting for users in the 

short term. In the long term, the actions would create a healthy forest ecosystem, which would increase the 

visual setting for users.

Minerals activities in areas with special status or priority species would be designed to mitigate impacts, 

which would prohibit or restrict public access to roads. 

Short-term impacts from wildland fire management and mineral activities would include increased traffic on 

BLM-administered routes and routes that remained accessible during these activities. 

Until successful rehabilitation and revegetation was completed, fire-treated areas would become less desirable 

for OHV use and visual qualities in these areas would be reduced. 

Wildfire management implementation plans for natural ignition to achieve multiple objectives would be used 

to protect, maintain, and enhance resources, which would help retain the quality of the Travel Management 

and OHV setting over the long term since excessive fuel loads would be less likely to build up and drive 

high-intensity fires that sterilized soils and complicated reclamation. More frequent, less-intense fires would 

serve to rejuvenate vegetation and enhance the setting following revegetation. 

All existing travel plans, including sub-planning and emergency area closures, would be carried forward and 

remain in effect under this alternative. Wheeled travel management would continue in accordance with the 

BLM’s 2003 Record of Decision, Off-Highway Vehicle Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan 

Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. However, the BLM, during its travel 

management planning process, will be moving from an interim designation of “limited to existing roads, 

primitive roads, and trails,” to a designation of “limited to designated roads, primitive roads and trails” upon 

completion of a travel management plan. 

Road restrictions would cause an overall reduction in available routes. Designated and proposed travel 

management routes would be rerouted or closed within VRM Class II areas. Route restrictions and closures 

would occur during wildland fire management activities, prescriptive treatments, and vegetation treatments or 

manipulation, which would directly impact travel management by displacing recreationists. The potential for, 

and degree of, these impacts would depend largely on acres treated and miles of road affected. 

Because a direct correlation exists between travel management decisions and conflict levels amid motorized 

and non-motorized users, travel management decisions that created separate use areas would reduce conflicts 

between motorized and non-motorized users. Conversely, travel management designations that mixed 

motorized and non-motorized recreation use would lead to increased conflict. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Travel Management and OHV 

4-345

There is also a direct correlation between area and route management decisions and the level and quality of 

recreational opportunities available to motorized or non-motorized users. For motorized users, reductions in 

the availability of motorized areas and designated routes would mean fewer areas and fewer miles of 

designated roads or motorized trails available for recreational driving or access of full-sized or OHV vehicles. 

Conversely, for non-motorized users, fewer motorized areas and designated routes would mean more areas 

and more miles of closed roads or trails available for quiet, non-motorized (hiking, biking, or horseback 

riding) recreation. 

Regardless of the type of recreation activity (motorized or non-motorized), dispersing use activity within 

areas managed primarily for motorized or non-motorized use would increase the quality of the recreational 

experience. Dispersing users over a larger area would result in fewer encounters, improve road and trail 

safety, and increase the quality of the recreational experience. 

Avoidance and exclusion for renewable energy ROWs would protect desirable settings sought by Travel 

Management and OHV users on public lands. Facilities developed on approved public land would still 

potentially affect the same settings by creating contrasting elements to the existing settings with presence 

(i.e., the size and height of the structure), noise, and visual intrusions. 

New easement agreements with private landowners would increase accessibility for motorized and nonmotorized travel into BLM-administered lands. Agreements for ROWs within TMAs would lead to improved 

trail accessibility and increased route connectivity. Land acquisitions and easements would improve public 

access and expand both motorized and non-motorized opportunities. Land use authorizations would increase 

and improve the BLM’s transportation network by providing additional roads and increasing public access. 

Management actions that identified lands for disposal would decrease public access. 

ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Restricting surface-disturbing activities or enacting protective measures for cultural resources would decrease 

the number of roads and trails available for motorized use for all or part of the year (if roads were closed or 

decommissioned) or modify the locations and routes of proposed roads and road realignments. However, in 

some areas, the number of roads and trails would potentially increase (or remain the same) because approved 

mitigation measures would be applied. 

Allowing vegetation treatments or manipulations; surface-disturbing, disruptive, mineral, or renewable 

energy activities; or prescriptive treatments would provide additional roads to be considered for designation 

under the travel management system. Access roads developed for mineral, renewable energy, or forestry 

(timber harvest) activities would enhance travel opportunities through public road development (if the roads 

were located in a TMA). New permanent routes established for mineral development would increase public 

access. Additionally, OHV use may increase as a result of new trails created by fire suppression activities. 

Timber harvesting actions would change the natural setting that many users seek by creating an expanded 

network of road and vehicle routes. Managing forestlands to enhance the health and resiliency of the forest 

and woodland resources for sustainable resource health would create an undesirable setting for users in the 

short term. In the long term, the actions would create a healthy forest ecosystem, which would increase the 

visual setting for users.

Although most impacts would be short term and occur only during development activities, minerals 

management actions, including heavy equipment and truck traffic, would impact public access. Minerals 

activities in areas with special status or priority species would be designed to mitigate impacts, which would 

prohibit or restrict public access to roads. 

Short-term impacts from wildland fire management and mineral activities would include increased traffic on 

BLM-administered routes and routes that remained accessible during these activities. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Travel Management and OHV 

4-346

Until successful rehabilitation and revegetation was completed, fire-treated areas would become less desirable 

for OHV use and visual qualities in these areas would be reduced. 

Wildfire management implementation plans for natural ignition to achieve multiple objectives would be used 

to protect, maintain, and enhance resources, which would help retain the quality of the Travel Management 

and OHV setting over the long term since excessive fuel loads would be less likely to build up and drive 

high-intensity fires that sterilized soils and complicated reclamation. More frequent, less-intense fires would 

serve to rejuvenate vegetation and enhance the setting following revegetation. 

Travel management prescriptions and activities would designate Open, Closed, or Limited areas and routes 

would be designated Open Yearlong, Open with Restrictions, Closed Yearlong, Decommissioned, or Game 

Retrieval Roads. All existing travel plans, including sub-planning and emergency area closures, would be 

carried forward and remain in effect under this alternative. Wheeled travel management would continue in 

accordance with the BLM’s 2003 Record of Decision, Off-Highway Vehicle Environmental Impact Statement 

and Proposed Plan Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. However, the BLM, during 

its travel management planning process, will be moving from an interim designation of “limited to existing 

roads, primitive roads, and trails,” to a designation of “limited to designated roads, primitive roads and trails” 

upon completion of a travel management plan. Under the OHV ROD, motorized, wheeled cross-country 

travel would be allowed during any emergency military, fire, search and rescue, or law enforcement action. 

Road restrictions would cause an overall reduction in available routes. Designated and proposed travel 

management routes would be rerouted or closed within VRM Class II areas. Route restrictions and closures 

would occur during wildland fire management activities, prescriptive treatments, and vegetation treatments or 

manipulation, which would directly impact travel management by displacing recreationists. The potential for, 

and degree of, these impacts would depend largely on acres treated and miles of road affected. 

Because a direct correlation exists between travel management decisions and conflict levels amid motorized 

and non-motorized users, travel management decisions that created separate use areas would reduce conflicts 

between motorized and non-motorized users. Conversely, travel management designations that mixed 

motorized and non-motorized recreation use would lead to increased conflict. There is also a direct 

correlation between area and route management decisions and the level and quality of recreational 

opportunities available to motorized or non-motorized users. For motorized users, reductions in the 

availability of motorized areas and designated routes would mean fewer areas and fewer miles of designated 

roads or motorized trails available for recreational driving or access of full-sized or OHV vehicles. 

Conversely, for non-motorized users, fewer motorized areas and designated routes would mean more areas 

and more miles of closed roads or trails available for quiet, non-motorized (hiking, biking, or horseback 

riding) recreation. 

Regardless of the type of recreation activity (motorized or non-motorized), dispersing use activity within 

areas managed primarily for motorized or non-motorized use would increase the quality of the recreational 

experience. Dispersing users over a larger area would result in fewer encounters, improve road and trail 

safety, and increase the quality of the recreational experience. 

Restricting off-road big game retrieval would decrease the number of roads and trails available for motorized 

use for all or part of the year (if roads were closed or decommissioned) or modify the locations and routes of 

proposed roads and road realignments. 

Except for 640 acres of Limited OHV use, Pumpkin Creek Ranch and Recreation Area management actions 

under this alternative would allow OHV use on existing roads and trails. These actions would increase the 

quality of the recreational experience for OHV users and decrease chances for user conflict on the remainder 

of the proposed SRMA. 

Avoidance and exclusion for renewable energy ROWs would protect desirable settings sought by Travel 

Management and OHV users on public lands. Facilities developed on approved public land would still 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Travel Management and OHV 

4-347

potentially affect the same settings by creating contrasting elements to the existing settings with presence 

(i.e., the size and height of the structure), noise, and visual intrusions. 

New easement agreements with private landowners would increase accessibility for motorized and nonmotorized travel into BLM-administered lands. Agreements for ROWs within TMAs would lead to improved 

trail accessibility and increased route connectivity. Land acquisitions and easements would improve public 

access and expand both motorized and non-motorized opportunities. Land use authorizations would increase 

and improve the BLM’s transportation network by providing additional roads and increasing public access. 

Management actions that identified lands for disposal would decrease public access. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Closure, decommissioning, or rerouting segments of the existing transportation system would result from 

route-by-route evaluations within each TPA upon completion of site-specific travel management plans. As 

they changed in the future, social and environmental considerations would be made when evaluating each 

TMA. Each TMA would need sign placement and long-term monitoring, which would result in increased 

travel management costs. Any new or related special designation areas on federal or adjoining private or state 

lands would be managed in a way that would not jeopardize special resource values in the area; however, this 

management would potentially alter the transportation network. All management planning for implementation 

actions would follow criteria in 43 CFR 8342.0-3, and 43 CFR 8340.0-5 for OHV area designations. Cultural 

resources would attract the attention of recreational OHV users. 

Limiting OHV use to designated routes would confine soil and vegetation disturbance caused by motor 

vehicles to existing routes, and result in no additional change to the natural character of the non-WSA lands. 

The presence and noise of vehicles using these routes, however, would reduce the opportunity of visitors to 

find solitude, particularly in close proximity to the routes. Motorized uses would conflict with primitive and 

unconfined recreation opportunities sought in non-WSA areas. 

In the past, vehicle travel across public lands in the planning area was allowed without restrictions except in 

national parks or other specially designated areas. Not until the 1980s did the BLM considered restricting such 

travel on BLM-administered lands in the planning area. Now, most of the lands in the planning area are 

restricted to existing roads and trails until authorized to remain Open, Limited, or Closed. There are few 

opportunities for open OHV use (driving anywhere) and the BLM anticipates this trend to continue into the 

future. 

Travel management and OHV use is dependent on the natural resource base and the weather for quality 

experiences sought by recreationists. Climate creates opportunities and limitations for outdoor recreation. 

Higher temperatures could result in increased opportunities for OHV use for a longer portion of the year (fall 

and winter) in the MCFO. Decreased opportunities for warm season activities could also happen during the 

hottest part of the year from higher heat, forest fires, or reduced air quality caused by climate changes to the 

natural resource base, thus changing settings sought by recreationists. The extent of the potential impacts is 

highly dependent on the type of activity, the climate change that occurs, and how the recreationist adapts to the 

changes. 

All of the alternatives in the 

RMP (A through E) would 

contribute to the anticipated 

cumulative impacts. 

Reservoir in the planning 

area near Knowlton
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Lands and Realty 

4-348

LANDS AND REALTY 

LAND USE AUTHORIZATIONS 

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 

There would be 55 smaller ROWs issued per year by the BLM, with an average surface disturbance of 2 acres 

per ROW. Three of the smaller ROWs would be for overhead power lines and average a total of 1 mile each 

year. In the short term, five major pipeline ROWs would be issued, which would disturb 120 acres each for an 

average of 12 major pipelines that would disturb 1,440 acres in the long term. There would also be one major 

power line ROW (disturbing 60 acres) issued in the short term and eight major power lines (disturbing 480 

acres) issued in the long term. There would be one major railroad ROW (disturbing 140 acres) issued in the 

short term. 

There would be two pilot carbon sequestration test projects in the short term and five pilot test projects in the 

long term. The BLM would issue a project ROW or 2920 land use permit that would include two wells to 

gather baseline data, two injection wells, and four associated monitoring wells for each injection well. Each 

well would disturb 3 acres. Each project would have one associated facility that would disturb 1 acre. The 

wells would be drilled to 2,000 to 10,000 feet true vertical depth. Each well would take 30 days to complete. 

Air, carbon dioxide, or nitrogen would be used in site testing of these projects. Opportunities for geophysical 

carbon sequestration on federal lands would be considered as outlined in national guidance. 

There would be one new 2920 permit (Leases/Permits/Easements) issued by the BLM per year with an 

average of 3 acres of surface disturbance per permit. There would be one 2920 land use lease or lease 

amendment issued in the short term and three issued in the long term, with an average of 50 acres disturbed 

for each. 

There would be increased demand to construct utility ROWs, particularly for electrical transmission lines, 

pipelines, and communication towers within the planning area. Testing for pilot projects for carbon geosequestration would be allowed in the planning area in accordance with the goals and objectives for other 

resource values. Requests for testing for carbon geo-sequestration pilot projects in suitable and acceptable 

areas would be considered under a Title V FLPMA ROW or a Title III FLPMA land use permit. It is assumed 

that the demand for land use permits and leases would fluctuate directly in relation to the degree of economic 

growth and development occurring within and adjacent to the planning area. 

Unauthorized uses would continue to occur and be resolved on a case-by-case basis. These would include 

activities such as unauthorized use, occupancy, and property abandonment and ROWs for utility and 

transportation uses, communication sites, oil and gas pipelines, roads, and water-related facilities installed on 

BLM-administered lands without proper approval. 

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources, reviews of 

existing literature, information found in BLM records, and information provided by other agencies and 

institutions. To analyze the potential impacts of the alternatives on the lands and realty program, information 

was gathered from administrative files for lands and realty actions in the planning area and other resource 

programs. Analysis is also based on the MCFO realty specialist’s knowledge of the area and the professional 

expertise of BLM specialists at the MCFO and Montana State Office. 

ROW avoidance areas are areas that, although they would be avoided, may be available for ROW location 

with special requirements. ROW exclusion areas are areas that would not be available for ROW location 

under any conditions. Effects are quantified where possible but, in the absence of quantitative data, best 

professional judgment was used. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Lands and Realty 

4-349

Exclusion and avoidance acres for ROWs and other surface-disturbing or disruptive land use authorizations 

for Alternatives A, B, C, D, E were determined using GIS to allow for the overlap of the various resource 

management actions. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Managing BLM-administered lands to protect air; soils; water quality; vegetation (including hardwood draws, 

special status plant species, and riparian and wetland areas); wildlife, fisheries, or aquatics habitat (including 

special status wildlife species habitat); cultural and paleontological resources; visual resources; special 

designation areas; and WSAs would impact the issuing of land use authorizations such as ROWs, leases, and 

permits on BLM-administered land in the planning area. In areas that were not excluded from development, 

proposals for ROWs and other land use authorizations would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Facilities 

and actions that were projected to degrade these resources would need to be mitigated, sited in acceptable 

alternative locations, or, in some cases, denied altogether. Impacts from facilities and actions authorized by 

ROWs, leases, and permits would need to be mitigated through actions such as the application of stipulations 

or relocation to acceptable alternative locations; however, in some cases, the proposed project would be 

denied. As a result of these actions and required inventories, applicants for such proposals would incur time 

delays and greater costs for project development. In some cases, with appropriate justification and 

documentation, the AO may modify or waive a management action or determine the project would be exempt 

from a management action, which would result in some flexibility in the location of the proposed project. 

Applicants for ROWs and other land use authorizations would incur time delays and greater costs for project 

development as a result of the following management actions: requiring inventories for various resources, 

requiring distance and timing stipulations for various wildlife species (there is the potential for a project to be 

delayed from December 1 through August 1 by timing stipulations), following the most recent guidance from 

the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee, currently 2006 (APLIC 2006), for overhead power lines, 

requiring certified weed free seed for reseeding of authorized projects, requiring equipment to be powerwashed, requiring Section 7 consultation, requiring cultural resource surveys and Section 106 consultation for 

NHPA, requiring consultations with interested tribes and American Indian Tribes as Sovereign nations, and 

requiring surveys for black-footed ferrets prior to surface disturbance for proposed projects in black-footed 

ferret habitat. Surveys of black-footed ferret habitats would restrict the proposed project, force construction in 

alternate locations, or, in some cases, cause denial of the project. 

Managing approximately 97,000 acres of VRM Class I areas as exclusion areas for ROWs and other land use 

authorizations would prevent development of 4 percent of the BLM-administered surface in the planning 

area. 

Managing areas as avoidance areas for ROWs and other land use authorizations would limit opportunities for 

ROW and other land use authorization development in the planning area by increasing costs and processing 

time if applications were submitted. Applicants would incur time delays and greater costs for project 

development in areas with inventory or mitigation needs. Restrictions on facility placement, limited access, 

increased administrative costs, and installation of facilities in less-than-optimum sites could all result if 

applicants applied for authorizations in avoidance areas. In some instances, an area that is not closed to 

ROWs and other land use authorizations would become uneconomical to develop due to the cost of 

implementing mitigation measures and the decrease in general potential. Areas managed as avoidance areas 

under all alternatives would include the Big Sheep Mountain, Hoe, Jordan Bison Kill, Powder River Depot, 

Seline, Finger Buttes, Piping Plover, and Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction ACECs. These actions would 

impact 15,000 acres total, less than 1 percent of BLM-administered surface acres in the planning area. Other 

ACECs are addressed individually by alternative. 

Continuing to manage the 97,000 acres of land within the seven WSAs in the planning area under BLM 

Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas, would impose restrictions on land use authorizations 

in these areas and effectively designate these acres ROW avoidance areas. This management action would 

impact 4 percent of the BLM-administered surface in the planning area. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Lands and Realty 

4-350

Potential geophysical carbon sequestration projects on federal lands would reduce the amount of carbon 

dioxide being released into the air, which would limit the effect of the sequestered carbon dioxide in 

contributing to climate change. Fire and fuels management actions under Management Common to all 

Alternatives would generally help protect facilities on public lands authorized through the lands and realty 

program (such as power lines and communication sites) by reducing fuel loads and suppressing fires. 

Locating new communication facilities within existing compatible communication sites and major ROWs 

within or next to compatible existing ROWs, such as highways and railroads, would minimize the resources 

affected and the number of acres required for and disturbed by new ROWs. Requests for ROWs and other 

land use authorizations would be considered on a case-by-case basis (with appropriate stipulations applied to 

protect resource values). Management actions would be subject to prior existing rights. Land use 

authorizations would not be issued for uses that involved the disposal or storage of material that contaminated 

the land. This management action would prohibit completion of some proposed projects and cause alternative 

actions such as project modification or relocation. 

Exclusion of portions of the planning area, and in some instances, mitigation restrictions in avoidance areas 

would have the potential to affect proposals on non-BLM-administered lands if facilities or development was 

contingent on public land availability and authorization. The areas that lie outside of the exclusion and 

avoidance areas would provide the best opportunity for development of ROWs and other land use 

authorizations. Impacts from specific management actions that would apply ROWs and other land use 

authorization development are summarized under each alternative to indicate the percentage of the area 

affected. 

Unauthorized uses of public land would be resolved in an expeditious manner and, in some cases, result in 

continued use under short-term authorizations. 

The Management Common to all Alternatives exclude and avoid acres are not included in the analysis of the 

various alternatives below. 

ALTERNATIVE A 

ROWs would be allowed on approximately 2.67 million open acres (97 percent) of the BLM-administered 

surface in the planning area under Alternative A. 

Excluding ROWs and other surface-disturbing 

land use authorizations on 58,000 acres would 

limit implementation at certain times or prohibit 

ROWs and other land use authorizations for 

proposed projects on BLM-administered lands in 

the planning area (Tables 4-123 and 4-124). 

These restrictions would impact 2 percent of the 

BLM-administered surface in the planning area. 

Avoiding ROWs and other surface-disturbing 

land use authorizations on 34,000 acres of BLMadministered surface in the planning area would 

increase the cost and time of proposed projects 

and reduce opportunities for the public to receive 

ROWs and other land use authorizations (Table 

4-125). These restrictions would impact 1 

percent of the BLM-administered surface in the 

planning area. (Overlaps with excluded areas were removed for these acres.) 

Timing stipulations under this alternative would increase the cost and time of proposed projects. 

TABLE 4-123. 

TOTAL BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES 

AFFECTED FOR ROWS 

AND OTHER LAND USE AUTHORIZATIONS 

UNDER ALTERNATIVE A

Stipulation Surface 

Acres

Percentage of 

BLMadministered 

Surface in the 

Planning Area 

(%)

ROWs and other land use 

authorizations excluded 58,000 2

ROWs and other land use 

authorizations avoided 34,000 1

ROWs and other land use 

authorizations open 2,670,000 97
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Lands and Realty 

4-351

Noise restrictions under this alternative would cause the denial of some projects. 

Allowing prescribed fire treatments on 300,000 acres of BLM-administered surface (11 percent) in the 

planning area would protect authorized ROWs and other land use authorization facilities, such as power lines 

and communication sites, by reducing fuel loads. 

TABLE 4-124. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES SUBJECT TO EXCLUSION OF ROWS AND 

OTHER LAND USE AUTHORIZATIONS UNDER ALTERNATIVE A

Area or Resource

BLMadministered 

Surface Acres

Percentage of 

BLMadministered 

Surface in the 

Planning Area 

(%)

Fish and Wildlife

Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks and Nesting Habitat, 

0.25-mile lek buffer (Big Dry RMP area) 21,000 <1

Colonial Waterbirds, 1,000-foot buffer (Big Dry 

RMP area) 90 <1

Sage-grouse, 0.25-mile lek buffer (Big Dry RMP 

area) 12,000 <1

Visual

Class I 97,000 4

Rec.

Howrey Island ACEC 592 <1

Special 

Desig. 

Areas

Smoky Butte (subject to prior existing rights) and 

Battle Butte Battlefield ACECs 201 <1

Flat Creek paleontological locality 50 <1

ALTERNATIVE B 

ROWs would be allowed on 1.1 

million open acres (38 percent) of 

the BLM-administered surface in 

the planning area under Alternative 

B.

ROWs (including testing for pilot 

projects for carbon geosequestration, see the Lands and 

Realty-Renewable Energy 

Appendix ) and other realty-related 

surface-disturbing or disruptive 

land use authorizations would be 

excluded on 1.7 million acres, which would limit implementation periods and prohibit ROWs and other land 

use authorizations for proposed projects on approximately 62 percent of the BLM-administered surface in the 

planning area (Tables 4-126 and 4-127). (These acres do not include invasive species acres or cultural and 

paleontological 0.5-mile buffers, other than those listed in Table 4-127.) 

TABLE 4-125. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES SUBJECT TO 

AVOIDANCE OF ROWS AND OTHER LAND USE 

AUTHORIZATIONS UNDER ALTERNATIVE A

Area or Resource Surface Acres

Percentage of 

BLMadministered 

Surface in the 

Planning Area 

(%)

Soils, slopes (Big Dry RMP 

area) 48,000 2

Special Desig. Areas, 

Reynolds Battlefield ACEC 336 <1
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Lands and Realty 

4-352

Management actions that required timing stipulations and compliance with VRM objectives for ROWs or 

other land use authorizations would increase time and costs for applicants for ROW and land use 

authorizations or, in some cases, cause avoidance or denial of the project. 

Under this alternative, the 

presence of invasive species 

would require relocation of 

proposed projects. 

Excluding aboveground 

power lines or requiring 

buried power lines would 

prohibit aboveground power 

line ROWs on most projects 

in the planning area. Burial 

of all power lines (unless 

not technologically feasible) 

in these areas would 

increase the cost and time for the applicant, possibly cause conflicts with aboveground power lines on 

adjoining lands, and cause more surface disturbance than aboveground power lines. In some cases, these 

actions would cause avoidance, denial, or exclusion of the project or ROW. 

Acres and percentage of BLM-administered surface within winter occurrence points and sage-grouse winter 

concentration areas (for General, the Protection Priority ACEC, and Restoration Areas) are unknown and 

applications for ROWs and other land use authorizations on these lands would be considered on a case-bycase basis. 

Restrictions for disruptive activities under this alternative would cause the denial of some projects. 

Under this alternative, prescribed fire would not be allowed on the 2.5 million acres (91 percent) of BLMadministered surface in the planning area. Prohibiting prescribed fire would increase the susceptibility of 

ROW and other land use authorization facilities, such as power lines and communication sites, to damage by 

wildfire occurring because of untreated fuel loads. 

Excluding ROWs and other land use 

authorizations near paleontological 

localities or cultural site boundaries would 

prohibit ROW and other land use 

authorizations in these areas, potentially 

cause an increase in the cost and time of 

proposed projects, and reduce 

opportunities for the public to receive 

ROW and other land use authorizations. 

(The average paleontological locality size 

with a 0.5-mile buffer is approximately 

540 acres, while the average cultural site 

size with a 0.5-mile buffer is 

approximately 710 acres). 

Prairie landscape in the planning area 

TABLE 4-126.

TOTAL BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES

AFFECTED FOR ROWS AND OTHER LAND USE 

AUTHORIZATIONS UNDER ALTERNATIVE B

Stipulation Surface Acres

Percentage of BLMadministered Surface in 

the Planning Area (%)

ROWs and other land use 

authorizations excluded 1,700,000 62

ROWs and other land use 

authorizations avoided 0

1

0

ROWs and other land use 

authorizations open 1,100,000 38

1The overlap with excluded areas would preclude avoided acres.
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Lands and Realty 

4-353

TABLE 4-127.

BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES SUBJECT TO EXCLUSION FOR

ROWS AND OTHER LAND USE AUTHORIZATIONS UNDER ALTERNATIVE B

Area or Resource Surface Acres

Percentage of 

BLMadministered 

Surface in the 

Planning 

Area (%)

Soils

Slopes 150,000 5

Sensitive 1,600,000 58

Water

Floodplains 42,000 2

Waterbodies and streams 12,000 <1

Veg.

Riparian and wetland1 3,500 to 

73,000 <1 to 3

Invasive species Unknown

Fish and Wildlife

Aquatics, 0.5-mile sport-fish reservoir buffer 10,000 <1

Big Game Crucial Winter Range 1,600,000 58

Bighorn Sheep Range 68,000 3

Prairie Falcon, 0.5-mile buffer 10,000 <1

Special Status Species Raptors, 0.5-mile buffer 61,000 ~2

Piping Plover, 0.25-mile buffer 3,400 <1

Interior Least Tern, 0.25-mile buffer 9,300 <1

Black-tailed Prairie Dogs, 0.5-mile buffer 130,000 5

Pallid Sturgeon, 0.5-mile buffer 14,000 <1

Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas, 4-mile 

buffer 1,100,000 40

General Habitat Areas, 4-mile buffer power line buffer 1,000,000 36

Protection Priority ACEC, surface-disturbing 

restriction 1,100,000 40

Restoration Areas, 1-mile buffer 260,000 9

Cult. 

and 

Paleo

0.5-mile buffers if sites would be affected Unknown

Visual

Class I 97,000 4

Rec.

Howrey Island (subject to prior existing rights) 592 <1

ROWs excluded: Powder River Depot, Calypso, Lewis 

and Clark, Matthews Recreation Area, Dean S. 

Reservoir, Pumpkin Creek Ranch and Recreation Area, 

Glendive Short Pine OHV, Terry OHV, Strawberry 

Hill Recreation Area, and Moorhead Recreation Area 

SRMAs

43,000 2

Special Desig. 

Areas

Battle Butte Battlefield (0.5-mile buffer) and Smoky 

Butte ACECs (subject to prior existing rights) 314 <1

Reynolds Battlefield ACEC, 0.5-mile buffer 922 <1

Cedar Creek Battlefield Area, Flat Creek and 

Powderville Paleontological Areas, Long Medicine 

Wheel Area, Walstein Area, and Yonkee Area ACECs

31,000 1

1Because needed data have not been collected, a range of acres was used.
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Lands and Realty 

4-354

ALTERNATIVE C 

ROWs would be allowed on 530,000 open acres (19 percent) of the BLM-administered surface in the 

planning area under Alternative C. 

Under Alternative C, excluding ROWs (including testing for pilot projects for carbon geo-sequestration, see the 

Lands and Realty-Renewable Energy Appendix) and other realty-related surface-disturbing and disruptive land 

use authorizations on 890,000 acres of BLM-administered surface in the planning area (32 percent) would 

prohibit ROWs and other land use authorizations for proposed projects on these lands (Tables 4-128 and 4-129). 

(These acres do not include cultural and paleontological site and locality 300-foot boundary buffers, other than 

those listed in Table 4-129). However, some management actions would allow surface-disturbing activities that 

benefited or maintained the functionality of specific habitat. 

TABLE 4-128.

TOTAL BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES AFFECTED FOR 

ROWS AND OTHER LAND USE 

AUTHORIZATIONS UNDER ALTERNATIVE C

Stipulation Surface Acres

Percentage of BLMadministered Surface in the 

Planning Area (%)

ROWs and other land use 

authorizations excluded 890,000 32

ROWs and other land use 

authorizations avoided 1,400,000 49

ROWs and other land use 

authorizations open 530,000 19

Avoiding ROWs (including testing for pilot projects for carbon geo-sequestration, see the Lands and RealtyRenewable Energy Appendix) and other realty-related surface-disturbing and disruptive land use 

authorizations on 1.4 million acres of BLM-administered acres in the planning area (49 percent) would 

increase the cost and time of proposed projects, reduce ROW and other land use authorization opportunities 

available for proposed projects in the planning area, or, in some cases, cause denial of the project (Table 4-

130). The applicant would also incur additional time and costs if the surface-disturbing activity could not be 

avoided and approved mitigation measures (such as applying stipulations or relocation of the project) would 

be required. (Overlaps with excluded areas were removed for these acres and those in Table 4-130.) 

If ROWs and other surface-disturbing land use authorizations or disruptive activities would not or could not 

be avoided in riparian and wetland areas, designated sport-fish reservoir areas, designated Big Game Crucial 

Winter Range areas, colonial waterbird habitat, and Sage-grouse Habitat – Restoration Areas, these activities 

would be authorized in these areas. However, these areas would be subject to a stipulation that required 

approved special design features to minimize impacts or improve or maintain PFC; if this could not be done 

the project would be relocated or denied. 

Management actions that require fish passages, timing stipulations, and compliance with VRM objectives for 

ROWs or other land use authorizations would increase the time and costs for ROW applicants or, in some 

cases, cause avoidance, denial, or exclusion of the project. 

Power line restrictions under this alternative would prohibit power line ROWs (particularly for aboveground 

power lines) for proposed projects applied for through the lands and realty program. Under some actions, the 

power lines would be authorized if they could be sited or designed in a manner that maintained specific 

habitat functionality. These actions would increase the cost and time of proposed projects and reduce 

opportunities for the public to receive ROWs. Management actions that required burial of all power lines 

would possibly cause conflicts with aboveground power lines on adjoining lands, cause more surface 

disturbance than aboveground power lines, increase the cost and time of such projects for the applicant, and 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Lands and Realty 

4-355

reduce opportunities for the public to receive ROWs. In cases in which it would not be technologically 

feasible to bury the lines, the proposed ROW would be denied. Relocating power lines would increase the 

time and costs for ROW applicants or, in some cases, cause avoidance, denial, or exclusion of the project. 

TABLE 4-129.

BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES SUBJECT TO EXCLUSION OF 

ROWS AND OTHER LAND USE 

AUTHORIZATIONS UNDER ALTERNATIVE C

Area or Resource Surface 

Acres

Percentage of 

BLMadministered 

Surface in 

the Planning 

Area (%)

Fish and Wildlife

Piping Plover, 0.25-mile habitat buffer 3,400 <1

Interior Least Tern, 0.25-mile habitat 

buffer 9,300 <1

Black-tailed Prairie Dog, 0.25-mile 

buffer 48,000 2

Pallid Sturgeon, 0.5-mile buffer 14,000 <1

Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat 

Areas, 3.1-mile lek buffer 760,000 28

Cult. 

and 

Paleo

300-foot site buffer if sites would be 

affected Unknown

Visual

Class I 97,000 4

Special 

Desig. Areas

Flat Creek paleontological locality 50 <1

Acres and percentage of BLM-administered surface acres within winter occurrence points and sage-grouse 

winter concentration areas in Sage-Grouse Habitat – General, Protection Priority, and Restoration Areas are 

unknown and applications for ROWs and other land use authorizations on these lands would be considered on 

a case-by-case basis. 

Restrictions for disruptive activities under this alternative would cause the denial of some projects. 

Excluding ROWs and other land use authorizations near paleontological localities or cultural site boundaries 

would prohibit ROW and other land use authorizations in these areas, potentially cause an increase in the cost 

and time of proposed projects, and reduce opportunities for the public to receive ROW and other land use 

authorizations. The average paleontological locality size with a 300-foot buffer is approximately 10 acres, and 

the average cultural site size with a 300-foot buffer is approximately 40 acres. 

Allowing prescribed fire on the entire 2.8 million acres of BLM-administered surface in the planning area 

would protect ROW and other land use authorization facilities, such as power lines and communication sites, 

by reducing fuel loads. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Lands and Realty 

4-356

TABLE 4-130. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES SUBJECT TO AVOIDANCE OF 

ROWS AND OTHER LAND USE AUTHORIZATIONS UNDER ALTERNATIVE C

Area or Resource Surface 

Acres

Percentage of 

BLMAdministered 

Surface in 

the Planning 

Area (%)

Soils

Slopes 150,000 5

Sensitive 1,600,000 58

Water

Floodplains 42,000 2

Waterbodies and streams 12,000 <1

Veg.

Riparian and wetland areas1 3,500 to 

73,000 <1 to 3

Fish and 

Wildlife

Aquatics, 0.25-mile sport-fish reservoirs buffer 3,800 <1

Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas, 

disturbance cap 730,000 26

Restoration Areas, subject to habitat maintenance 110,000 4

Rec.

Howrey Island (subject to prior existing rights) 592 <1

Powder River Depot, Calypso, Lewis and Clark, 

Matthews Recreation Area, Dean S. Reservoir, Pumpkin 

Creek Ranch and Recreation Area, Glendive Short Pine 

OHV, Terry OHV, Strawberry Hill Recreation Area, and 

Moorhead Recreation Area SRMAs

43,000 2

Special Desig. 

Areas

Battle Butte Battlefield and Smoky Butte ACECs (subject 

to prior existing rights) 314 <1

Reynolds Battlefield ACEC 922 <1

Cedar Creek Battlefield Area, Flat Creek and Powderville

Paleontological Areas, Long Medicine Wheel Area, 

Walstein Area, and Yonkee Area ACECs

31,000 1

1Because needed data have not been collected, a range of acres was used.

ALTERNATIVE D 

ROWs would be allowed on 720,000 open acres (26 percent) of the BLM-administered surface in the 

planning area under Alternative D.

Excluding ROWs (including testing for pilot projects for carbon geo-sequestration, see the Lands and RealtyRenewable Energy Appendix) and other surface-disturbing and disruptive land use authorizations on BLMadministered lands under Alternative D would prohibit ROWs and other land use authorizations on 570,000 

acres of BLM-administered surface in the planning area (21 percent) (Tables 4-131 and 4-132). However, 

some management actions would allow surface-disturbing activities that benefited or maintained the 

functionality of specific habitat. 

Avoiding ROWs (including testing for pilot projects for carbon geo-sequestration, see the Lands and RealtyRenewable Energy Appendix) and other realty-related surface-disturbing or disruptive land use authorizations 

on 1.5 million BLM-administered acres in the planning area (53 percent) would increase the cost and time of 

proposed projects, reduce opportunities for the public to receive ROWs and other land use authorizations, 

and, in some cases, cause denial of the proposed project (Table 4-133). (These acres do not include cultural 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Lands and Realty 

4-357

resource 300-foot site boundary 

buffers or paleontological locality 

buffers, other than those listed in 

Table 4-133. Overlaps with 

excluded areas were removed for 

these acres.) 

Requiring fish passages, burial or 

relocation of power lines, 

compliance with VRM objectives, 

or timing stipulations for ROWs or 

other land use authorizations 

would increase the time and cost 

for applicants or, in some cases, 

result in avoidance of the area or 

denial of the proposed project. 

Power line restrictions under this 

alternative would prohibit power line ROWs (particularly for aboveground power lines) for proposed projects 

applied for through the lands and realty program. 

Under some actions, the 

power lines would be 

authorized if they could be 

sited or designed in a 

manner that maintained 

specific habitat 

functionality. These actions 

would increase the cost and 

time of proposed projects 

and reduce opportunities 

for the public to receive 

ROWs. Management 

actions that required burial 

of all power lines would 

possibly cause conflicts 

with aboveground power 

lines on adjoining lands, 

cause more surface 

disturbance than 

aboveground power lines, 

increase the cost and time 

of such projects for the 

applicant, and reduce 

opportunities for the public 

to receive ROWs. In cases in which it would not be technologically feasible to bury the lines, the proposed 

ROW would be denied. Relocating power lines would increase the time and costs for ROW applicants or, in 

some cases, cause avoidance, denial, or exclusion of the project. 

Acres and percentage of BLM-administered surface within winter occurrence points and sage-grouse winter 

concentration areas in Sage-Grouse Habitat – General, Protection Priority, and Restoration Areas are 

unknown and applications for ROWs and other land use authorizations on these lands would be considered on 

a case-by-case basis. 

Restrictions for disruptive activities under this alternative would cause the denial of some projects. 

TABLE 4-131. 

TOTAL BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES AFFECTED 

FOR ROWS AND OTHER LAND USE AUTHORIZATIONS

UNDER ALTERNATIVE D

Stipulation Surface Acres

Percentage of 

BLMadministered 

Surface in the 

Planning Area 

(%)

ROWs and other land use 

authorizations excluded 570,000 21

ROWs and other land use 

authorizations avoided 1,500,000 53

ROWs and other land use 

authorizations

open

720,000 26

TABLE 4-132.

BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES SUBJECT TO 

EXCLUSION FOR ROWS AND OTHER LAND USE 

AUTHORIZATIONS UNDER ALTERNATIVE D

Area or Resource Surface 

Acres

Percentage of 

BLMadministered 

Surface in the 

Planning 

Area (%)

Fish and 

Wildlife

Piping Plover, 0.25-mile buffer 3,400 <1

Interior Least Tern, 0.25-mile 

buffer 9,300 <1

Sage-grouse Habitat – General 

Habitat Areas, 2-mile lek buffer 560,000 20

Visual

Class I 97,000 4

Special 

Desig. 

Areas

Flat Creek paleontological area 50 <1
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Lands and Realty 

4-358

Cultural resource management actions under this alternative would increase the cost and time for proposed 

projects (the average cultural site size with a 300-foot buffer is 39 acres). Avoiding paleontological localities 

to prevent affecting the quality or setting of the localities would increase the cost and time of proposed 

projects and reduce ROW and other land use authorization opportunities available to the public. If the 

surface-disturbing activity could not be avoided, approved mitigation measures (such as applying stipulations 

or relocation of the project) would be applied, which would result in additional time and costs for the 

applicant. In some cases, mitigation requirements would cause denial of the proposed project. 

TABLE 4-133.

BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES SUBJECT TO AVOIDANCE

FOR ROWS AND OTHER 

LAND USE AUTHORIZATIONS UNDER ALTERNATIVE D

Area or Resource Surface 

Acres

Percentage of BLMadministered Surface 

in the Planning Area 

(%)

Soils

Slopes 150,000 5

Sensitive 1,600,000 58

Water

Floodplains 42,000 2

Veg.

Riparian and wetland areas1 3,500 to 

73,000 <1 to 3

Fish and Wildlife

Pallid Sturgeon – 0.5-mile buffer 14,000 <1

Sage-grouse Habitat – General 

Habitat Areas, 2-mile power line 

buffer

560,000 20

Protection Priority Areas, 

disturbance cap 620,000 22

Cult.

300-foot site boundary buffer for 

mitigation plan Unknown

1Because needed data have not been collected, a range of acres was used.

Allowing prescribed fire on the entire 2.8 million acres of BLM-administered surface in the planning area 

would protect ROWs and other land use authorization facilities, such as power lines and communication sites, 

by reducing fuel loads. 

ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

ROWs would be allowed on 540,000 open acres (19 percent) of the BLM-administered surface in the 

planning area under Alternative E. 

Excluding ROWs (including testing for pilot projects for carbon geo-sequestration, see the Lands and RealtyRenewable Energy Appendix) and other realty-related surface-disturbing or disruptive land use authorizations 

on approximately 15,000 acres of BLM-administered surface in the planning area (1 percent) would prohibit 

ROWs and other land use authorizations for proposed projects on these lands (Tables 4-134 and 4-135). 

(These acres do not include cultural sites, other than those listed in Table 4-135.) However, some 

management actions would allow surface-disturbing activities that benefited or maintained specific habitat. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Lands and Realty 

4-359

Avoiding ROWs (including testing for pilot projects 

for carbon geo-sequestration, see the Lands and 

Realty-Renewable Energy Appendix) and other realtyrelated surface-disturbing or disruptive land use 

authorizations on approximately 2.2 million acres of 

BLM-administered acres in the planning area (80 

percent) would increase the cost and time of proposed 

projects, reduce ROW and other land use 

authorization opportunities available for proposed 

projects in the planning area, or, in some cases, cause 

denial of the project (Table 4-136). The applicant 

would also incur additional time and costs if the 

surface-disturbing activity could not be avoided and 

approved mitigation measures (such as applying 

stipulations or relocation of the project) required. 

(These acres do not include cultural and 

paleontological site and localities, other than those 

listed in Table 4-136. Overlaps with excluded areas 

were removed for these acres.) 

If ROWs and other surface-disturbing land use 

authorizations and disruptive activities would not or could not be avoided in riparian and wetland areas, 

waterbodies and streams, designated sport-fish reservoir areas, colonial waterbird habitat, piping plover and 

interior least tern habitat, 

pallid sturgeon habitat, 

and Sage-grouse Habitat 

– General, Protection 

Priority, and Restoration 

Areas, these activities 

would be authorized. 

However, these areas 

would be subject to a 

requirement that required 

approved special design 

features to minimize 

impacts or improve or 

maintain habitat. 

Requiring fish passage, 

burial or relocation of 

power lines, timing 

stipulations, or 

compliance with VRM 

objectives for ROWs or 

other land use 

authorizations would 

increase the time and cost 

for applicants or, in some 

cases, result in avoidance 

of the area or denial of 

the proposed project. 

TABLE 4-134.

TOTAL BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE 

ACRES AFFECTED FOR ROWS AND OTHER 

LAND USE AUTHORIZATIONS UNDER 

ALTERNATIVE E

Stipulation Surface 

Acres

Percentage 

of BLMAdminister

ed Surface 

in the 

Planning 

Area (%)

ROWs and other land 

use authorizations 

excluded

15,000 1

ROWs and other land 

use authorizations 

avoided

2,200,000 80

ROWs and other land 

use

authorizations open

540,000 19

TABLE 4-135. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES SUBJECT TO EXCLUSION 

OF ROWS AND OTHER LAND USE AUTHORIZATIONS UNDER 

ALTERNATIVE E

Area or Resource Surface 

Acres

Percentage of BLMAdministered 

Surface in the 

Planning Area (%)

Cult.

If activities would impact 

sites or resources Unknown

Visual

Class I 97,000 4

Special Desig. Areas

Battle Butte Battlefield 

ACEC (subject to prior 

existing rights) 

320 <1

Long Medicine Wheel

Area and Yonkee Area 219 <1
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Lands and Realty 

4-360

TABLE 4-136. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES SUBJECT TO AVOIDANCE OF 

ROWS AND OTHER LAND USE AUTHORIZATIONS UNDER ALTERNATIVE E

Area or Resource Surface Acres

Percentage of BLMAdministered 

Surface in the 

Planning Area (%)

Soils

Slopes, 25% or greater 150,000 5

Sensitive 1,600,000 58

Water

Floodplains 42,000 2

Waterbodies and streams 12,000 <1

Veg.

Riparian and wetland, 300-foot 

buffer 580,000 21

Invasive species Unknown

Fish and Wildlife

Aquatics, 0.25-mile sport-fish

reservoir buffer 3,800 <1

Interior Least Tern 0.25-mile 

buffer 9,300 <1

Sage-grouse Habitat – General 

Habitat Areas, 2-mile lek 

buffer

560,000 20

General Habitat Areas, 2-mile 

power line buffer 56,000 20

Protection Priority Areas 790,000 29

Restoration Areas, habitat 

requirement 110,000 4

Rec.

Howrey Island (subject to prior 

existing rights) 592 <1

Powder River Depot, Calypso, 

Lewis and Clark, Matthews

Recreation Area, Dean S. 

Reservoir, Pumpkin Creek

Ranch and Recreation Area, 

Glendive Short Pine OHV, 

Terry OHV, Strawberry Hill

Recreation Area, and 

Moorhead Recreation Area

41,000 2

Special Desig. Areas

Smoky Butte (subject to prior 

existing rights) 80 <1

Reynolds Battlefield ACEC 922 <1

Cedar Creek Battlefield Area, 

Flat Creek Paleontological 

Area, Powderville

Paleontological Area, and 

Walstein Area 

13,000 1

Power line restrictions under this alternative would require burial of low-voltage power lines, if feasible, or 

require special design that maintained specific habitat. These requirements would increase the cost and time 

of some proposed projects. Management actions that required burial of some power lines would possibly 

cause conflicts with aboveground power lines on adjoining lands, cause more surface disturbance than 

aboveground power lines, and increase the cost and time of such projects. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Lands and Realty 

4-361

Allowing prescribed fire on the entire 2.8 million acres of BLM-administered surface in the planning area 

would protect ROWs and other land use authorization facilities, such as power lines and communication sites, 

by reducing fuel loads. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Cumulative impacts to ROWs and other land use authorizations include continued increases in restrictions on 

ROWs and other land use authorizations, which would limit future ROW projects and other land uses. The cost 

of constructing ROWs and other land use projects would increase through additional restrictions, which would 

result in an increase in the cost to applicants and their customers (if customers were being served). 

Available locations for ROWs and other projects would also be limited. With the scattered land pattern in the 

planning area, these 

restrictions would affect 

the installation of ROWs 

and other projects on 

adjoining lands, such as 

state, private, and other 

ownerships. ROWs and 

other projects on these 

other lands would have 

to avoid some BLMadministered lands or 

would be subject to 

these restrictions on or 

crossing BLMadministered lands. 

Tables 4-137 and 4-138 

show the effects of the 

various restrictions in 

each alternative and the 

resulting effect on the 

number and percentage 

of available acres for ROW and other land use authorizations. 

Scenic view of Chalk Buttes in the planning area 

TABLE 4-137. 

TOTAL CUMULATIVE BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE ACRES

AFFECTED FOR ROWS AND OTHER LAND USE AUTHORIZATIONS 

UNDER ALL ALTERNATIVES

Stipulation

Acres and Percentage of BLM-administered Surface in the 

Planning Area (%) under each Alternative

A B C D E

ROWs and 

other land use 

authorizations 

excluded

58,000 (2) 1,700,000 

(62) 

890,000 

(32)

570,000 

(21) 15,000 (1)

ROWs and 

other land use 

authorizations 

avoided

140,000 

(5)

110,000 

(4)

1,500,000 

(53)

1,600,000 

(57)

2,300,000 

(83)

ROWs and 

other land use 

authorizations 

open

2,600,000 

(93)

950,000 

(34)

420,000 

(15)

610,000 

(22)

430,000 

(16)
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Lands and Realty 

4-362

TABLE 4-138.

SUMMARY OF ALLOCATIONS ON BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE FOR 

RENEWABLE ENERGY CLASS 4 AND ABOVE WIND AND ROWS AND OTHER LAND 

USE AUTHORIZATIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

Authorization

Acres and Percentage of BLM-administered Surface in the Planning Area 

(%) under each Alternative

A B C D E

Open Areas

Renewable 

Energy 2,700,000 (97) 1,100,000 (41)

560,000 

(20) 730,000 (27) 530,000 (19)

Class 4 and 

Above Wind1 530,000 (97) 260,000 (47) 130,000 (23) 170,000 (30) 130,000 (23)

ROWs and Other 

Land Use 

Authorizations

2,700,000 (97) 1,100,000 

(38)

530,000 

(19) 720,000 (26) 540,000 (19)

Exclusion Areas

Renewable 

Energy 57,000 (2) 1,600,000 (59)

860,000 

(31) 560,000 (20) 16,000 (1)

Class 4 and 

Above Wind1 11,000 (2) 290,000 (53) 14,000 (49) 86,000 (16) 150 (<1)

ROWs and Other 

Land Use 

Authorizations

58,000 (2) 1,700,000 

(62)

890,000 

(32) 570,000 (21) 15,000 (1)

Avoidance Areas

Renewable 

Energy 34,000 (1) 0 (0) 1,400,000 (49)

1,500,000 

(53)

2,200,000 

(80)

Class 4 and 

Above Wind1 7,200 (1) 0 (0) 280,000 (52) 300,000 (54) 420,000 (77)

ROWs and Other 

Land Use 

Authorizations

34,000 (1) 0 (0) 1,400,000 

(49)

1,500,000 

(53)

2,200,000 

(80)

1Renewable energy: of 550,000 acres total rated in Wind Power Class 4 or above in the planning area.

LAND TENURE ADJUSTMENT (INCLUDING ACCESS) 

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 

Approximately 30,000 acres of BLM-administered land would be disposed of and approximately 30,000 

acres acquired through land tenure adjustment in the long term. 

There would be continued disposal of BLM-administered land and acquisition of nonfederal lands or interests 

through sales, exchanges, transfers, direct purchases, donations, and withdrawals on a case-by-case basis. 

There are approximately 2.3 million BLM-administered acres identified for retention and 450,000 acres 

identified for disposal in the planning area (Map 41). The acquisition emphasis would be alternative 

dependent and vary according to objectives, resource values, economic values, access, or developable 

resources. The management of cultural and paleontological resources, biological resources, and special 

designation areas would limit or prevent disposal and acquisition actions or provide the justification for the 

action. There would be a continued demand, both internal and external, for land tenure adjustments to 

improve the manageability of federal and nonfederal lands. Land exchanges would continue to be the 

preferred method of land tenure adjustment. Based on the relative differences in appraised values between 

BLM-administered and nonfederal lands, a net loss of BLM-administered acres in most exchange transactions 

would be expected. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Lands and Realty 

4-363

Land identified for disposal would usually go into state or private ownership and be used for its highest and 

best use (residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, or public purposes). 

There would be one access easement acquired by the BLM per year. Any disturbance would be on nonfederal 

lands. 

Demand for adequate access (the physical ability and legal right of the public, agency personnel, and 

authorized users to reach public lands) is expected to remain high. Easement acquisition would be the primary 

means of acquiring access where needed. 

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources, reviews of 

existing literature, information from BLM records, and information provided by other agencies and 

institutions. To analyze the potential impacts of the alternatives on the lands and realty program, information 

was gathered from administrative files for lands and realty actions in the planning area and other resource 

programs. The analysis is also based on the MCFO realty specialist’s knowledge of the area and the 

professional expertise of BLM specialists at the MCFO and the Montana State Office. Impacts are quantified 

where possible but, in the absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment was used. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Management actions to protect air, soils, and water quality would impact BLM actions to obtain legal and 

physical access to public lands. Impacts from facilities and actions would need to be mitigated (such as with 

specialized design features), sited in acceptable alternative locations, or in some cases, eliminated from 

consideration. As a result of these management actions, the BLM would incur delays and greater costs for 

project development. 

Vegetation (including hardwood draws) and fish and wildlife (including aquatics) management actions, 

actions to protect special status species (and other species requiring special protections), and actions to protect 

riparian and wetland vegetation would impact land tenure adjustments and acquisition of legal and physical 

access to public lands. Impacts from facilities proposed for access easements in these areas would need to be 

mitigated (such as with specialized design features), constructed in alternate locations, or in some cases, 

eliminated from consideration. These types of actions would increase processing costs and time for both the 

BLM and the proponent. In some cases (such as to protect certain vegetation types), land tenure adjustments 

such as exchanges or sales would be restructured or eliminated from consideration. As a result, the BLM 

would incur time delays and greater costs for project development. 

Requiring surveys for black-footed ferrets would result in added restrictions to proposed access easement 

projects, force construction in alternate locations, or, in some cases, eliminate the project from consideration. 

In some cases, land tenure adjustments (such as exchanges or sales proposed for potential black-footed ferret 

habitat areas) would be restructured or eliminated from consideration. As a result, the BLM would incur 

delays and increased processing costs for the proposed project. 

Management of cultural resources would impact land tenure adjustments and the acquisition of legal and 

physical access to BLM-administered lands. Because these lands and realty actions are considered federal 

undertakings, inadvertent damage to federal and nonfederal cultural resources must be avoided through 

compliance with Section 106 of NHPA. Cultural inventories would need to be completed prior to these 

federal undertakings, and impacts to important cultural sites would need to be avoided by project redesign, 

project abandonment, or mitigation through data recovery. These requirements would result in actions such as 

the rerouting of proposed access road easements or the restructuring or abandoning of proposed land tenure 

adjustments (such as a land exchange or sale). Under Management Common to all Alternatives, land tenure 

adjustments would also be used to acquire lands with important cultural resources. Consultation with 

American Indian Tribes would increase processing costs and time for both the federal and nonfederal parties. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Lands and Realty 

4-364

Impacts from the management of paleontological resources under Management Common to all Alternatives 

would be similar to those described for cultural resources. Lands and realty projects occurring in known 

fossil-bearing areas would require allocation of adequate time and resources to conduct resource inventories. 

The discovery of scientifically important paleontological resources would result in project abandonment, 

mitigation through scientific recovery and analysis, or the rerouting or redesign of the easement facilities. The 

presence of these resources would also result in the restructuring or abandonment of land tenure adjustments 

(such as land exchanges or sales). Land tenure adjustments would also be used to acquire lands with 

important paleontological resources. The result of such actions would increase processing costs and 

processing time for both the federal and nonfederal parties. 

In some cases, the use or sale of forestry and woodland products would result in the need for BLM 

acquisition of easements for legal and physical access to public lands, which would increase time and costs 

for the BLM. 

BLM access easements occasionally require mitigation (which would include exclusion or elimination of 

livestock grazing during the construction and rehabilitation phases of the project) in areas in which livestock 

grazing occurs. This mitigation would be required to facilitate livestock movement or provide for public 

safety (e.g., fencing and cattleguards). As a result, the BLM would incur time delays and greater costs for 

project development. 

Travel Management and OHV management actions under all alternatives would require that easements or 

permits be acquired for any BLM-administered road or other types of facilities located on nonfederal lands. 

As a result, the BLM would incur time delays and greater costs for project development. 

Recreation (including designation of SRMAs), Back Country Byways, and National Trails management 

actions would result in the need for land tenure adjustments, easements, or permit acquisitions to improve 

access to public lands for recreation opportunities. As a result, the BLM would incur time delays and greater 

costs for project development. 

Managing the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail segment within the planning area to protect the values 

that prompted its designation would impact BLM actions to obtain legal and physical access to public lands. 

Impacts from facilities proposed for access easements would need to be mitigated (such as with specialized 

design features), constructed in alternate locations, or, in some cases, eliminated from consideration to reduce 

impacts to trails and protect trail values. In some cases, land tenure adjustments such as sales or exchanges 

would need to be restructured or eliminated from consideration to avoid disposal of public lands that 

contained important trail segments. Land adjustment actions would potentially also be used to acquire lands 

with important trail segments. 

Transportation and facilities management actions would require easements or permits for any BLMadministered roads or other types of facilities proposed on nonfederal lands. As a result, the BLM would 

incur time delays and greater costs for project development. 

In some cases, rerouting, closing, or decommissioning existing roads, primitive roads, or trails that 

substantially contributed to resource impacts would result in the loss or restriction of access to tracts of BLMadministered land. 

There would be continued demand from both inside and outside the BLM for land ownership adjustment to 

improve the manageability of the federal and nonfederal lands. Land exchanges would be the BLM’s preferred 

method of land tenure adjustment. The BLM would expect that there would be a net loss of federal land 

resulting from the relative difference in values between federal and nonfederal lands. The lands identified for 

disposal would usually go into private or state ownership and would be used for the highest and best use such as 

residential, commercial, agricultural, industrial, or public purposes. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Lands and Realty 

4-365

Consideration of land tenure adjustments on a case-by-case basis would allow for flexibility in managing public 

lands to achieve improved management efficiency or enhance other programs. Proposals would be considered 

to obtain inholdings within existing or future SRMAs, ACECs, back country byways, national trails, WSAs, and 

other designated areas or to obtain adjoining lands that expanded the areas. Actions such as exchanges, sales, 

and purchases would adjust the relatively fragmented public land pattern to better manage the public lands and 

resources. All land exchanges would be restricted to lands within Montana, and land tenure adjustments would 

be on a willing buyer and willing seller basis unless required by law, regulation, court order, or Congressional 

action. Consolidation of public land holdings would facilitate access to and throughout public lands to benefit 

the public land users. 

Managing 97,000 acres in the planning area in as Category 1 retention lands would be precluded from 

disposal from any method, resulting in protection of resource values associated with those lands. Not having 

these lands available for land ownership adjustment would have a minor impact on the lands and realty 

program since the vast majority of these lands are already unavailable for such use because of law, regulation 

or policy. Designating these lands as Category 1 retention lands with no disposal would put the public on 

notice that they are unavailable for land adjustments. The acreage in Category 2 provides the flexibility in 

adjustments of land ownership to meet resource objectives and to meet other parties’ objectives. The 

Category 3 lands that targeted specifically for disposal would result in better management of the public lands 

over the long term as parcels that are isolated and difficult to manage are transferred from BLM management. 

Coal exchanges would be considered for existing leases, by direction of legislation, and for leases for federal 

coal or fee-held coal located in alluvial valley floors. Consolidation of public land holdings would reduce 

encroachment problems on public lands from adjacent property owners and land users, facilitate access to 

public lands, and reduce the number of access easements needed. Access to public lands would be improved 

by the pursuit of land exchanges, easement acquisitions, and land donations. Allowing exercise of the right of 

eminent domain to secure access to public lands would allow facilitation of access in difficult situations in 

which no other options exist and access is critical. 

Lands that meet Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP) classification criteria for public purposes would 

be considered for acquisition by state and local governments and other qualified organizations on a case-bycase basis, which would assist those entities in meeting the need for reasonably priced land to serve that 

serves a broad array of public needs. Other types of entry would also be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Reviewing existing withdrawals and revoking those no longer serving their intended purpose would prevent 

unnecessarily encumbered lands and ensure that BLM-administered lands would remain open to the widest 

possible array of public land uses that were consistent with other resource needs. Such reviews would also 

ensure that withdrawals still serving their intended purpose remained in place. New withdrawal proposals 

would be limited to the minimum restrictions and area required for the intended use, require strong 

justification, and be initiated only where applicable alternative prescriptions were inadequate to protect the 

resource values. 

Under Management Common to all Alternatives, a decision to withdraw or continue lands for locatable 

mineral entry would be made based on the determination of the validity of mining claims staked for locatable 

minerals within SRMAs, ERMAs, special designation areas, and ACECs. If locatable mineral potential were 

found to be high with at least a medium degree of certainty on any or all of the lands and it was determined 

that the lands should be withdrawn from mineral entry, the lands subject to these restrictions would be 

petitioned for locatable mineral withdrawal (only the minimum acreage needed would be petitioned for 

withdrawal). If the withdrawal petition were approved, additional acres would be withdrawn within the 

planning area. 

Managing WSAs under the Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands under Wilderness Review 

would prevent the disposal of any lands within WSAs. The 97,000 acres in WSAs would be part of the 

retention area and impact 4 percent of the BLM-administered surface in the planning area. Proposals would 

be considered to obtain inholdings within the WSAs or lands adjoining the WSAs that expanded the WSAs. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Lands and Realty 

4-366

Inventorying lands for hazardous materials would result in additional costs and time for the BLM to complete 

the proposed land adjustment. The presence of hazardous materials would be subject to the modification or 

abandonment of a landownership adjustment proposal or remediation (in the form of cleanup and removal of 

the contaminants). The BLM would not acquire contaminated land except at the direction of Congress or for 

good cause and in compliance with United States Department of the Interior policy.

ALTERNATIVE A 

Requiring fish passage for new construction would increase the time and cost of constructing access 

easements. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Protective management actions or those that required inventories for special status species or their habitat 

would increase the cost and time of processing proposed disposal actions. These management actions would 

eliminate some lands from consideration for disposal. 

Requiring fish passage and habitat protection for construction or replacement of existing structures would 

increase the time and cost of access easement construction. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Management actions that required species inventories or management actions that restricted activities only to 

those that would not result in the listing of special status species under the ESA would increase the cost and 

processing time of proposed disposal actions. The impact of these management actions would eliminate some 

lands from consideration for disposal. 

Requiring fish passage and habitat protection for construction or replacement of structures would increase the 

time and cost of access easement construction. 

BLM firefighters work a fire in the planning area 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Management actions that required species 

inventories or management actions that restricted 

activities only to those that would not result in the 

listing of special status species under the ESA would 

increase the cost and processing time of proposed 

disposal actions. The impact of this management 

action would eliminate some lands from 

consideration for disposal. 

Requiring fish passage for new construction would 

increase the time and cost of access easement construction. 

ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Management actions that required species inventories or management actions that restricted activities only to 

those that would not result in the listing of special status species under the ESA would increase the cost and 

processing time of proposed disposal actions. The impact of this management action would eliminate some 

lands from consideration for disposal. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Lands and Realty 

4-367

Requiring fish passage for new construction would increase the time and cost of access easement 

construction. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS 

Special designation areas in this chapter include: 

 ACECs, 

 Back Country Byways, 

 National Trails, and 

 Wilderness and WSAs. 

AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Although surface-disturbing activities would have the potential to impact ACEC values, few surfacedisturbing activities would be permitted within ACECs. In almost all circumstances, impacts from surfacedisturbing activities would be avoided by project redesign or relocation, which would eliminate the need for 

implementation of mitigation measures. However, should impacts be unavoidable, mitigation would be 

applied prior to authorization of project implementation. Because surface-disturbing activities would have the 

potential to impact ACEC values, they would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 

Paleontological surface-disturbing activities, such as data recovery, excavation, and removal of fossil material 

activities, would be allowed on all ACECs and paleontological locality special management areas with an 

approved permit. Scientific-sponsored study, excavation, and removal of fossil material would always result 

in the loss of some data in the process, particularly if the paleontological values were significant for their in 

situ and intact values. 

Impacts from adjustments in grazing permitted use AUMs based on resource conditions within allotments 

that overlapped ACECs would depend on the resources in the ACEC and the existing environmental 

conditions within the ACEC. Trampling, trailing, and rubbing would potentially impact resources directly, 

while erosion, vegetation, and landscape modification would potentially impact resources indirectly. Grazing 

permitted use adjustments would be made on a case-by-case basis. If necessary, modifications would be made 

or mitigation measures would be applied to reduce the potential for impacts from permitted use adjustment. 

Acquiring lands in or near ACECs would benefit ACECs. The disposal of lands in any ACEC through land 

status updates or corrections would impact ACECs. However, the removal of any lands from federal 

administration, including those in or near ACECs, would also remove the laws and regulations that fully 

protected resources in these areas; subsequently, these resources would be subject to the range of impacts and 

impacts that would not occur under federal policies, laws, and regulations that dictated BLM management 

decisions. 

Any surface-disturbing activity that occurred under the jurisdiction of other entities on withdrawn lands 

within ACEC boundaries would have the potential to impact ACECs by altering or damaging the resources 

protected by the ACEC. 

The BLM would protect relevant and important resource values with special management and ACEC 

designations. The agency would apply special management where standard or routine management would be 

inadequate to protect the resource values from risks and threats of damage or degradation or to protect public 

safety when faced with natural hazards. See Table 4-139 for acres under each alternative. 

An NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing and development within the Piping Plover ACEC would minimize 

impacts to this species, including direct and indirect habitat loss. Least terns are classified as a federally 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

4-368

endangered species and piping plover are classified as a federally threatened species. Because the USFWS 

has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and endangered species, consultation with the USFWS 

Ecological Services Section is required to identify threatened, endangered, or candidate species that may be 

present and to determine additional protection and mitigation measures that may be needed. A CSU 

stipulation for oil and gas leasing and development in the Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction ACEC would 

provide some protection and mitigate a portion of these impacts. Wildlife responses to surface-disturbing 

activities and facilities and activities associated with oil and gas activities are complex but well documented 

(BLM 2008g). Habitat fragmentation, both direct and indirect, would have the potential to cause the greatest 

impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat (Hebblewhite and Merrill 2008). Impacts would include noise and 

disturbed wildlife movement. The magnitude of impacts would depend, at least in part, on the timing and 

nature of the disturbance, severity of winter, species and habitat type present, physiological status of the 

individual, hunting pressure, and other disturbance factors. Other activities such as bentonite mining, uranium 

development, mineral material sales, and other locatable mineral activities would cause similar impacts. An 

NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing and development would protect wildlife from these impacts. 

Prohibiting geophysical exploration in the Piping Plover and Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction ACECs 

would protect wildlife from impacts such as wildlife displacement, nest abandonment or direct nest loss, and 

overall habitat fragmentation to numerous wildlife species, including special status species such as groundnesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The scale of development, location, and 

implementation measures employed would all influence the magnitude of resulting impacts. 

OHV use in the Piping Plover and Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction ACECs, including Limited use areas, 

would potentially fragment habitats, reduce wildlife security areas, and alter the home range and migration 

corridors of wildlife. On a broad general scale, roads would decrease habitat quality and impair populations. 

The magnitude of impacts would vary by the species, habitat type, size of road, amount of traffic on the road, 

and seasonal use. OHVs would displace and stress animals, a particularly important factor in the winter, and 

degrade wildlife habitats through surface disturbance. 

Avoiding ROWs in the Piping Plover and Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction ACECs would mitigate impacts 

from these activities, such as habitat fragmentation. Prairie dog habitat, which is also critical for the blackfooted ferret, historically occupied thousands of acres in Montana before it was reduced beyond conditions 

survivable for the black-footed ferret. The BLM’s present policy focus is to maintain the habitat remaining on 

public land. The eradication of prairie dogs on nonfederal lands would potentially eliminate future 

opportunities to reestablish the black-footed ferret. Prairie dog colonies would expand with excessive grazing. 

Improved grazing management practices would provide more vegetation or cover, which would reduce the 

desirability of these areas as habitat for prairie dog and associated species habitat, such as the black-footed 

ferret. 

Prohibiting geothermal leasing and development in the Piping Plover and Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction 

ACECs would protect wildlife from impacts from these activities, which would include fragmentation of 

habitat, noise, and movement resulting from exploration, construction, and operation of facilities and roads. 

However, the magnitude of these impacts would depend on the timing and nature of the disturbance, severity 

of the winter, species and habitat type present, physiological status of the animal, hunting pressure, and other 

disturbance factors. The scale of development, location, and implementation measures would all influence the 

magnitude of impacts to wildlife habitat and species, which would include special status species and their 

habitats. 

ALTERNATIVE A 

Because surface-disturbing activities (including locatable mineral entry, geophysical exploration, livestock 

grazing, fire suppression activities, and forest product and biomass material management) would have the 

potential to impact ACEC values, they would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In almost all 

circumstances, impacts from surface-disturbing activities, where allowed, would be avoided by project 

redesign or relocation, which would eliminate the need for implementation of mitigation measures. However, 

should impacts be unavoidable, authorization would be denied, or mitigation would be applied prior to 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

4-369

authorization. Although surface-disturbing activities would have the potential to impact ACEC values, few 

surface-disturbing activities would be permitted within ACECs under this alternative. Additionally, surfacedisturbing activities associated with fire suppression activities and the management of forest products and 

biomass materials would have the potential to impact ACECs through exposure, disturbance, and destruction 

of cultural or paleontological values. These actions would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis under this 

alternative. In the Finger Buttes and Smoky Butte ACECS, these actions would have the slight potential to 

impact the values of the ACEC. 

Authorizing grazing and range improvements that provided for the improvement or maintenance of 

ecosystem functionality would vary according to resource type and environmental setting. Impacts from 

grazing would most often be caused by trampling, trailing, rubbing, and overgrazing. 

Cattle trailing, particularly to and from water sources and along fencelines, would create ruts that exposed 

sites, localities, and artifacts or fossilized remains, which would result in accelerated erosion that caused 

damage to and loss of sites, information, and remains. Increased erosion caused by vegetation removal by 

livestock would result in additional impacts to prehistoric sites and features, cultural or paleontological 

localities, and fossilized remains. Buried prehistoric sites located along major streambanks would be subject 

to livestock-caused streambank erosion. Livestock that gathered under or near structures for shade or shelter 

or livestock that rubbed or leaned on the structures would impact historic sites, such as those with fragile 

standing buildings and structures related to homesteading, by causing wear or possible collapse of the 

structure. 

Prescribed fire would have the potential to impact ACEC resources through fireline disturbances associated 

with fire containment. Cultural resource surveys would be conducted to identify cultural values prior to fire 

ignition, avoidance would be the standard field operating procedure employed to protect ACEC values. 

Open OHV use would impact ACEC resources. Impacts would include erosion, soil compaction, and loss of 

ground cover. In addition, accompanying auditory, olfactory, and visual elements would be introduced and 

alter some of the traditional use areas. Expanded access to remote areas would increase vandalism of the 

ACEC resource and general degradation of the historic and natural landscape. However, under Alternative A, 

OHV use in all ACECs is restricted to Limited except for the Smoky Butte ACEC in which OHV use is 

closed. Limiting OHV use would reduce the number of roads and trails available for use, which would reduce 

subsequent impacts to cultural and paleontological resources. 

Partial closures or timing restrictions for livestock grazing in the Piping Plover ACEC would reduce impacts 

such as overutilization and decreased species diversity and impacts to overall wildlife habitat conditions. 

Potential impacts from livestock grazing in the Piping Plover and Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction ACEC 

would include the following: 

 competition for forage, water, and space; 

 habitat alteration through changes in plant composition resulting from livestock grazing; 

 streambank degradation caused by compression, sloughing, and vegetation removal, which would 

result in erosion, changes in water quality, loss of riparian vegetation, and general degradation of 

riparian habitats; 

 stimulate growth of some plant species and increase succulent vegetation; 

 overgrazing, which would decrease standing herbaceous vegetation important habitat for most wildlife, 

particularly ground-nesting birds; 

 impacts from livestock fences, which would create travel barriers and result in injury and death from 

entanglements, alter big game distribution, and create perches for predators; but also improve habitat 

and water quality associated with streams; 

 expanded spatial and temporal ranges for big game and livestock; and 

 impacts caused by water developments, which would expand spatial and temporal ranges for big game 

and livestock and potentially result in increased competition between big game and livestock and an 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

4-370

unacceptable level of vegetation utilization, but also potentially provide the habitat component needed 

to increase wildlife densities (when livestock were absent and not in conflict with wildlife in the area). 

Impacts of vegetation and fuel treatments in the Piping Plover and Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction 

ACECs would vary by the habitat needs of species. Fuel treatments would result in either more open forested 

conditions, which would improve the habitat for species selecting those types of habitats (such as wild 

turkeys), or decreased encroachment of juniper and pine species, which would improve habitats for sagegrouse and other sagebrush-dependent species. Although these actions would improve habitat for some 

species, particularly those that select more early seral or open forest habitats, they would degrade habitats for 

others, particularly those that prefer denser and more structurally diverse habitats. Alteration of the vegetative 

communities would impact wildlife habitats, including special status species habitats such as sage-grouse 

habitat. Vegetation treatments (e.g., mechanical treatments) that altered vegetative species composition or 

stand structure for specific resource objectives, including those used to meet Rangeland Health Standards, 

would alter wildlife habitats immediately. Acreage of forest with dense multi-story cover would be reduced, 

which would decrease available habitat for species selecting those types of habitats and decrease thermal 

cover for numerous wildlife species, including big game. Short-term impacts from any kind of vegetation 

treatment would temporarily displace wildlife. Habitats would be considerably changed immediately after 

treatments and then gradually evolve over time. These treatments would potentially return wildlife habitats to 

a condition closer to historical composition or a desired condition in the long-term. Impacts would depend 

largely on species, habitat conditions before and after treatments, the type of treatment, details of treatment 

implementation, adjacent habitat types, and long-term management of each area after treatments. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Because surface-disturbing activities (including livestock grazing and range improvements, fire suppression 

activities, and forest product and biomass material management) would have the potential to impact ACEC 

values, they would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. OHV use would have the potential to impact ACEC 

values; however, in almost all circumstances, impacts from surface-disturbing activities would be avoided by 

project redesign or relocation, which would eliminate the need for implementation of mitigation measures. 

Should impacts be unavoidable, authorization would be denied, or mitigation would be applied prior to 

authorization. Although surface-disturbing activities would have the potential to impact ACEC values, few 

surface-disturbing activities would be permitted within ACECs under this alternative. 

Authorizing grazing and range improvements that provided for the improvement or maintenance of 

ecosystem functionality would vary according to resource type and environmental setting. Impacts from 

grazing would most often be caused by trampling, trailing, rubbing, and overgrazing. Impacts to cultural and 

paleontological surface sites and localities and cultural artifacts would include damage to artifacts or 

fossilized remains and disturbance of the site or locality context and integrity of material association. 

Cattle trailing, particularly to and from water sources and along fencelines, would create ruts that exposed 

sites, localities, and artifacts or fossilized remains, which would result in accelerated erosion that caused 

damage to and loss of sites, information, and remains. Increased erosion caused by vegetation removal by 

livestock would result in additional impacts to prehistoric sites and features, cultural or paleontological 

localities, and fossilized remains. Buried prehistoric sites located along major streambanks would be subject 

to livestock-caused streambank erosion. Livestock that gathered under or near structures for shade or shelter 

or livestock that rubbed or leaned on the structures would impact historic sites, such as those with fragile 

standing buildings and structures related to homesteading, by causing wear or possible collapse of the 

structure. 

Prescribed fire would have the potential to impact ACEC resources through fireline disturbances associated 

with fire containment. Cultural resource surveys would be conducted to identify cultural values prior to fire 

ignition, and avoidance would be the standard field operating procedure employed to protect ACEC values. 

Open OHV use would impact ACEC resources. Impacts would include erosion, soil compaction, and loss of 

ground cover. In addition, accompanying auditory, olfactory, and visual elements would be introduced and 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

4-371

alter some of the traditional use areas. Expanded access to remote areas would increase vandalism of the 

ACEC resource and general degradation of the historic and natural landscape. 

Limiting OHV use would reduce the number of roads and trails available for use, which would reduce 

impacts to cultural and paleontological resources. 

Partial closures or timing restrictions for livestock grazing in the Piping Plover ACEC would reduce impacts 

to overall wildlife habitat conditions and impacts such as overutilization and decreased species diversity. 

Potential impacts from livestock grazing in the Piping Plover and Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction ACEC 

would include the following: 

 competition for forage, water, and space; 

 habitat alteration through changes in plant composition resulting from livestock grazing; 

 streambank degradation caused by compression, sloughing, and vegetation removal, which would 

result in erosion, changes in water quality, loss of riparian vegetation, and general degradation of 

riparian habitats; 

 stimulate growth of some plant species and increase succulent vegetation; 

 overgrazing, which would decrease standing herbaceous vegetation important habitat for most wildlife, 

particularly ground-nesting birds; 

 impacts from livestock fences, which would create travel barriers and result in injury and death from 

entanglements, alter big game distribution, and create perches for predators; but also improve habitat 

and water quality associated with streams; 

 expanded spatial and temporal ranges for big game and livestock; and 

 impacts caused by water developments, which would expand spatial and temporal ranges for big game 

and livestock and potentially result in increased competition between big game and livestock and an 

unacceptable level of vegetation utilization, but also potentially provide the habitat component needed 

to increase wildlife densities (when livestock were absent and not in conflict with wildlife in the area). 

Impacts of vegetation and fuel treatments in the Piping Plover and Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction 

ACECs would vary by the habitat needs of species. Fuel treatments would result in either more open forested 

conditions, which would improve the habitat for species selecting those types of habitats (such as wild 

turkeys), or decreased encroachment of juniper and pine species, which would improve habitats for sagegrouse and other sagebrush-dependent species. Although these actions would improve habitat for some 

species, particularly those that select more early seral or open forest habitats, they would degrade habitats for 

others, particularly those that prefer denser and more structurally diverse habitats. Alteration of the vegetative 

communities would impact wildlife habitats, including special status species habitats such as sage-grouse 

habitat. Vegetation treatments (e.g., mechanical treatments) that altered vegetative species composition or 

stand structure for specific resource objectives, including those used to meet Rangeland Health Standards, 

would alter wildlife habitats immediately. Acreage of forest with dense multi-story cover would be reduced, 

which would decrease available habitat for species selecting those types of habitats and decrease thermal 

cover for numerous wildlife species, including big game. Short-term impacts from any kind of vegetation 

treatment would temporarily displace wildlife. Habitats would be considerably changed immediately after 

treatments and then gradually evolve over time. These treatments would potentially return wildlife habitats to 

a condition closer to historical composition or a desired condition in the long-term. Impacts would depend 

largely on species, habitat conditions before and after treatments, the type of treatment, details of treatment 

implementation, adjacent habitat types, and long-term management of each area after treatments. 

Habitat improvements in the Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction ACEC would improve wildlife habitat 

conditions. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Although surface-disturbing activities (including geophysical exploration, livestock grazing and range 

improvements, fire suppression activities, forest product and biomass material management, mineral materials 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

4-372

development, OHV use, and ROWs) would have the potential to impact ACEC values, few surface-disturbing 

activities would be permitted within ACECs under this alternative. In almost all circumstances, impacts from 

surface-disturbing activities would be avoided by project redesign or relocation, which would eliminate the 

need for implementation of mitigation measures. Should impacts be unavoidable, authorization would be 

denied, or mitigation would be applied prior to authorization. Because surface-disturbing activities would have 

the potential to impact ACEC values, they would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, surfacedisturbing activities associated with fire suppression activities, the management of forest products and biomass 

materials, and mineral material development would have the potential to impact ACECs through exposure, 

disturbance, and destruction of cultural or paleontological values. 

Because there would be some management actions that allowed surface-disturbing actions in ACECs under 

Alternative C, these areas and their associated values (cultural, paleontological, wildlife, geologic, or scenic) 

would potentially be affected. Although a surface use plan of operations would need to be approved by the AO 

prior to surface disturbance for all surface-disturbing activities within 300 feet of paleontological localities or 

localities that met the criteria for designation in some ACECs, these activities would potentially impact 

paleontological values of the ACEC. 

Geophysical exploration, which would be limited to existing roads and trails under this alternative, would 

potentially impact the overall values of the proposed ACECs through surface disturbance and disturbance of 

cultural or paleontological values. Any management action that allowed surface disturbance, including the 

use of heavy equipment, would have the potential to impact significant cultural or paleontological resources. 

Surface-disturbing activities would alter the characteristics of a significant cultural or historic property by 

diminishing the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or 

association. Geophysical activities would potentially create erosion and disturbance that exposed previously 

unknown and buried paleontological or cultural resource values, which would subject these values to 

discovery and loss. Even if individual paleontological values within the ACEC were not affected by 

geophysical exploration activities, these activities would potentially disturb the settings, terrain, and 

formations in which undiscovered individual paleontological values potentially occurred. Other impacts to 

cultural resources from geophysical exploration would include the destruction, damage, or alteration to all or 

part of the cultural resource or the introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that would 

diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features. In addition, development activities would 

potentially impact cultural or paleontological values of the ACEC. 

Some of the impacts of geophysical exploration would be offset by requiring a mitigation and recovery plan 

approved by the AO prior to surface disturbance. However, mitigation that would require removal of the 

cultural or paleontological values would subject them to the data loss inherent to removal, particularly if the 

values were significant for their intact and in situ values. 

Management actions requiring avoidance of ROWs in ACECs would allow these ROWs if there were no 

acceptable alternative actions; subsequently, these areas would potentially be subject to surface-disturbing 

actions caused by ROW implementation. Although mitigation would be required in some cases, the values of 

these ACECs are such that any ROW permitted within the ACEC would greatly reduce and impact the values of 

the ACEC by diminishing the integrity of the cultural properties’ location, settings, materials, feelings, or 

associations. These actions would impact localities by disturbing the setting of the terrain and the formations in 

which the individual values may occur. 

Authorizing grazing and range improvements that provided for the improvement or maintenance of 

ecosystem functionality would vary according to resource type and environmental setting. Impacts from 

grazing would most often be caused by trampling, trailing, rubbing, and overgrazing. Impacts to cultural and 

paleontological surface sites and localities and cultural artifacts would include damage to artifacts or 

fossilized remains and disturbance of the site or locality context and integrity of material association. 

Cattle trailing, particularly to and from water sources and along fencelines, would create ruts that exposed 

sites, localities, and artifacts or fossilized remains, which would result in accelerated erosion that caused 

damage to and loss of sites, information, and remains. Increased erosion caused by vegetation removal by 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

4-373

livestock would result in additional impacts to prehistoric sites and features, cultural or paleontological 

localities, and fossilized remains. Buried prehistoric sites located along major streambanks would be subject 

to livestock-caused streambank erosion. Livestock that gathered under or near structures for shade or shelter 

or livestock that rubbed or leaned on the structures would impact historic sites, such as those with fragile 

standing buildings and structures related to homesteading, by causing wear or possible collapse of the 

structure. 

Open OHV use would subject ACEC resources to the impacts of OHV use. Limiting OHV use would reduce 

the number of roads and trails available for use, which would reduce subsequent impacts to cultural and 

paleontological resources. However, limiting OHV use to existing roads and trails in ACECs would cause 

impacts to cultural and paleontological resource values from these activities. OHV use is considered a 

surface-disturbing activity and would have the potential to cause direct and indirect impacts to cultural 

resources by altering, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a cultural or historic property in a 

manner that would diminish the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, 

feeling, or association. In addition, these actions would have the potential to cause direct and indirect impacts 

to cultural or paleontological resources by altering, directly or indirectly, the characteristics of a resource in a 

manner that diminished the scientific integrity or context of the resource. 

OHV use would potentially cause surface disturbance and impacts to cultural properties and paleontological 

resources through removal, damage, or destruction of cultural and paleontological resources that resulted in 

the loss of important data. Direct impacts to the archeological record would include artifact crushing and 

breakage, erosion, soil compaction from the pressure of vehicle wheels, loss of ground cover, and scattering 

of cultural material as OHVs were driven through and across a site. Soil erosion processes would be 

intensified by the removal of protective ground cover, such as vegetation and natural clutter, particularly 

when ruts and trails were formed from repeated crossings. Shallowly buried sites with subsurface cultural 

material would be particularly vulnerable to disturbance from OHV-caused ruts and trails. In addition, 

accompanying auditory, olfactory, and visual elements would be introduced and alter some of the traditional 

use areas. Expanded access to remote areas would increase vandalism of the ACEC resource and general 

degradation of the historic and natural landscape. 

Indirect impacts of OHV use would include the use of OHVs to access, and then loot or destroy archeological 

sites and paleontological localities. This form of destruction would include artifact collecting and souvenir 

hunting of archeological material, but would also include hobby collecting of invertebrate remains (although 

this activity would be allowable in small quantities) and illicit removal of significant vertebrate remains for 

paleontological materials. Both activities would be considered vandalism, intentional, and illegal. 

Quick and easy access to cultural locations would result in increased illicit collection, rutting, and erosion of 

many of these sites that were previously inaccessible (except by foot or horse). The level of visitation would 

influence access to certain areas and the incidence of vandalism and illicit collection. OHV use by vandals 

would allow quick, often-undetected collection of the information or object. Additionally, artifacts and fossil 

remains too heavy to transport by foot could be transported by OHV and for much longer distances. 

In the past, these previously inaccessible areas, which were often sought for their remoteness, solitude, and 

pristine qualities, have been directly affected by the introduction of motorized sounds, dust, smells, and usercreated roads and trails. Greater visitor use to some areas has led to the increase of vandalism, illicit collection, 

littering, and disturbance to cultural or paleontological sites. Vandalism has increased in previously inaccessible 

areas, because many visitors now use OHVs, which are capable of reaching these formerly isolated areas. 

Expanded access and increased visitation would also potentially impede some traditional cultural uses by tribes. 

While cultural or paleontological properties situated along designated trails and road corridors would potentially 

be signed, monitored, patrolled, and protected, the impacts outside of these areas would be largely uncontrolled 

and the extent of impacts unknown. Prohibiting or limiting motorized wheeled cross-country travel under this 

alternative would potentially protect sites and localities from vandalism in areas in which OHVs would be used 

for access. If road and trail restrictions left substantial, contiguous portions of public lands isolated from 

motorized travel, vandalism should diminish, because accessibility is one of the major factors in the rate of 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

4-374

vandalism. Reducing accessibility would restore some areas and landscapes to their former remoteness and 

protect the natural solitude, isolation, and quiet necessary for the continuation of traditional cultural practices. 

Under this alternative, paleontological surface-disturbing activities, such as data recovery, excavation, and 

removal of fossil material activities, would be allowed on the Flat Creek (50 acres) paleontological locality 

Special Management Area with an approved permit. Scientific-sponsored study, excavation, and removal of 

fossil material would always result in the loss of some data in the process, particularly if the paleontological 

values were significant for their in situ and intact values. 

An NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing and development in the Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction ACEC 

would minimize impacts, including direct and indirect habitat loss. A CSU stipulation for oil, and gas leasing 

and development in the Piping Plover ACEC would provide some protection and mitigate a portion of these 

impacts. Least terns are classified as a federally endangered species and piping plover are classified as a 

federally threatened species. Because the USFWS has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and 

endangered species, consultation with the USFWS Ecological Services Section is required to identify 

threatened, endangered, or candidate species that may be present and to determine additional protection and 

mitigation measures that may be needed. Wildlife responses to surface-disturbing activities and facilities and 

activities associated with oil and gas activities are complex but well documented (BLM 2008g). Habitat 

fragmentation, both direct and indirect, would have the potential to cause the greatest impacts to wildlife and 

wildlife habitat (Hebblewhite and Merrill 2008). Impacts would include noise and disturbed wildlife 

movement. The magnitude of impacts would depend, at least in part, on the timing and nature of the 

disturbance, severity of winter, species and habitat type present, physiological status of the individual, 

hunting pressure, and other disturbance factors. Other activities such as bentonite mining, uranium 

development, mineral material sales, and other locatable mineral activities would cause similar impacts. 

Partial closures or timing restrictions for livestock grazing in the Piping Plover ACEC would reduce impacts 

to overall wildlife habitat conditions and impacts such as overutilization and decreased species diversity. 

Potential impacts from livestock grazing in the Piping Plover and Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction ACEC 

would include the following: 

 competition for forage, water, and space; 

 habitat alteration through changes in plant composition resulting from livestock grazing; 

 streambank degradation caused by compression, sloughing, and vegetation removal, which would 

result in erosion, changes in water quality, loss of riparian vegetation, and general degradation of 

riparian habitats; 

 stimulate growth of some plant species and increase succulent vegetation; 

 overgrazing, which would decrease standing herbaceous vegetation important habitat for most wildlife, 

particularly ground-nesting birds; 

 impacts from livestock fences, which would create travel barriers and result in injury and death from 

entanglements, alter big game distribution, and create perches for predators; but also improve habitat 

and water quality associated with streams; 

 expanded spatial and temporal ranges for big game and livestock; and 

 impacts caused by water developments, which would expand spatial and temporal ranges for big game 

and livestock and potentially result in increased competition between big game and livestock and an 

unacceptable level of vegetation utilization, but also potentially provide the habitat component needed 

to increase wildlife densities (when livestock were absent and not in conflict with wildlife in the area). 

Impacts of vegetation and fuel treatments in the Piping Plover and Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction 

ACECs would vary by the habitat needs of species. Fuel treatments would result in either more open forested 

conditions, which would improve the habitat for species selecting those types of habitats (such as wild 

turkeys), or decreased encroachment of juniper and pine species, which would improve habitats for sagegrouse and other sagebrush-dependent species. Although these actions would improve habitat for some 

species, particularly those that select more early seral or open forest habitats, they would degrade habitats for 

others, particularly those that prefer denser and more structurally diverse habitats. Alteration of the vegetative 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

4-375

communities would impact wildlife habitats, including special status species habitats such as sage-grouse 

habitat. Vegetation treatments (e.g., mechanical treatments) that altered vegetative species composition or 

stand structure for specific resource objectives, including those used to meet Rangeland Health Standards, 

would alter wildlife habitats immediately. Acreage of forest with dense multi-story cover would be reduced, 

which would decrease available habitat for species selecting those types of habitats and decrease thermal 

cover for numerous wildlife species, including big game. Short-term impacts from any kind of vegetation 

treatment would temporarily displace wildlife. Habitats would be considerably changed immediately after 

treatments and then gradually evolve over time. These treatments would potentially return wildlife habitats to 

a condition closer to historical composition or a desired condition in the long-term. Impacts would depend 

largely on species, habitat conditions before and after treatments, the type of treatment, details of treatment 

implementation, adjacent habitat types, and long-term management of each area after treatments. 

Habitat improvements in the Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction ACEC would improve wildlife habitat 

conditions. 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Although surface-disturbing activities (including geophysical exploration; oil and gas leasing and development; 

livestock grazing and range improvements; fire suppression activities; forest product and biomass material 

management; mineral materials development; OHV use; and ROWs) would have the potential to impact ACEC 

values, few surface-disturbing activities would be permitted within ACECs under this alternative. In almost all 

circumstances, impacts from surface-disturbing activities would be avoided by project redesign or relocation, 

which would eliminate the need for implementation of mitigation measures. Should impacts be unavoidable, 

authorization would be denied, or mitigation would be applied prior to authorization. Because surfacedisturbing activities would have the potential to impact ACEC values, they would be evaluated on a case-bycase basis. Additionally, surface-disturbing activities associated with fire suppression activities, the 

management of forest products and biomass materials, and mineral material development would have the 

potential to impact ACECs through exposure, disturbance, and destruction of cultural or paleontological values. 

Because there would be some management actions that allowed surface-disturbing actions in ACECs under 

Alternative D, these areas and their associated values (cultural, paleontological, wildlife, geologic, or scenic) 

would potentially be affected under this alternative. Although mitigation would be required in some cases, the 

values of the ACECs are such that any ROW permitted within the proposed ACECs would greatly reduce the 

values and impact the values of the proposed ACECs by diminishing the integrity of the location, setting, 

material, feeling, or association of the cultural resource. These actions would impact localities by disturbing the 

setting of the terrain and the formations in which the individual values may occur. 

Geophysical exploration, which would be limited within 300 feet of localities under this alternative, would 

potentially impact the overall values of the proposed ACECs through surface disturbance and disturbance of 

cultural or paleontological values. Any management action that allowed surface disturbance, including the 

use of heavy equipment, would have the potential to impact significant cultural or paleontological resources. 

Surface-disturbing activities would alter the characteristics of a significant cultural or historic property by 

diminishing the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or 

association. Geophysical activities would potentially create erosion and disturbance that exposed previously 

unknown and buried paleontological or cultural resource values, which would subject these values to 

discovery and loss; even if individual paleontological values within the ACEC were not affected by 

geophysical exploration activities, these activities would potentially disturb the settings, terrain, and 

formations in which undiscovered individual paleontological values potentially occurred. Other impacts to 

cultural resources from geophysical exploration would include the destruction, damage, or alteration to all or 

part of the cultural resource or the introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that would 

diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features. In addition, development activities would 

potentially impact cultural or paleontological values of the ACEC. 

Surface disturbance associated with oil and gas leasing would have the potential to impact the cultural or 

paleontological values of the ACEC. Oil and gas leasing would include a multitude of associated development 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

4-376

(e.g., well drilling, well pads, roads, pipelines, power lines, and power plants) with surface-disturbing impacts 

with the potential to affect ACEC values. Although some of these impacts would be offset by mitigation and 

recovery, this development would potentially create erosion and disturbance that exposed previously unknown 

and buried cultural or paleontological resource values, which would subject these values to discovery and loss. 

Some of the impacts of geophysical exploration or oil and gas leasing and development would be offset by a 

mitigation and recovery plan approved by the AO prior to surface disturbance. However, mitigation that 

required removal of the cultural or paleontological values would subject them to the loss of data inherent to 

removal, particularly if the cultural or paleontological values were significant for their intact and in situ values. 

Although mitigation by excavation recovers valuable data, the process of archeological excavation, using even 

the most current archeological methods and technology and employing the best data recovery practices, would 

result in the destruction of cultural properties or paleontological resources and the destruction and loss of some 

data. Subsequently, resources would not be available for future study when better analytical techniques may be 

available. 

In the Cedar Creek Battlefield Area, Long Medicine Wheel Area, Walstein Area, Flat Creek Paleontological 

Area, Powderville Paleontological Area, and Yonkee Area, management actions that allowed development or 

geophysical exploration would diminish the interpretive value of these areas by diminishing the viewscape. 

Development adjacent to buffer areas would also impact the viewscape. 

Authorizing grazing and range improvements that provided for the improvement or maintenance of 

ecosystem functionality would vary according to resource type and environmental setting. Impacts from 

grazing would most often be caused by trampling, trailing, rubbing, and overgrazing. Impacts to cultural and 

paleontological surface sites and localities and cultural artifacts would include damage to artifacts or 

fossilized remains and disturbance of the site or locality context and integrity of material association. 

Cattle trailing, particularly to and from water sources and along fencelines, would create ruts that exposed 

sites, localities, and artifacts or fossilized remains, which would result in accelerated erosion that caused 

damage to and loss of sites, information, and remains. Increased erosion caused by vegetation removal by 

livestock would result in additional impacts to prehistoric sites and features, cultural or paleontological 

localities, and fossilized remains. Buried prehistoric sites located along major streambanks would be subject 

to livestock-caused streambank erosion. Livestock that gathered under or near structures for shade or shelter 

or livestock that rubbed or leaned on the structures would impact historic sites, such as those with fragile 

standing buildings and structures related to homesteading, by causing wear or possible collapse of the 

structure 

 

Open OHV use would subject ACEC resources to the impacts of OHV use. Limiting OHV use would reduce 

the number of roads and trails available for use, which would reduce subsequent impacts to cultural or 

paleontological resources. However, limiting OHV use to existing roads and trails in ACECs would cause 

impacts to cultural and paleontological resource values from these activities. OHV use is considered a 

surface-disturbing activity and would have the potential to cause direct and indirect impacts to cultural 

resources by altering, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a cultural or historic property in a 

manner that diminished the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, 

feeling, or association. In addition, these actions would have the potential to cause direct and indirect impacts 

to paleontological resources by altering, directly or indirectly, the characteristics of a paleontological resource 

in a manner that diminished the scientific integrity or context of the resource. 

OHV use would potentially cause surface disturbance and impacts to cultural properties and paleontological 

resources through the removal, damage, or destruction of cultural and paleontological resources that resulted 

in the loss of important data. Direct impacts to the archeological record would include artifact crushing and 

breakage, erosion, soil compaction caused by the pressure of vehicle wheels, loss of ground cover, and 

scattering of cultural material as OHVs were driven through and across a site. Soil erosion processes would 

be intensified by the removal of protective ground cover, such as vegetation and natural clutter, particularly 

when ruts and trails were formed from repeated crossings. Shallowly buried sites with subsurface cultural 

material would be particularly vulnerable to disturbance from OHV-caused ruts and trails. In addition, 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

4-377

accompanying auditory, olfactory, and visual elements would be introduced and alter some of the traditional 

use areas. Expanded access to remote areas would increase vandalism of the ACEC resource and general 

degradation of the historic and natural landscape. 

Indirect impacts of OHV use would include the use of OHVs to access, and then loot or destroy archeological 

sites and paleontological localities. This form of destruction would include artifact collecting and souvenir 

hunting of archeological material, but also include hobby collecting of invertebrate remains (although this 

activity would be allowable in small quantities) and illicit removal of significant vertebrate remains for 

paleontological materials. Both activities would be considered vandalism, intentional, and illegal. 

Quick and easy access to cultural locations would result in increased illicit collection, rutting, and erosion of 

many of these sites previously inaccessible (except by foot or horse). The level of visitation would influence 

access to certain areas and the incidence of vandalism and illicit collection. OHV use by vandals would allow 

quick, often-undetected collection of the information or object. Additionally, artifacts and fossil remains too 

heavy to transport by foot could be transported by OHV and for much longer distances. 

In the past, these previously inaccessible areas, which were often sought for their remoteness, solitude, and 

pristine qualities, have been directly affected by the introduction of motorized sounds, dust, smells, and usercreated roads and trails. Greater visitor use to some areas has led to the increase of vandalism, illicit collection, 

littering, and disturbance to cultural or paleontological sites. Vandalism has increased in previously inaccessible 

areas, because many visitors now use OHVs, which are capable of reaching these formerly isolated areas. 

Expanded access and increased visitation would also potentially impede some traditional cultural uses by tribes. 

While cultural or paleontological properties situated along designated trails and road corridors would potentially 

be signed, monitored, patrolled, and protected, the impacts outside of these areas would be largely uncontrolled 

and the extent of impacts unknown. Prohibiting or limiting motorized wheeled cross-country travel under this 

alternative would potentially protect sites and localities from vandalism in areas in which OHVs would be used 

for access. If road and trail restrictions left substantial, contiguous portions of public lands isolated from 

motorized travel, vandalism should diminish because accessibility is one of the major factors in the rate of 

vandalism. Reducing accessibility would restore some areas and landscapes to their former remoteness and 

protect the natural solitude, isolation, and quiet necessary for the continuation of traditional cultural practices. 

Management actions that required buffers or required avoidance of cultural and paleontological values would 

also diminish the overall values of the ACECs and contradict the creation of the ACECs, which are areas 

designed to recognize, preserve, and protect resource values from development and intrusive activities. 

Under this alternative, paleontological surface-disturbing activities, such as data recovery, excavation, and 

removal of fossil material activities, would be allowed on the Flat Creek (50 acres) paleontological locality 

Special Management Area with an approved permit. Scientific-sponsored study, excavation, and removal of 

fossil material would always result in the loss of some data in the process, particularly if the paleontological 

values were significant for their in situ and intact values. 

Potential impacts from livestock grazing in the Piping Plover and Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction ACEC 

would include the following: 

 competition for forage, water, and space; 

 habitat alteration through changes in plant composition resulting from livestock grazing; 

 streambank degradation caused by compression, sloughing, and vegetation removal, which would 

result in erosion, changes in water quality, loss of riparian vegetation, and general degradation of 

riparian habitats; 

 stimulate growth of some plant species and increase succulent vegetation; 

 overgrazing, which would decrease standing herbaceous vegetation important habitat for most wildlife, 

particularly ground-nesting birds; 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

4-378

 impacts from livestock fences, which would create travel barriers and result in injury and death from 

entanglements, alter big game distribution, and create perches for predators; but also improve habitat 

and water quality associated with streams; 

 expanded spatial and temporal ranges for big game and livestock; and 

 impacts caused by water developments, which would expand spatial and temporal ranges for big game 

and livestock and potentially result in increased competition between big game and livestock and an 

unacceptable level of vegetation utilization, but also potentially provide the habitat component needed 

to increase wildlife densities (when livestock were absent and not in conflict with wildlife in the area). 

Impacts of vegetation and fuel treatments in the Piping Plover and Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction 

ACECs would vary by the habitat needs of species. Fuel treatments would result in either more open forested 

conditions, which would improve the habitat for species selecting those types of habitats (such as wild 

turkeys), or decreased encroachment of juniper and pine species, which would improve habitats for sagegrouse and other sagebrush-dependent species. Although these actions would improve habitat for some 

species, particularly those that select more early seral or open forest habitats, they would degrade habitats for 

others, particularly those that prefer denser and more structurally diverse habitats. Alteration of the vegetative 

communities would impact wildlife habitats, including special status species habitats such as sage-grouse 

habitat. Vegetation treatments (e.g., mechanical treatments) that altered vegetative species composition or 

stand structure for specific resource objectives, including those used to meet Rangeland Health Standards, 

would alter wildlife habitats immediately. Acreage of forest with dense multi-story cover would be reduced, 

which would decrease available habitat for species selecting those types of habitats and decrease thermal 

cover for numerous wildlife species, including big game. Short-term impacts from any kind of vegetation 

treatment would temporarily displace wildlife. Habitats would be considerably changed immediately after 

treatments and then gradually evolve over time. These treatments would potentially return wildlife habitats to 

a condition closer to historical composition or a desired condition in the long-term. Impacts would depend 

largely on species, habitat conditions before and after treatments, the type of treatment, details of treatment 

implementation, adjacent habitat types, and long-term management of each area after treatments. 

Habitat improvements in the Piping Plover and Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction ACECs would improve 

wildlife habitat conditions. 

ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Although surface-disturbing activities (including geophysical exploration, livestock grazing and range 

improvements, fire suppression activities, forest product and biomass material management, mineral materials 

development, OHV use, and ROWs) would have the potential to impact ACEC values, few surface-disturbing 

activities would be permitted within ACECs under this alternative. In almost all circumstances, impacts from 

surface-disturbing activities would be avoided by project redesign or relocation, which would eliminate the 

need for implementation of mitigation measures. Should impacts be unavoidable, authorization would be 

denied, or mitigation would be applied prior to authorization. Because surface-disturbing activities would have 

the potential to impact ACEC values, they would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, surfacedisturbing activities associated with fire suppression activities, the management of forest products and biomass 

materials, and mineral material development would have the potential to impact ACECs through exposure, 

disturbance, and destruction of cultural or paleontological values. 

Because there would be some management actions that allowed surface-disturbing actions in ACECs under 

Alternative E, these areas and their associated values (cultural, paleontological, wildlife, geologic, or scenic) 

would potentially be affected under this alternative. A Although a surface use plan of operations would need to 

be approved by the AO prior to surface disturbance for all surface-disturbing activities within 300 feet of 

paleontological localities or localities that met the criteria for designation in some ACECs, these activities 

would potentially impact paleontological values of the paleontological ACECs (Ash Creek Divide, Bug Creek, 

Hell Creek, Sand Arroyo, Flat Creek, and Powderville) and ACECs that contained paleontological values (Long 

Medicine Wheel and Walstein). Some of the impacts of geophysical exploration would be offset by requiring a 

mitigation and recovery plan approved by the AO prior to surface disturbance. However, mitigation that 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

4-379

required the removal of the cultural or paleontological values would subject them to the data loss inherent to 

removal, particularly if the values were significant for their intact and in situ values. 

Closing the Battle Butte Battlefield, Reynolds Battlefield, Cedar Creek Battlefield, Long Medicine Wheel, 

Walstein Area, Yonkee Area, Flat Creek, and Powderville ACECs to mineral material sales and permits would 

eliminate these surface-disturbing activities. 

Geophysical exploration would potentially impact the overall values of the paleontological ACECs (Ash 

Creek Divide, Bug Creek, Hell Creek, and Sand Arroyo) and the Smoky Butte, Ferret, Flat Creek, 

Powderville and Walstein ACECs through surface disturbance and disturbance of cultural or paleontological 

values. Any management action that allowed surface disturbance, including the use of heavy equipment, 

would have the potential to impact significant cultural or paleontological resources. Surface-disturbing 

activities would alter the characteristics of a significant cultural or historic property by diminishing the 

integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. 

Geophysical activities would potentially create erosion and disturbance that exposed previously unknown and 

buried paleontological or cultural resource values, which would subject these values to discovery and loss. 

Even if individual paleontological values within the ACEC were not affected by geophysical exploration 

activities, these activities would potentially disturb the settings, terrain, and formations in which undiscovered 

individual paleontological values potentially occurred. Other impacts would also occur to cultural resources 

from geophysical exploration within ACECs and would include the destruction, damage, or alteration to all or 

part of the cultural resource or the introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminished the 

integrity of the property's significant historic features. In addition, development activities would potentially 

impact cultural or paleontological values of the ACEC. 

An NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing and development would prevent surface disturbances associated with 

these activities, but a CSU stipulation for oil and gas leasing and development would have the potential to 

impact the wildlife, cultural, and paleontological values in ACECs. 

Management actions requiring avoidance of ROWs in ACECs would allow ROWs if there were no acceptable 

alternative actions; subsequently, these areas would potentially be subject to surface-disturbing actions caused 

by ROWs. Although mitigation would be required in some cases, the values of these ACECs are such that any 

ROW permitted within the ACEC would greatly reduce and impact the values of the ACEC by diminishing the 

integrity of the cultural properties’ location, settings, materials, feelings, or associations. These actions would 

impact localities by disturbing the setting of the terrain and the formations in which the individual values may 

occur. 

Authorizing grazing and range improvements that provided for the improvement or maintenance of 

ecosystem functionality would vary according to resource type and environmental setting. Impacts from 

grazing would most often be caused by trampling, trailing, rubbing, and overgrazing. Impacts to cultural and 

paleontological surface sites and localities and cultural artifacts would include damage to artifacts or 

fossilized remains and disturbance of the site or locality context and integrity of material association. 

Cattle trailing, particularly to and from water sources and along fencelines, would create ruts that exposed 

sites, localities, and artifacts or fossilized remains, which would result in accelerated erosion that caused 

damage to and loss of sites, information, and remains. Increased erosion caused by vegetation removal by 

livestock would result in additional impacts to prehistoric sites and features, cultural or paleontological 

localities, and fossilized remains. Buried prehistoric sites located along major streambanks would be subject 

to livestock-caused streambank erosion. Livestock that gathered under or near structures for shade or shelter 

or livestock that rubbed or leaned on the structures would impact historic sites, such as those with fragile 

standing buildings and structures related to homesteading, by causing wear or possible collapse of the 

structure. 

OHV use would potentially cause surface disturbance and impacts to cultural properties and paleontological 

resources through removal, damage, or destruction of cultural and paleontological resources that resulted in 

the loss of important data. Direct impacts to the archeological record would include artifact crushing and 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

4-380

breakage, erosion, soil compaction from the pressure of vehicle wheels, loss of ground cover, and scattering 

of cultural material as OHVs were driven through and across a site. Soil erosion processes would be 

intensified by the removal of protective ground cover, such as vegetation and natural clutter, particularly 

when ruts and trails were formed from repeated crossings. Shallowly buried sites with subsurface cultural 

material would be particularly vulnerable to disturbance from OHV-caused ruts and trails. In addition, 

accompanying auditory, olfactory, and visual elements would be introduced and alter some of the traditional 

use areas. Expanded access to remote areas would increase vandalism of the ACEC resource and general 

degradation of the historic and natural landscape. 

Open OHV use would subject ACEC resources to the impacts of OHV use. Limiting OHV use would reduce 

the number of roads and trails available for use, which would reduce subsequent impacts to cultural and 

paleontological resources. However, limiting OHV use to existing roads and trails in ACECs would cause 

impacts to cultural and paleontological resource values from these activities. OHV use is considered a 

surface-disturbing activity and would have the potential to cause direct and indirect impacts to cultural 

resources by altering, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a cultural or historic property in a 

manner that diminished the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, 

feeling, or association. In addition, these actions would have the potential to cause direct and indirect impacts 

to cultural or paleontological resources by altering, directly or indirectly, the characteristics of a resource in a 

manner that diminished the scientific integrity or context of the resource. 

Indirect impacts of OHV use would include the use of OHVs to access, and then loot or destroy archeological 

sites and paleontological localities. This form of destruction would include artifact collecting and souvenir 

hunting of archeological material but also hobby collecting of invertebrate remains (although this activity would 

be allowable in small quantities) and illicit removal of significant vertebrate remains for paleontological 

materials. Both activities would be considered vandalism, intentional, and illegal. 

Quick and easy access to cultural locations would result in increased illicit collection, rutting, and erosion of 

many of these sites that were previously inaccessible except by foot or horse. The level of visitation would 

influence access to certain areas and the incidence of vandalism and illicit collection. OHV use by vandals 

would allow quick, often-undetected collection of the information or object. Additionally, artifacts and fossil 

remains too heavy to transport by foot could be transported by OHV and for much longer distances. In the past, 

these previously inaccessible areas, which were often sought for their remoteness, solitude, and pristine 

qualities, have been directly affected by the introduction of motorized sounds, dust, smells, and user-created 

roads and trails. Greater visitor use in some areas has led to the increase of vandalism, illicit collection, littering, 

and disturbance to cultural or paleontological sites. Vandalism has increased in previously inaccessible areas, 

because many visitors now use OHVs, which are capable of reaching these formerly isolated areas. 

Expanded access and increased visitation would also potentially impede some traditional cultural uses by tribes. 

While cultural or paleontological properties situated along designated trails and road corridors would potentially 

be signed, monitored, patrolled, and protected, the impacts outside of these areas would be largely uncontrolled 

and the extent of impacts unknown. Prohibiting or limiting motorized wheeled cross-country travel under this 

alternative would potentially protect sites and localities from vandalism in areas in which OHVs would be used 

for access. If road and trail restrictions left substantial, contiguous portions of public lands isolated from 

motorized travel, vandalism should diminish, because accessibility is one of the major factors in the rate of 

vandalism. Reducing accessibility would restore some areas and landscapes to their former remoteness and 

protect the natural solitude, isolation, and quiet necessary for the continuation of traditional cultural practices. 

Partial closures or timing restrictions for livestock grazing in the Piping Plover ACEC would reduce impacts 

to overall wildlife habitat conditions and impacts such as overutilization and decreased species diversity. 

Potential impacts from livestock grazing in the Piping Plover and Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction ACEC 

would include the following: 

 competition for forage, water, and space; 

 habitat alteration through changes in plant composition resulting from livestock grazing; 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

4-381

 streambank degradation caused by compression, sloughing, and vegetation removal, which would 

result in erosion, changes in water quality, loss of riparian vegetation, and general degradation of 

riparian habitats; 

 stimulate growth of some plant species and increase succulent vegetation; 

 overgrazing, which would decrease standing herbaceous vegetation important habitat for most wildlife, 

particularly ground-nesting birds; 

 impacts from livestock fences, which would create travel barriers and result in injury and death from 

entanglements, alter big game distribution, and create perches for predators; but also improve habitat 

and water quality associated with streams; 

 expanded spatial and temporal ranges for big game and livestock; and 

 impacts caused by water developments, which would expand spatial and temporal ranges for big game 

and livestock and potentially result in increased competition between big game and livestock and an 

unacceptable level of vegetation utilization, but also potentially provide the habitat component needed 

to increase wildlife densities (when livestock were absent and not in conflict with wildlife in the area). 

Impacts of vegetation and fuel treatments in the Piping Plover and Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction 

ACECs would vary by the habitat needs of species. Fuel treatments would result in either more open forested 

conditions, which would improve the habitat for species selecting those types of habitats (such as wild 

turkeys), or decreased encroachment of juniper and pine species, which would improve habitats for sagegrouse and other sagebrush-dependent species. Although these actions would improve habitat for some 

species, particularly those that select more early seral or open forest habitats, they would degrade habitats for 

others, particularly those that prefer denser and more structurally diverse habitats. Alteration of the vegetative 

communities would impact wildlife habitats, including special status species habitats such as sage-grouse 

habitat. Vegetation treatments (e.g., mechanical treatments) that altered vegetative species composition or 

stand structure for specific resource objectives, including those used to meet Rangeland Health Standards, 

would alter wildlife habitats immediately. Acreage of forest with dense multi-story cover would be reduced, 

which would decrease available habitat for species selecting those types of habitats and decrease thermal 

cover for numerous wildlife species, including big game. Short-term impacts from any kind of vegetation 

treatment would temporarily displace wildlife. Habitats would be considerably changed immediately after 

treatments and then gradually evolve over time. These treatments would potentially return wildlife habitats to 

a condition closer to historical composition or a desired condition in the long-term. Impacts would depend 

largely on species, habitat conditions before and after treatments, the type of treatment, details of treatment 

implementation, adjacent habitat types, and long-term management of each area after treatments. 

Habitat improvements in the Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction ACEC would improve wildlife habitat 

conditions. 

BACK COUNTRY BYWAYS 

ASSUMPTIONS 

The assumptions regarding the future management of special designations are described below. 

Uses and activities occurring outside special designation allocations could influence byways, although such 

influences would generally be indirect. 

Management prescribed for back country byways would provide opportunities for motor touring while 

enhancing the understanding of the multiple uses of public lands. No additional back country byways would be 

designated over the life of the plan. 

All guidelines for the maintenance of the Byway’s characteristics, as identified in this document, would be 

followed to the extent allowed by existing budget and available personnel. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, Back Country Byways 

4-382

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Recognized visual values would be potentially diminished (short term), degraded or lost entirely over the long 

term by certain actions and outcomes associated with fire and fuels management. Fires would remove 

vegetation, which would impact the scenery, naturalness, and ecosystem integrity of an area. Such impacts, 

however, would not vary substantially by alternative. 

Using the visual contrast rating system during project-level planning and compliance with VRM objectives 

would improve the visual integrity of the current Big Sky Backcountry Byway. 

The existing byway’s recreation opportunities, benefits, and experiences would be enhanced by the quality 

recreation opportunities offered by management prioritization. 

Opportunities for renewable energy development, if developed, would potentially detract from or impair the 

scenic, natural, recreational, visual, and cultural opportunities represented in the existing byway. 

Any approved ROWs, communication sites, or solar and wind energy projects developed within the existing 

Big Sky Backcountry Byway would potentially impact the scenic, natural, and recreational opportunities along 

this byway. Currently, except for the highway itself, the surrounding Eastern Montana landscape is natural with 

uninterrupted vistas. 

Existing and maintaining current ACECs, as well as any new proposals, near the Big Sky Backcountry Byway 

would benefit naturalness and vistas on both sides of the Byway, which would create an enjoyable motor drive 

for those on the byway. 

Using interpretation to enhance visitor experience along the Byway would benefit travelers along the route by 

creating opportunities to learn and appreciate the Byway and create exploratory opportunities. 

ALTERNATIVE A 

Using the visual contrast rating system during project-level planning and compliance with VRM objectives 

would improve the visual integrity of the current Big Sky Backcountry Byway. 

Opportunities for renewable energy development, if developed, would potentially detract from or impair the 

scenic, natural, recreational, visual, and cultural opportunities represented in the existing byway. 

Any approved ROWs, communication sites, or solar and wind energy projects developed within the existing 

Big Sky Backcountry Byway would potentially impact the scenic, natural, and recreational opportunities along 

this byway. Currently, except for the highway itself, the surrounding Eastern Montana landscape is natural with 

uninterrupted vistas. 

Existing and maintaining current ACECs, as well as any new proposals, near the Big Sky Backcountry Byway 

would benefit naturalness and vistas on both sides of the Byway, which would create an enjoyable motor drive 

for those on the byway. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Using the visual contrast rating system during project-level planning and compliance with VRM objectives 

would improve the visual integrity of the current Big Sky Backcountry Byway. 

Designating the Terry OHV area a SRMA would enhance recreation opportunities along the Big Sky 

Backcountry Byway, which would enhance the recreational opportunities for those travelling along the Byway 

route. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, Back Country Byways 

4-383

Opportunities for renewable energy development, if developed, would potentially detract from or impair the 

scenic, natural, recreational, visual, and cultural opportunities represented in the existing byway. 

Any approved ROWs, communication sites, or solar and wind energy projects developed within the existing 

Big Sky Backcountry Byway would potentially impact the scenic, natural, and recreational opportunities along 

this byway. Currently, except for the highway itself, the surrounding Eastern Montana landscape is natural with 

uninterrupted vistas. 

Existing and maintaining current ACECs, as well as any new proposals, near the Big Sky Backcountry Byway 

would benefit naturalness and vistas on both sides of the Byway, which would create an enjoyable motor drive 

for those on the byway. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Using the visual contrast rating system during project-level planning and compliance with VRM objectives 

would improve the visual integrity of the current Big Sky Backcountry Byway. 

Designating the Terry OHV area a SRMA would enhance recreation opportunities along the Big Sky 

Backcountry Byway, which would enhance the recreational opportunities for those travelling along the Byway 

route. 

Opportunities for renewable energy development, if developed, would potentially detract from or impair the 

scenic, natural, recreational, visual, and cultural opportunities represented in the existing byway. 

Any approved ROWs, communication sites, or solar and wind energy projects developed within the existing 

Big Sky Backcountry Byway would potentially impact the scenic, natural, and recreational opportunities along 

this byway. Currently, except for the highway itself, the surrounding Eastern Montana landscape is natural with 

uninterrupted vistas. 

Existing and maintaining current ACECs, as well as any new proposals, near the Big Sky Backcountry Byway 

would benefit naturalness and vistas on both sides of the Byway, which would create an enjoyable motor drive 

for those on the byway. 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Using the visual contrast rating system during project-level planning and compliance with VRM objectives 

would improve the visual integrity of the current Big Sky Backcountry Byway. 

Opportunities for renewable energy development, if developed, would potentially detract from or impair the 

scenic, natural, recreational, visual, and cultural opportunities represented in the existing byway. 

Any approved ROWs, communication sites, or solar and wind energy projects developed within the existing 

Big Sky Backcountry Byway would potentially impact the scenic, natural, and recreational opportunities along 

this byway. Currently, except for the highway itself, the surrounding Eastern Montana landscape is natural with 

uninterrupted vistas. 

Existing and maintaining current ACECs, as well as any new proposals, near the Big Sky Backcountry Byway 

would benefit naturalness and vistas on both sides of the Byway, which would create an enjoyable motor drive 

for those on the byway. 

ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Using the visual contrast rating system during project-level planning and compliance with VRM objectives 

would improve the visual integrity of the current Big Sky Backcountry Byway. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, Back Country Byways 

4-384

Designating the Terry OHV area a SRMA would enhance recreation opportunities along the Big Sky 

Backcountry Byway, which would enhance the recreational opportunities for those travelling along the Byway 

route. 

Opportunities for renewable energy development, if developed, would potentially detract from or impair the 

scenic, natural, recreational, visual, and cultural opportunities represented in the existing byway. 

Any approved ROWs, communication sites, or solar and wind energy projects developed within the existing 

Big Sky Backcountry Byway would potentially impact the scenic, natural, and recreational opportunities along 

this byway. Currently, except for the highway itself, the surrounding Eastern Montana landscape is natural with 

uninterrupted vistas. 

Existing and maintaining current ACECs, as well as any new proposals, near the Big Sky Backcountry Byway 

would benefit naturalness and vistas on both sides of the Byway, which would create an enjoyable motor drive 

for those on the byway. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Use of the designated Big Sky Back Country Byway route by the public would potentially result in impacts to 

landowners and residents adjacent to the route, in particular increased traffic in a fairly remote area, which 

would result in requests for assistance, particularly in times of bad weather. 

Byway users are dependent on the natural resource base and the weather for the quality experiences they 

desire. Climate creates opportunities and limitations for outdoor recreation. Higher temperatures could result 

in increased opportunities for enjoying the byway for a longer portion of the year (fall and winter) in the 

planning area. However, decreased opportunities for driving the Byway could also happen during the hottest 

part of the year from higher heat, forest fires, or reduced air quality caused by climate changes to the natural 

resource base. The extent of the potential impacts is highly dependent on the type of activity, the climate 

change that occurs, and how the recreationist adapts to the changes. 

NATIONAL TRAILS 

ASSUMPTIONS 

No additional lands within the planning area would be included in any newly designated national historic, 

scenic, or recreational trail over the life of the plan. Use of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail will 

increase as recreation use is expected to increase as well. Use of several SRMAs that fall within the Lewis and 

Clark National Historic Trail SRMA, will also increase with the continued recreation use increases in the 

planning area and surrounding communities. 

The Lewis and Clark National Historic Trails traverse the planning area following designated motorized routes. 

Public lands that border the designated routes of this trail compose a very small portion of length within the 

planning area. The public demand for and recreational use of the national historic trail is expected to increase 

over the life of the plan. 

The BLM would continue to mitigate impacts to designated national historic trails from authorized uses through 

project abandonment, redesign, or other mitigation, if necessary, in accordance with the BLM national 2012 

Programmatic Agreement among the Bureau of Land Management, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers regarding the Manner in 

which BLM will meet its Responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act and the 1998 State 

Protocol Agreement between the Montana State Director, Bureau of Land Management and the Montana State 

Historic Preservation Office regarding the manner in which the BLM will meet its responsibilities under the 

National Historic Preservation Act as provided for in the National Programmatic Agreement.
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, National Trails 

4-385

Measures that withdraw land or restrict surface development to protect resources can provide direct and indirect 

protection of historic trail and associated cultural resources from disturbance and from incompatible and 

unauthorized activities. 

Natural processes, such as erosion or weathering, will degrade the integrity of many types of historic trail and 

cultural resources over time. Human visitation, recreation, OHV use, livestock grazing, fire and non-fire 

vegetation treatments, and other activities can increase the rate of deterioration through natural processes. While 

the effect of a few incidents may be negligible, the effect of repeated actions or visits over time could intensify 

impacts. 

Uses and activities occurring outside national historic trail allocations could influence national historic trails, 

although such influences would generally be indirect. 

All guidelines for the maintenance of the national historic trail characteristics, as identified in this document 

would be followed, to the extent allowed by existing budget and available personnel. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Soils management would provide long-term, indirect protection by minimizing soil erosion, thereby preserving 

the physical remains of historic trails. 

Water quality and watershed actions, including protecting groundwater aquifers, would indirectly protect the 

historic trails from physical impacts in those areas in which they overlap with unstable areas hydrologic 

features. In addition, these management actions would preserve the integrity of the setting where it extends into 

these resource areas. Water development projects would require standard cultural resource inventory and 

mitigation measures to minimize impacts on the historic trail. 

Vegetation, Fish and Wildlife, Aquatics, and Transportation management actions would provide a systematic 

and proactive means to address direct and indirect impacts to the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail and 

impacts would be mitigated during the activity and project-level planning process. Mitigation measures would 

be implemented to reduce visual impacts that would potentially introduce intrusive elements on public lands 

along the trails and thus protect the visual qualities of BLM-administered lands along the trail. 

Disturbance and loss caused by fires would potentially decrease vegetation, which would increase the potential 

for soil erosion and result in the accelerated deterioration of the river and banks along which the Lewis and 

Clark National Historic Trail travels. 

Management actions associated with cultural resources would provide direct protection to the historic trails 

through restrictions placed on surface-disturbing and other disruptive activities. Mitigation measures would 

reduce the potential for significant effects to or near the historic trail. 

In all VRM management classes, activities would be mitigated to prevent compromising the objectives of the 

VRM class. Mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce visual impacts that would potentially 

introduce intrusive elements on public lands along the trails and subsequently protect the visual qualities of 

BLM-administered lands along the trail. 

Implementing the Standards for Rangeland Health would maintain or improve soil stability and vegetation 

cover, thereby protecting the physical integrity and setting of the historic trail. Overuse of an area by livestock 

would potentially accelerate soil erosion, leading to a loss of national historic trail integrity. Proper construction 

of range improvement projects would help to minimize impacts to the trail. Any potential impacts to the trail 

would be evaluated prior to the construction of fences, water developments, and other range improvements, and 

appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented if needed. 

Actions under minerals management that would allow development projects within the setting of the historic 

trail would be mitigated to minimize significant effects. Assessment of potential impacts would be conducted 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, National Trails 

4-386

through viewshed analysis, on-site inspection, and photo analysis. Mitigation measures would be undertaken to 

minimize the visual intrusions that dominated the landscape associated with the historic trail. 

Activities associated with minerals and oil, gas, and geothermal actions would have the potential to directly and 

indirectly impact the historic trail based on the location and amount of disturbance near the trail. Impacts would 

occur in areas in which the BLM must honor existing valid rights and leases. Use of BMPs would mitigate the 

impacts but special mitigation measures would potentially be necessary on a case-by-case basis for specific 

projects. 

The Powder River Depot SRMA, Matthews Recreation Area, Calypso SRMA, Lewis and Clark National 

Historic Trail SRMA, and Howrey Island Recreation Area would overlap portions of the Lewis and Clark 

National Historic Trail. Management of SRMAs and recreation areas would encourage recreation and 

development of facilities, which could result indirectly through the larger presence of human activity. Facility 

development would be required to inventory and mitigation measures. However, management of the SRMAs 

would also provide information and education about historic resources in the area, which would increase 

community awareness for historic resources and reduce the potential for incidental or purposeful disturbance of 

cultural resources near the trail. 

Renewable energy actions would be mitigated through BMPs. However, the possibility of large-scale projects, 

such as wind farms, that would dominate the landscape would potentially compromise the integrity of the 

setting and feeling of the historic trail. 

Impacts from Travel Management and OHV actions would potentially occur near the historic trail when illegal 

activities take place, which would affect the physical integrity and setting of the trail. 

Lands and Realty actions that resulted in development or surface disturbance projects within the setting of the 

national historic trail would be mitigated to minimize significant effects, and mitigation measures would be 

undertaken to minimize the visual intrusions that would dominate the landscape associated with the trail. 

Protections afforded to Special Designation Areas would indirectly protect the historic trail by limiting the 

potential for impacts to the trail or to the integrity of the associated setting of the trail. NSO stipulations would 

provide a high level of protection by prohibiting surface-disturbing activities. 

ALTERNATIVE A 

Potential direct and indirect impacts to national historic trails would be evaluated for soils, water, and riparian 

and wetland areas management actions on a case-by-case basis and appropriate mitigative actions implemented, 

which would reduce impacts to the trail. 

Vegetation and Fish and Wildlife, Aquatics management actions would provide a systematic and proactive 

means to address direct and indirect impacts to the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail and impacts would 

be mitigated during the activity and project-level planning process. Mitigation measures would be implemented 

to reduce visual impacts that would potentially introduce intrusive elements on public lands along the trails and 

thus protect the visual qualities of BLM-administered lands along the trail. 

Disturbance and loss caused by fires would potentially decrease vegetation, which would increase the potential 

for soil erosion and result in the accelerated deterioration of the river and banks along which the Lewis and 

Clark National Historic Trail travels. 

Management actions associated with cultural resources would provide direct protection to the historic trails 

through restrictions placed on surface-disturbing and other disruptive activities. Mitigation measures would 

reduce the potential for significant effects to or near the historic trail. 

In all VRM management classes, activities would be mitigated to prevent compromising the objectives of the 

VRM class. Mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce visual impacts that would potentially 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, National Trails 

4-387

introduce intrusive elements on public lands along the trails and subsequently protect the visual qualities of 

BLM-administered lands along the trail. 

Implementing the Standards for Rangeland Health would maintain or improve soil stability and vegetation 

cover, thereby protecting the physical integrity and setting of the historic trail. Overuse of an area by livestock 

would potentially accelerate soil erosion, leading to a loss of national historic trail integrity. Proper construction 

of range improvement projects would help to minimize impacts to the trail. Any potential impacts to the trail 

would be evaluated prior to the construction of fences, water developments, and other range improvements, and 

appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented if needed. 

Activities associated with minerals (including locatable and mineral materials) and oil, gas, and geothermal 

actions would have the potential to directly and indirectly impact the historic trail based on the location and 

amount of disturbance near the trail. Impacts would occur in areas in which the BLM must honor existing valid 

rights and leases. Use of BMPs would mitigate the impacts but special mitigation measures would potentially be 

necessary on a case-by-case basis for specific projects. 

The Powder River Depot SRMA, Matthews Recreation Area, Calypso SRMA, Lewis and Clark National 

Historic Trail SRMA, and the Howrey Island Recreation Area would overlap portions of the Lewis and Clark 

National Historic Trail. Management of SRMAs and recreation areas would encourage recreation and 

development of facilities, which could result indirectly through the larger presence of human activity. Facility 

development would be required to inventory and mitigation measures. However, management of the SRMAs 

would also provide information and education about historic resources in the area, which would increase 

community awareness for historic resources and reduce the potential for incidental or purposeful disturbance of 

cultural resources near the trail. 

Renewable energy actions would be mitigated through BMPs. However, the possibility of large-scale projects, 

such as wind farms, that would dominate the landscape would potentially compromise the integrity of the 

setting and feeling of the historic trail. 

OHV use to retrieve big game kills would be prohibited under this alternative, which would eliminate OHVrelated impacts to trails visual setting. OHV use would be limited to existing roads and trails until travel 

management planning can occur. 

Lands and Realty actions that resulted in development or surface disturbance projects within the setting of the 

national historic trail would be mitigated to minimize significant effects, and mitigation measures would be 

undertaken to minimize the visual intrusions that would dominate the landscape associated with the trail. 

Protections afforded to Special Designation Areas would indirectly protect the historic trail by limiting the 

potential for impacts to the trail or to the integrity of the associated setting of the trail. The use of BMPs to 

minimize disturbance and NSO or CSU stipulations for oil and gas leasing would minimize the disturbance to 

sensitive resources, which would protect the historic trail by minimizing the amount and size of surface 

disturbance and decreasing the potential for physical or visual impacts associated with the trail setting. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

NSO stipulations for soils, water, and riparian and wetland areas would indirectly protect the historic trail by 

limiting the potential for impacts to the trail by erosion and by limiting the integrity of the associated setting of 

the trail. Minimizing the amount of surface disturbance would decrease the potential for physical or visual 

impacts near the trail. 

Vegetation and Fish and Wildlife, Aquatics management actions would provide a systematic and proactive 

means to address direct and indirect impacts to the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail and impacts would 

be mitigated during the activity and project-level planning process. Mitigation measures would be implemented 

to reduce visual impacts that would potentially introduce intrusive elements on public lands along the trails and 

thus protect the visual qualities of BLM-administered lands along the trail. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, National Trails 

4-388

Priority treatment areas for invasive species would protect the physical integrity of the historic trail setting from 

disturbances caused by invasive species. Not allowing surface disturbance in areas in which invasive species 

infestations occur would, in the long-term, affect the visual integrity of the trail setting and result in an 

undesired viewshed. 

Disturbance and loss caused by fires would potentially decrease vegetation, which would increase the potential 

for soil erosion and result in the accelerated deterioration of the river and banks along which the Lewis and 

Clark National Historic Trail travels. 

Impacts from Cultural Resource actions under this alternative would be similar to those identified under 

Management Common to all Alternatives. However, restrictions or NSO stipulations for designated sites would 

protect the physical integrity of the trail and ensure protections from activities that would potentially 

compromise the values of the trail. 

The historic trail would be managed under the Lewis and Clark SRMA VRM management objective as a Class I 

(1,100 acres) in areas in which it overlaps with WSAs and Class II (13,000 acres) for the remainder of area. 

Structures and facilities located within VRM Class II areas on public lands would be required to blend with the 

surrounding landscape when possible, reducing the number of developments that would degrade the setting of 

the historic trail when they fall within these areas. 

Implementing the Standards for Rangeland Health would maintain or improve soil stability and vegetation 

cover, thereby protecting the physical integrity and setting of the historic trail. Overuse of an area by livestock 

would potentially accelerate soil erosion, leading to a loss of national historic trail integrity. Proper construction 

of range improvement projects would help to minimize impacts to the trail. Any potential impacts to the trail 

would be evaluated prior to the construction of fences, water developments, and other range improvements, and 

appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented if needed. 

NSO stipulations would indirectly protect the historic trail by limiting the potential for impacts to the trail and 

by limiting the integrity of the associated setting of the trail. Reducing surface disturbance, inundation, and the 

associated damage to the integrity of the historic trail and its associated setting would protect the national 

historic trails. 

The Powder River Depot, Calypso, and the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail would be designated 

SRMAs. Matthews Recreation Area and Howrey Island Recreation Area would become SRMAs and overlap 

portions of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. ROW, oil and gas leasing, and geophysical exploration 

under this alternative would reduce surface disturbing activities, which would indirectly protect the historic trail 

by limiting the potential for impacts to the trail’s surroundings and to the integrity of the associated setting. 

Minimizing surface disturbance would decrease the potential for physical or visual impacts within the trail area. 

Renewable energy actions would be mitigated through BMPs. However, the possibility of large-scale projects, 

such as wind farms, that would dominate the landscape would potentially compromise the integrity of the 

setting and feeling of the historic trail. 

OHV use to retrieve big game kills would be prohibited under this alternative, which would eliminate OHVrelated impacts to trails visual setting. OHV use would be limited to existing roads and trails until travel 

management planning can occur. 

Lands and Realty actions that resulted in development or surface disturbance projects within the setting of the 

national historic trail would be mitigated to minimize significant effects, and mitigation measures would be 

undertaken to minimize the visual intrusions that would dominate the landscape associated with the trail. 

Protections afforded to Special Designation Areas would indirectly protect the historic trail by limiting the 

potential for impacts to the trail or to the integrity of the associated setting of the trail. The use of BMPs to 

minimize disturbance and NSO or CSU stipulations for oil and gas leasing would minimize the disturbance to 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, National Trails 

4-389

sensitive resources, which would protect the historic trail by minimizing the amount and size of surface 

disturbance and decreasing the potential for physical or visual impacts associated with the trail setting. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Potential direct and indirect impacts to national historic trails would be evaluated for soils management actions 

on a case-by-case basis and appropriate mitigative actions implemented, which would reduce impacts to the 

trail. 

Water quality and watershed actions, including protecting groundwater aquifers, would indirectly protect the 

historic trails from physical impacts in those areas in which they overlap with unstable areas hydrologic 

features. In addition, these management actions would preserve the integrity of the setting where it extends into 

these resource areas. Water development projects would require standard cultural resource inventory and 

mitigation measures to minimize impacts on the historic trail. 

Vegetation and Fish and Wildlife, Aquatics management actions would provide a systematic and proactive 

means to address direct and indirect impacts to the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail and impacts would 

be mitigated during the activity and project-level planning process. Mitigation measures would be implemented 

to reduce visual impacts that would potentially introduce intrusive elements on public lands along the trails and 

thus protect the visual qualities of BLM-administered lands along the trail. 

Allowing priority treatment areas for invasive species and surface-disturbing activities such as mechanical 

treatment to occur for invasive species control would, over the long term, improve vegetation cover and soil 

stability protecting the physical integrity, which would enhance the visual integrity of the trail setting. 

Disturbance and loss caused by fires would potentially decrease vegetation, which would increase the potential 

for soil erosion and result in the accelerated deterioration of the river and banks along which the Lewis and 

Clark National Historic Trail travels. 

Impacts from Cultural Resource actions under this alternative would be similar to those identified under 

Management Common to all Alternatives. However, restrictions or NSO stipulations for designated sites would 

protect the physical integrity of the trail and ensure protections from activities that would potentially 

compromise the values of the trail. 

The historic trail would be managed under the Lewis and Clark SRMA VRM management objective as a Class I 

(1,100 acres) in areas in which it overlaps with WSAs a Class II (8,000 acres) and a Class III (4,800 acres) for 

the remainder of area. Structures and facilities located within VRM Class II areas on public lands would be 

required to blend with the surrounding landscape when possible, reducing the number of developments that 

would degrade the setting of the historic trail when they occur in these areas. When surface disturbance occurs 

within a Class III area, changes to the viewshed could be evident, which would potentially decrease the visual 

setting of the trail. 

Implementing the Standards for Rangeland Health would maintain or improve soil stability and vegetation 

cover, thereby protecting the physical integrity and setting of the historic trail. Overuse of an area by livestock 

would potentially accelerate soil erosion, leading to a loss of national historic trail integrity. Proper construction 

of range improvement projects would help to minimize impacts to the trail. Any potential impacts to the trail 

would be evaluated prior to the construction of fences, water developments, and other range improvements, and 

appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented if needed. 

Activities associated with minerals and oil, gas, and geothermal actions would have the potential to directly and 

indirectly impact the historic trail based on the location and amount of disturbance near the trail. Impacts would 

occur in areas in which the BLM must honor existing valid rights and leases. Use of BMPs would mitigate the 

impacts but special mitigation measures would potentially be necessary on a case-by-case basis for specific 

projects. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, National Trails 

4-390

The Powder River Depot, Calypso, and the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail would be designated 

SRMAs. Matthews Recreation Area and Howrey Island Recreation Area would become SRMAs and overlap 

portions of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. ROW, oil and gas leasing, and geophysical exploration 

under this alternative would reduce surface disturbing activities, which would indirectly protect the historic trail 

by limiting the potential for impacts to the trail’s surroundings and to the integrity of the associated setting. 

Minimizing surface disturbance would decrease the potential for physical or visual impacts within the trail area. 

Renewable energy actions would be mitigated through BMPs. However, the possibility of large-scale projects, 

such as wind farms, that would dominate the landscape would potentially compromise the integrity of the 

setting and feeling of the historic trail. 

OHV use, including off-road travel to retrieve big game kills, would have the potential to affect the integrity of 

the visual setting of the trail. 

Lands and Realty actions that resulted in development or surface disturbance projects within the setting of the 

national historic trail would be mitigated to minimize significant effects, and mitigation measures would be 

undertaken to minimize the visual intrusions that would dominate the landscape associated with the trail. 

Protections afforded to Special Designation Areas would indirectly protect the historic trail by limiting the 

potential for impacts to the trail or to the integrity of the associated setting of the trail. The use of BMPs to 

minimize disturbance and NSO or CSU stipulations for oil and gas leasing would minimize the disturbance to 

sensitive resources, which would protect the historic trail by minimizing the amount and size of surface 

disturbance and decreasing the potential for physical or visual impacts associated with the trail setting. 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Potential direct and indirect impacts to national historic trails would be evaluated for soils management actions 

on a case-by-case basis and appropriate mitigative actions implemented, which would reduce impacts to the 

trail. 

Water quality and watershed actions, including protecting groundwater aquifers, would indirectly protect the 

historic trails from physical impacts in those areas in which they overlap with unstable areas hydrologic 

features. In addition, these management actions would preserve the integrity of the setting where it extends into 

these resource areas. Water development projects would require standard cultural resource inventory and 

mitigation measures to minimize impacts on the historic trail. 

Vegetation and Fish and Wildlife, Aquatics management actions would provide a systematic and proactive 

means to address direct and indirect impacts to the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail and impacts would 

be mitigated during the activity and project-level planning process. Mitigation measures would be implemented 

to reduce visual impacts that would potentially introduce intrusive elements on public lands along the trails and 

thus protect the visual qualities of BLM-administered lands along the trail. 

Allowing priority treatment areas for invasive species and surface-disturbing activities such as mechanical 

treatment to occur for invasive species control would, over the long term, improve vegetation cover and soil 

stability protecting the physical integrity, which would enhance the visual integrity of the trail setting. 

Disturbance and loss caused by fires would potentially decrease vegetation, which would increase the potential 

for soil erosion and result in the accelerated deterioration of the river and banks along which the Lewis and 

Clark National Historic Trail travels. 

Management actions associated with cultural resources would provide direct protection to the historic trails 

through restrictions placed on surface-disturbing and other disruptive activities. Mitigation measures would 

reduce the potential for significant effects to or near the historic trail. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, National Trails 

4-391

The historic trail would be managed under the Lewis and Clark SRMA VRM management objective as a Class I 

(1,100 acres) in areas in which it overlaps with WSAs a Class II (8,000 acres) and a Class III (4,800 acres) for 

the remainder of area. Structures and facilities located within VRM Class II areas on public lands would be 

required to blend with the surrounding landscape when possible, reducing the number of developments that 

would degrade the setting of the historic trail when they occur in these areas. When surface disturbance occurs 

within a Class III area, changes to the viewshed could be evident, which would potentially decrease the visual 

setting of the trail. 

Implementing the Standards for Rangeland Health would maintain or improve soil stability and vegetation 

cover, thereby protecting the physical integrity and setting of the historic trail. Overuse of an area by livestock 

would potentially accelerate soil erosion, leading to a loss of national historic trail integrity. Proper construction 

of range improvement projects would help to minimize impacts to the trail. Any potential impacts to the trail 

would be evaluated prior to the construction of fences, water developments, and other range improvements, and 

appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented if needed. 

Activities associated with minerals and oil, gas, and geothermal actions would have the potential to directly and 

indirectly impact the historic trail based on the location and amount of disturbance near the trail. Impacts would 

occur in areas in which the BLM must honor existing valid rights and leases. Use of BMPs would mitigate the 

impacts but special mitigation measures would potentially be necessary on a case-by-case basis for specific 

projects. 

The Powder River Depot, Calypso, and the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail would be designated 

SRMAs. Matthews Recreation Area and Howrey Island Recreation Area would become SRMAs and overlap 

portions of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. ROW, oil and gas leasing, and geophysical exploration 

under this alternative would reduce surface disturbing activities, which would indirectly protect the historic trail 

by limiting the potential for impacts to the trail’s surroundings and to the integrity of the associated setting. 

Minimizing surface disturbance would decrease the potential for physical or visual impacts within the trail area. 

The Powder River Depot SRMA, Matthews Recreation Area, Calypso SRMA, Lewis and Clark National 

Historic Trail SRMA, and the Howrey Island Recreation Area would overlap portions of the Lewis and Clark 

National Historic Trail. Management of SRMAs and recreation areas would encourage recreation and 

development of facilities, which could result indirectly through the larger presence of human activity. Facility 

development would be required to inventory and mitigation measures. However, management of the SRMAs 

would also provide information and education about historic resources in the area, which would increase 

community awareness for historic resources and reduce the potential for incidental or purposeful disturbance of 

cultural resources near the trail. 

Renewable energy actions would be mitigated through BMPs. However, the possibility of large-scale projects, 

such as wind farms, that would dominate the landscape would potentially compromise the integrity of the 

setting and feeling of the historic trail. 

OHV use, including off-road travel to retrieve big game kills, would have the potential to affect the integrity of 

the visual setting of the trail. 

Lands and Realty actions that resulted in development or surface disturbance projects within the setting of the 

national historic trail would be mitigated to minimize significant effects, and mitigation measures would be 

undertaken to minimize the visual intrusions that would dominate the landscape associated with the trail. 

Protections afforded to Special Designation Areas would indirectly protect the historic trail by limiting the 

potential for impacts to the trail or to the integrity of the associated setting of the trail. The use of BMPs to 

minimize disturbance and NSO or CSU stipulations for oil and gas leasing would minimize the disturbance to 

sensitive resources, which would protect the historic trail by minimizing the amount and size of surface 

disturbance and decreasing the potential for physical or visual impacts associated with the trail setting. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, National Trails 

4-392

ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Potential direct and indirect impacts to national historic trails would be evaluated for soils management actions 

on a case-by-case basis and appropriate mitigative actions implemented, which would reduce impacts to the 

trail. 

Water quality and watershed actions, including protecting groundwater aquifers, would indirectly protect the 

historic trails from physical impacts in those areas in which they overlap with unstable areas hydrologic 

features. In addition, these management actions would preserve the integrity of the setting where it extends into 

these resource areas. Water development projects would require standard cultural resource inventory and 

mitigation measures to minimize impacts on the historic trail. 

Vegetation and Fish and Wildlife, Aquatics management actions would provide systematic and proactive means 

to address direct and indirect impacts to the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. Impacts would be 

mitigated during the activity and project-level planning process. Mitigation measures would be implemented to 

reduce visual impacts that would potentially introduce intrusive elements on public lands along the trails and 

thus protect the visual qualities of BLM-administered lands along the trail. 

Using Early Detection Rapid Response treatment areas for invasive species and allowing surface disturbance for 

invasive species control would, over the long term, improve vegetation cover and soil stability, which would 

protect the physical integrity and enhance the visual integrity of the trail setting. 

Disturbance and loss caused by fires would potentially decrease vegetation, which would increase the potential 

for soil erosion and result in the accelerated deterioration of the river and banks along which the Lewis and 

Clark National Historic Trail travels. 

Impacts from Cultural Resource actions under this alternative would be similar to those identified under 

Management Common to all Alternative. However, restrictions or NSO stipulations for designated sites would 

protect the physical integrity of the trail and ensure protections from activities that would potentially 

compromise the values of the trail. 

The historic trail would be managed under the Lewis and Clark SRMA VRM management objective as a Class 

II (15,000 acres). Structures and facilities located within VRM Class II areas on public lands would be required 

to blend with the surrounding landscape when possible, reducing the number of developments that would 

degrade the setting of the historic trail when they occur in these areas. 

Implementing the Standards for Rangeland Health would maintain or improve soil stability and vegetation 

cover, thereby protecting the physical integrity and setting of the historic trail. Overuse of an area by livestock 

would potentially accelerate soil erosion, leading to a loss of national historic trail integrity. Proper construction 

of range improvement projects would help to minimize impacts to the trail. Any potential impacts to the trail 

would be evaluated prior to the construction of fences, water developments, and other range improvements, and 

appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented if needed. 

Activities associated with minerals and oil, gas, and geothermal actions would have the potential to directly and 

indirectly impact the historic trail based on the location and amount of disturbance near the trail. Impacts would 

occur in areas in which the BLM must honor existing valid rights and leases. Use of BMPs would mitigate the 

impacts but special mitigation measures would potentially be necessary on a case-by-case basis for specific 

projects. 

The Powder River Depot, Calypso, and Lewis and Clark National would remain SRMAs. Matthews Recreation 

Area and Howrey Island Recreation Area would become SRMAs and overlap portions of the Lewis and Clark 

National Historic Trail. Management of SRMAs and recreation areas would place additional restrictions on 

surface-disturbing activities, which would indirectly protect the historic trail, by limiting the potential for 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, National Trails 

4-393

impacts to the trail’s surroundings and to the integrity of the associated setting. Minimizing surface disturbance 

would decrease the potential for physical or visual impacts within the trail area. 

Renewable energy actions would be mitigated through BMPs. However, the possibility of large-scale projects, 

such as wind farms, that would dominate the landscape would potentially compromise the integrity of the 

setting and feeling of the historic trail. 

OHV use to retrieve big game kills would be prohibited under this alternative, which would eliminate OHVrelated impacts to trails visual setting. OHV use would be limited to existing roads and trails until travel 

management planning can occur. 

Lands and Realty actions that resulted in development or surface disturbance projects within the setting of the 

national historic trail would be mitigated to minimize significant effects, and mitigation measures would be 

undertaken to minimize the visual intrusions that would dominate the landscape associated with the trail. 

Protections afforded to Special Designation Areas would indirectly protect the historic trail by limiting the 

potential for impacts to the trail or to the integrity of the associated setting of the trail. The use of BMPs to 

minimize disturbance and NSO or CSU stipulations for oil and gas leasing would minimize the disturbance to 

sensitive resources, which would protect the historic trail by minimizing the amount and size of surface 

disturbance and decreasing the potential for physical or visual impacts associated with the trail setting. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

In general, resource management decisions or actions on state, private, and other federal lands have the 

potential to affect designated national historic trails in the planning area, particularly since segments of national 

historic trails in the planning area are designated primarily across private lands and potential cumulative 

impacts are difficult to estimate. 

Users of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail, which follows the Yellowstone and Missouri rivers in 

the MCFO, are dependent on the natural resource base and the weather for quality experiences sought by the 

recreationist. 

Byway users are dependent on the natural resource base and the weather for the quality experiences they 

desire. Climate creates opportunities and limitations for outdoor recreation. Higher temperatures could result 

in increased opportunities for warm season activities for a longer portion of the year (fall and winter) for 

river- and trail-related recreation in the planning area. However, a decrease in the quantity of water and 

quality of the resource would reduce the opportunity for these same activities. Decreased opportunities for 

warm season activities could also happen during the hottest part of the year from higher heat, low water 

levels, or reduced air quality caused by climate changes to the natural resource base. If flooding occurred 

river recreation opportunities could be decreased and water level decreases could change the use occurring on 

the trail. The extent of the potential impacts is highly dependent on the type of activity, the climate change 

that occurs, and how the recreationist adapts to the changes. 

WILDERNESS 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas, allows for little flexibility in management 

decisions. Subsequently, impacts to wilderness resources would cause minimal variation among the 

alternatives. The manual prohibits surface-disturbing activities (and most disruptive activities) and sets 

management guidelines to preserve wilderness characteristics. 

Management actions that monitored or regulated livestock grazing actions would prevent degradation of 

natural qualities of the WSAs. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, Wilderness 

4-394

WSAs are managed as VRM Class I areas in accordance with BLM policy described in IM No. 2000-096 

(BLM 2000a). The management objective for VRM Class I areas is to preserve the existing character of the 

landscape. Visual impairments outside and adjacent to WSAs would be allowed if they were in conformance 

with the appropriate VRM classification of the adjoining area. Although these impairments would be visible 

to a visitor inside the WSA, they would not be considered an impact that impaired wilderness suitability 

within the WSA. 

ALTERNATIVE A 

In accordance with BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas, vegetation management 

actions and management actions that prioritized invasive species treatment areas would limit weed treatments 

in WSAs only to hand or aerial application. Without prioritized areas and adequate treatments, weeds would 

continue to expand into the WSAs, which would degrade wilderness qualities. 

Limitations for surface occupancy and use (depending on the definition) would limit recreational activity in 

areas overlapping WSA boundaries. If these management actions prohibited hiking and hunting, recreational 

use in the WSAs would be limited.

ALTERNATIVE B 

Management actions designating priority treatment areas for invasive species under this alternative would 

improve wilderness characteristics in WSAs through the improvement of wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation 

condition, and water quality. 

Temporarily restricting livestock grazing in areas that extended into WSAs would impact the natural qualities 

and solitude of the WSAs by decreasing motorized administrative use by permittees. This action would allow 

the revegetation of previously inventoried two-track vehicle routes, decrease the establishment or spread of 

invasive species, and enhance the wilderness characteristic of the WSAs by allowing the return of natural 

vegetation. 

The use of wildfire (unplanned ignitions) to meet multiple objectives would allow wildland fire to play its 

natural ecological role and maintain or improve vegetation resources in WSAs, which would maintain 

wilderness qualities (e.g., habitat productivity, species diversity, or disease or pest resistance). Prescribed fire 

projects to restore vegetation community health would maintain wilderness qualities. 

Closing livestock grazing would allow wilderness characteristics to return to their natural state. This action 

would prevent degradation of the natural qualities of the WSAs. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Management actions that designated publicly accessible areas as priority treatment areas for invasive species 

would result in invasive species treatments in WSAs. This action would reduce the risks of invasive species 

spread in WSAs and improve wilderness characteristics. 

Restricting surface-disturbing or disruptive activities would limit permitted or organized recreational 

activities in some areas. Members of guided hunts, a permitted and organized activity, would not be able to 

walk within 3.1 miles of sage-grouse leks in these areas. 

Closing livestock grazing in areas that extended into WSAs would enhance the natural qualities and solitude 

of the WSAs by decreasing motorized administrative use by permittees. This action would allow the 

revegetation of previously inventoried two-track vehicle routes, decrease the establishment or spread of weed 

species, and enhance the wilderness characteristic of the WSAs by allowing the return of natural vegetation. 

The use of wildfire (unplanned ignitions) to meet multiple objectives would allow wildland fire to play its 

natural ecological role and maintain or improve vegetation resources in WSAs, which would maintain 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, Wilderness 

4-395

wilderness qualities (e.g., habitat productivity, species diversity, or disease or pest resistance). Prescribed fire 

projects to restore vegetation community health would maintain wilderness qualities. 

Temporarily restricting livestock grazing would allow wilderness characteristics to return to their natural state 

and prevent degradation of the natural qualities of the WSAs. 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Designation of priority invasive species treatment areas under this alternative would result in weed treatments 

in the WSAs, which would help maintain wilderness qualities. However, managing weed treatments based on 

actions on adjacent private land would allow large patches of weeds to remain untreated within the WSAs and 

potentially degrade wilderness qualities. 

If restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, occupancy, or disruptive activities under this alternative 

prohibited hiking and hunting, recreational use would be limited in the WSA; subsequently, permitted or 

organized recreational activities would not be allowed within 2 miles of sage-grouse leks. 

The use of wildfire (unplanned ignitions) to meet multiple objectives would allow wildland fire to play its 

natural ecological role and maintain or improve vegetation resources in WSAs, which would maintain 

wilderness qualities (e.g., habitat productivity, species diversity, or disease or pest resistance). Prescribed fire 

projects to restore vegetation community health would maintain wilderness qualities. 

Temporarily restricting livestock grazing would allow wilderness characteristics to return to their natural state 

and prevent degradation of the natural qualities of the WSAs. 

ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Management actions that designated publicly accessible areas as priority treatment areas for invasive species 

would result in invasive species treatments in WSAs. This action would reduce the risk of invasive species 

spread in WSAs and improve wilderness characteristics. 

Restricting surface-disturbing or disruptive activities would limit permitted or organized recreational 

activities in some areas. Guided hunts, a permitted and organized activity, could be affected within 2 miles of 

sage-grouse leks in these areas. 

The use of wildfire (unplanned ignitions) to meet multiple objectives would allow wildland fire to play its 

natural ecological role and maintain or improve vegetation resources in WSAs, which would maintain 

wilderness qualities (e.g., habitat productivity, species diversity, or disease or pest resistance). Prescribed fire 

projects to restore vegetation community health would maintain wilderness qualities. 

Temporarily restricting livestock grazing would allow wilderness characteristics to return to their natural state 

and prevent degradation of the natural qualities of the WSAs. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Section 603 of FLPMA required the Secretary of the Interior to review all areas of the public lands, determine 

which contain wilderness characteristics, and report the findings to the President by October of 1991. 

Recommendations were developed as a result of a 15-year wilderness study process by the BLM. Minimum 

standards for the evaluation were set by Congress in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964. The wilderness 

studies considered each area’s resource values, present and projected future uses of the areas, public input, 

results of mineral surveys, manageability of the areas as wilderness, and the environmental consequences of 

designating or not designating the areas as wilderness. In addition, each WSA was further evaluated to compare 

the area’s overall wilderness qualities with their multiple use value for other purposes, such as mining or 

grazing. Prior to FLPMA, these areas were used for grazing, minimal off-road use, and dispersed recreational 

use. Wildfires occurred on a more natural basis; invasive species were not an imminent threat; reservoirs were 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Special Designation Areas, Wilderness 

4-396

present; and ranches, cropland, and county roads existed nearby. Pre-FLPMA oil and gas leases do occur within 

the WSAs. 

Alternative A 

WSAs are managed under BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas. CBNG activity and 

development next to the Buffalo Creek WSA would impact the wilderness character and viewsheds of the 

WSAs. Even if development occurred within Class IV VRM areas, wind farm development would impact WSA 

viewsheds if the developments were visible from inside WSAs and dominant enough to dissuade future visitors. 

Other activities on federal, state, or private lands would be unlikely to impact WSAs. 

Fuels management would improve vegetative resources in WSAs. Continued use of roads not administered 

under the original WSA inventory would impact the natural qualities of the WSAs by contributing to 

proliferation of unauthorized routes that impaired wilderness suitability. 

Alternative B 

Oil and gas development of nearby nonfederal lands not subject to federal regulations would cause impacts 

under this alternative. Most activities, other than oil and gas, CBNG, or wind power, would have a negligible 

impact on WSAs under this alternative. 

Alternative C 

With the exception of oil and gas and wind energy, most activities would have a negligible impact on WSAs 

under Alternative C. Cumulative impacts would include degradation of visual resources, soils, watershed 

resources, and vegetation caused by development activities outside WSAs. BLM restrictions on surface 

disturbance, VRM mitigation, preferred routes for ROWs, and CSU stipulations for oil and gas leasing and 

development would likely reduce impacts; however, activities on state and private lands that might not be 

subject to restrictions would potentially compromise viewsheds, air quality, opportunities for solitude, and the 

primitive qualities of the area. Impacts from activities occurring on these lands would depend on the location 

and the level of activity. 

Alternative D 

Oil and gas development adjacent to WSAs would impact the wilderness character and viewsheds of WSAs 

under Alternative D. Visitor views in WSAs would potentially be affected by development on nearby 

nonfederal lands not subject to federal regulations that required mitigation of landscape-altering activities. 

Potential wind farms in close proximity to WSAs would impact the viewsheds and view of the casual observer. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Some activities would have a negligible impact on WSAs under Alternative E. Cumulative impacts would 

include degradation of visual resources, soils, watershed resources, and vegetation caused by development 

activities directly outside of WSAs. BLM restrictions on surface disturbance, VRM mitigation, preferred routes 

for ROWs, NSO and CSU stipulations for oil and gas leasing and development would likely reduce possible 

impacts; however, activities on state and private lands that might not be subject to restrictions would potentially 

compromise viewsheds, air quality, opportunities for solitude, and the primitive qualities of the area. Impacts 

from these lands would depend on the location of the land and the level of activity. Oil and gas development 

adjacent to WSAs would impact the wilderness character and viewsheds of WSAs under Alternative E. Visitor 

views in WSAs would potentially be affected by development on nearby nonfederal lands not subject to federal 

regulations that required mitigation of landscape-altering activities. Potential wind farms in close proximity to 

WSAs would impact the viewsheds and view of the casual observer. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Social Conditions 

4-397

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC 

SOCIAL CONDITIONS 

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 

For the social effects analysis, information from scoping and other planning documents and discussions with 

people knowledgeable about the study area was used to develop a list of potentially affected groups and 

individuals, the concerns of these groups, and potential effects to these groups. 

In most cases, the social effects are described in terms of effects to quality of life, which can be caused by 

changes in resource availability and use. These effects could include changes in the amount and quality of 

available resources, such as recreation opportunities or oil and gas resource development opportunities, and the 

resolution or creation of problems related to these activities. Other beliefs that could impact quality of life 

would include an individual’s preservation of a sense of control over decisions that affected their future and a 

feeling that the government strived to act in ways that considered all stakeholders’ needs. 

The groupings in this section are made to facilitate the discussion of social effects. It should be noted that these 

groupings generalize the members’ actual beliefs and values. For instance, some ranchers engage in recreation 

and are particularly concerned about resource protection. Recreationists may engage in both motorized and nonmotorized activities. Some individuals are concerned with resource development and resource protection. The 

social analysis will include the groups and individuals most likely to be affected by this RMP. 

The average age of the national and local populations would continue to increase. The Economic, Cultural 

Resources, Livestock Grazing, Recreation, Transportation, and VRM assumptions and effects sections include 

information that may be of interest to those readers interested in Social effects. 

The BLM, as a governmental agency, would maintain a special government to government relationship with the 

federally recognized American Indian Tribes whose members exercise their hunting, fishing, and gathering 

rights on federal lands outside the boundaries of their reservation, including BLM-administered lands within the 

planning area. These pursuits include fishing for resident game fish species, hunting large and small game, and 

gathering natural resources for subsistence and medicinal purposes. It is expected that over the life of the plan, 

the demand from American Indians to exercise their treaty rights on public lands will continue and potentially 

increase. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Individuals with disabilities could request a permit to travel off designated routes to retrieve game consistent 

with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 720 et seq.). Such access would be addressed on a case-bycase basis by the appropriate manager in consideration of land use plans and habitat concerns. Individuals 

with disabilities would have off-route opportunities that are not granted to the general public, which would 

potentially maintain or enhance their quality of life. 

Access would be pursued if occasions to enhance opportunities for recreation became available, which would 

potentially enhance the quality of life for some recreationists. 

VRM actions would maintain the overall integrity of the scenic qualities while allowing for development for 

existing and future uses, which would potentially enhance the quality of life for recreationists and local 

populations. 

Travel plans for high priority areas would address problems and impacts of resource use, which would 

enhance the quality of life for OHV users and non-OHV users. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Social Conditions 

4-398

Permittees or lessees would be allowed to drive off-road or on closed roads to administer their lease or 

permit, which would potentially be perceived as unfair to recreationists who are not allowed to drive off-road 

or on closed roads. 

Under any alternative, extreme fire behavior would potentially result in smoke causing eye, throat or lung 

irritation, injury, loss of property or reduced recreation potential. Any of these effects would potentially cause 

a temporary decline in the quality of life for affected populations. 

Should oil and gas leasing and subsequent development occur, impacts to people living near or using the area in 

the vicinity of the lease would potentially occur. Oil and gas exploration, drilling, or production, would 

potentially inconvenience these people through increased traffic and traffic delays, noise, and visual impacts. 

These impacts would be particularly noticeable in rural areas in which oil and gas development has not occurred 

previously. The level of inconvenience would depend on the activity affected, traffic patterns within the area, 

noise levels, the length of time and season in which these activities occurred, and other factors. Creation of new 

access roads would potentially allow increased public access and exposure of private property to vandalism. For 

leases in which the surface is privately owned and the mineral estate is federally owned, surface owner 

agreements, standard lease stipulations, and BMPs would potentially address many of the concerns of private 

surface owners. 

Under all of the alternatives, BLM-administered lands in the planning area would potentially be used in land 

exchanges to acquire lands in other parts of the Montana or Dakotas, outside of the historical culture areas of 

American Indian Tribes. The net effect of such land tenure adjustments could be to limit or reduce the areas 

within which tribal treaty rights could be exercised. 

No alternative would affect the major social trends or social organization in the local communities of the 

planning area.

ALTERNATIVE A 

The forage available for livestock grazing would remain the same as is currently available. The absence of 

temporal grazing restrictions would allow greater flexibility for managing range allotments by the 

leaseholders. Under this alternative, there would be no RCAs to allow for flexibility. However, many 

permittees do not favor these allotments. This alternative would maintain or enhance the quality of life for 

livestock permittees. 

Groups and individuals who give a high priority to resource use would support this alternative because 

management actions would allow livestock grazing, coal exploration, and oil and gas development to 

continue as in the past. Overall, employment and income related to BLM activities would increase by 

approximately 45 percent from current levels, which would potentially lead to population increases 

(depending on the proportion of local hires, housing availability, and other factors). However, the 45-percent 

increase in BLM-related employment would equal only about 1.3 percent of total employment in the planning 

area. BLM program revenues and payments to counties would increase by about 5 percent under this 

alternative and would be most important to the smaller counties and communities. Those who give a high 

priority to resource use include many local residents concerned about economic development and its 

potentially positive effects on the social environment and quality of life of small communities. 

Because the long-term decline in wildlife habitat would continue under this alternative, groups and 

individuals who give a high priority to resource protection would feel that the prairie ecosystem, including 

greater sage-grouse habitat, and other related resources would not be given enough protection. This would 

potentially result in a decline in the quality of life for these groups and individuals. American Indians who 

indicated concern for resources on public lands may also feel these resources would not be protected enough 

under this alternative. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Social Conditions 

4-399

Recreation management would continue as it has in the past. OHV enthusiasts would continue to use the 

Glendive and Terry OHV areas. Opportunities to retrieve game off road would not be allowed under this 

alternative, which would limit hunting opportunities as the population aged. This alternative would not meet 

the needs of some groups and individuals that indicated that motorized travel should be limited to provide 

more primate, quiet recreation experiences. Effects from surface disturbance under this alternative would 

have the greatest impact to recreational settings. Conflict between outfitters and hunters would continue under 

this alternative. 

Under this alternative, OHV activities could continue to cause noise, visual intrusions, and smells that made it 

difficult for American Indians to engage in their traditional religious practices. Mining, oil and gas 

development, and other activities would potentially occur in the vicinity of cultural and sacred site areas used 

for traditional practices. The visual and auditory disruptions from all these activities would potentially 

interfere with the ability of American Indians to practice their traditional religious activities in an 

unencumbered way, which would potentially negatively affect the quality of life of those who engaged in 

these practices. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Under this alternative, approximately 44,000 AUMs of livestock grazing would be lost, which could cause 

problems for ranchers dependent on the lands removed from grazing. In addition, increased costs for range 

improvements would be incurred. RCAs would be designated to allow for greater flexibility for some 

permittees; however, many permittees do not favor these allotments. Overall this alternative would result in a 

decline in income and quality of life for affected livestock permittees. 

Groups and individuals who give a high priority to resource use would not support this alternative because it 

would limit livestock grazing, coal exploration, oil and gas development, wood product sales, and other 

activities. Overall, employment and income related to BLM activities would increase by approximately 2 

percent from current levels. BLM program revenues and payments to counties would decline by about 2 

percent compared to current levels, and impacts would be most important to the smaller counties and 

communities. Those who give a high priority to resource use include many local residents concerned about 

economic development and the potentially negative effects to the social environment and quality of life of 

small communities if economic activities stagnated or declined. 

Under this alternative, resources such as prairie ecosystems, including greater sage-grouse habitat, would see 

long-term improvement. Groups and individuals who give a high priority to resource protection would feel 

that wildlife habitat and other related resources would be given enough protection, which would increase the 

quality of life for these groups and individuals. American Indians who indicated concern for resources on 

public lands would also feel that this alternative met their needs 

OHV use enthusiasts would continue to use the Glendive and Terry OHV areas but much more of the land 

would be closed to off-highway use under this alternative. Opportunities to retrieve game off road would not 

be allowed under this alternative, which would become a problem as the population of the planning area aged. 

This alternative would meet the needs of groups and individuals who indicate that motorized travel should be 

limited. Conflict between outfitters and hunters would diminish under this alternative and opportunities for 

outfitting and guiding would also be greatly reduced. 

Under this alternative, OHV activities, mining, and oil and gas activities would decline, which would reduce 

the likelihood that the visual and auditory disruptions of these activities would occur in the vicinity of cultural 

and sacred site areas used for traditional practices. These impacts would also reduce the likelihood that these 

activities would interfere with the ability of American Indians to practice their traditional religious activities 

in an unencumbered way, which would potentially improve the quality of life of those who engaged in these 

practices. However, decreased accessibility could potentially make it more difficult for aging American 

Indians to access areas for traditional practices. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Social Conditions 

4-400

ALTERNATIVE C 

Under this alternative, 1,300 AUMs would be eliminated, which is a very small proportion of the AUMs 

currently authorized (less than 1 percent). Limiting the use of RCAs to lessees residing in the county in which 

the RCA is located, may make these allotments more acceptable to permittees who operating adjacent to 

them. This alternative would be effective for invasive species control because the BLM would be able to 

respond to changing conditions. This alternative would maintain or enhance the quality of life for affected 

livestock permittees. 

Groups and individuals who give a high priority to resource use would support this alternative because 

management actions would allow livestock grazing, coal exploration, oil and gas development, OHV use, and 

wood product sales. Overall, employment and income related to BLM activities would increase by 

approximately 34 percent, which would potentially lead to population increases (depending on the proportion 

of local hires, housing availability, and other factors). However, the increase in BLM-related employment 

would equal less than 1 percent of total employment in the planning area. BLM program revenues and 

payments to counties would increase by about 4 percent under this alternative, and impacts would be most 

important to the smaller counties and communities. Those who give a high priority to resource use include 

many local residents concerned about economic development and its potentially positive effects to the social 

environment and quality of life of small communities. 

Groups and individuals who give a high priority to protection of resources such as prairie ecosystems, 

including greater sage-grouse habitat, may feel that these resources would be adequately protected, which 

would potentially enhance their quality of life. American Indians who indicated concern for resources on 

public lands may also feel that this alternative meets their needs. 

Under this alternative, OHV enthusiasts would be allowed to continue to use the Glendive and Terry OHV 

areas but parts of these areas would be closed to OHV use. Although opportunities to retrieve game off road 

would be allowed for people with a permit to hunt from their vehicle, this activity would not be expected to 

occur often. 

This alternative would meet the needs of groups and individuals who feel that motorized travel should be 

limited. Although conflict between outfitters and hunters would diminish under this alternative, opportunities 

for outfitting and guiding would also be reduced. 

Under this alternative, OHV activities would be limited; subsequently, the visual and auditory disruptions of 

these activities would be less likely to occur in the vicinity of cultural and sacred site areas used for 

traditional practices. These impacts would also reduce the likelihood that these activities would interfere with 

the ability of American Indians to practice their traditional religious activities in an unencumbered way, 

which would potentially improve the quality of life of those who engaged in these practices. However, 

decreased accessibility would potentially make it more difficult for aging American Indians to access areas 

for traditional practices. 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Under this alternative, approximately 500 AUMs would be eliminated, which is a very small proportion of 

the AUMs currently authorized (less than 1 percent). Although there would be no RCAs to allow for 

flexibility, many permittees do not favor these allotments for a variety of reasons. Overall, this alternative 

would maintain or enhance the quality of life for livestock permittees. 

Groups and individuals who give a high priority to resource use would support this alternative because 

management actions would allow high levels of livestock grazing, coal exploration, oil and gas development, 

and other activities. Overall, employment and income related to BLM activities would increase by 

approximately 38 percent, which would potentially lead to population increases (depending on the proportion 

of local hires, housing availability, and other factors). However, this increase in BLM-related employment 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Social Conditions 

4-401

would equal only about 1 percent of total employment in the planning area. BLM program revenues and 

payments to counties would increase by about 4 percent under this alternative, and impacts would be most 

important to the smaller counties and communities. Those who give a high priority to resource use include 

many local residents who are concerned about economic development and its potentially positive effects on 

the social environment and quality of life of small communities. 

Groups and individuals who give a high priority to protection of resources such as prairie ecosystems, 

including greater sage-grouse habitat, would feel that wildlife habitat and other related resources would not be 

given enough protection under this alternative. These actions would potentially result in a decline in the 

quality of life for these groups and individuals. American Indians who indicated concern for resources on 

public lands may also feel that these resources are not protected enough under this alternative. 

OHV enthusiasts would continue to use the Glendive and Terry OHV areas and sensitive land in these areas 

would not be closed to OHV use. Alternative D is the only alternative in which opportunities to retrieve game 

off road would be allowed for all hunters, which would potentially create conflict and resource damage. 

However, it would potentially also provide desired hunting opportunities as the population aged. This 

alternative would not meet the needs of some groups and individuals who indicate that motorized travel 

should be limited to provide primitive, quiet recreation experiences. Surface disturbance allowed under this 

alternative would add to these concerns. 

Under this alternative, OHV activities would potentially continue to cause noise, visual intrusions, and smells 

that made it difficult for American Indians to engage in their traditional religious practices. Mining, oil and 

gas development, and other activities would potentially occur in the vicinity of cultural and sacred site areas 

used for traditional practices. The visual and auditory disruptions from all these activities would potentially 

interfere with the ability of American Indians to practice their traditional religious activities in an 

unencumbered way, which would potentially negatively affect the quality of life of those who engaged in 

these practices. 

ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Under this alternative, 2,000 AUMs would be eliminated, which is a very small proportion of the AUMs 

currently authorized (less than 1 percent). RCAs would be designated to allow for greater flexibility for some 

permittees; however, many permittees do not favor these allotments. This alternative would be effective for 

invasive species control because the BLM would be able to respond to changing conditions. This alternative 

would maintain or enhance the quality of life for affected livestock permittees. 

Although they may be concerned about oil and gas restrictions, groups and individuals who give a high 

priority to resource use may support this alternative because management actions would allow livestock 

grazing, coal exploration, some OHV use, and wood product sales to continue. Overall, employment and 

income related to BLM activities would increase by approximately 28 percent, which would potentially lead 

to population increases (depending upon the proportion of local hires, housing availability, and other factors). 

However, the 28-percent increase in BLM-related employment would equal less than 1 percent of total 

employment in the planning area. BLM program revenues and payments to counties would increase by about 

2 percent under this alternative, and these impacts would be most important to the smaller counties and 

communities. Those who give a high priority to resource use include many local residents who are concerned 

about economic development and its potentially positive effects on the social environment and quality of life 

of small communities. 

Groups and individuals who give a high priority to the protection of resources such as prairie ecosystems, 

including greater sage-grouse habitat, may feel that these resources would be adequately protected, which 

would potentially enhance their quality of life. American Indians who indicated concern for resources on 

public lands may also feel this alternative met their needs. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Social Conditions 

4-402

Under this alternative, OHV enthusiasts could continue to use the Glendive and Terry OHV areas but parts of 

these areas would be closed to OHV use. Opportunities to retrieve game off road would not be allowed under 

this alternative, which would potentially cause a loss of hunting opportunities as the population aged. 

This alternative would meet the needs of groups and individuals who feel that motorized travel should be 

limited to provide primitive, quiet recreation experiences. Conflict between outfitters and hunters would 

diminish under this alternative, and opportunities for outfitting and guiding would also be reduced. 

Under this alternative, oil and gas development and OHV use would be limited; subsequently, the visual and 

auditory disruptions of these activities would be less likely to occur in the vicinity of cultural and sacred site 

areas used for traditional practices. These impacts would also reduce the likelihood that these activities would 

interfere with the ability of American Indians to practice their traditional religious activities in an 

unencumbered way, which would potentially improve the quality of life of those who engaged in these 

practices. However, decreased accessibility would potentially make it more difficult for aging American 

Indians to access areas for traditional practices. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Alternative A 

Groups and individuals who give a high priority to resource use, including many ranchers and other local 

residents, indicate that restrictions should not be placed on ongoing resource uses such as livestock grazing, oil 

and gas development, coal development, and other activities. This alternative would meet the needs of these 

people in continuing their current lifestyle and maintaining their quality of life. Off-road recreation 

opportunities would be mixed because off-road game retrieval would not be allowed (although the OHV open 

areas would continue), which would potentially hinder the ability of an aging population to continue hunting. 

Some groups and individuals believe current management is not adequate for the long-term preservation of 

public resources and would feel that this alternative would not offer the opportunity to address current or future 

problems in regard to prairie ecosystem management, including greater sage-grouse habitat. The quality of life 

for these people, including some American Indians, would potentially decline under this alternative. In addition, 

recreationists who desired a primitive, quiet experience may not feel this alternative would provide the 

opportunities to enhance this type of experience in the future. This alternative would potentially limit the 

opportunities for American Indians to practice their traditional religious activities in an unencumbered way. 

Alternative B 

Groups and individuals who give a high priority to resources such as prairie ecosystems, including greater sagegrouse habitat, would feel that these resources would be adequately protected and that the opportunities they 

desired would be available in the future. However, they may be concerned that some development would be 

pushed onto private land in areas in which resource protections would be less stringent. American Indians 

engaging in traditional religious practices would be better able to practice their religion in an unencumbered 

way in the future. 

Opportunities for OHV use and guided recreation opportunities would be restricted and off-road travel for game 

retrieval would not be allowed, which would limit opportunities for an aging population. Groups and 

individuals who give a high priority to resource use, including many ranchers and other local residents, would 

feel that the proposed regulations were too extreme, which would potentially add to the concern of these 

residents about increasing government control over public lands and would be of particular concern in very 

small towns highly dependent upon agriculture and which have been experiencing population declines. The 

current lifestyles of these residents would potentially be affected and their quality of life would potentially 

decline. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Social Conditions 

4-403

Alternative C 

Groups and individuals who give a high priority to the prairie ecosystem (this category would include some 

American Indians), including greater sage-grouse habitat, would feel that these resources would be adequately 

protected and that the opportunities they desired would be available in the future. Opportunities for primitive, 

quiet recreation experiences would improve under this alternative. OHV areas would be limited and off-road 

travel for game retrieval would not be allowed, which would allow American Indians to engage in traditional 

religious practices in an unencumbered way. Groups and individuals who give a high priority to resource use, 

including many ranchers and other local residents, would support this alternative, which would potentially 

enhance their current lifestyle and quality of life. 

Alternative D 

Groups and individuals who give a high priority to resource use, including many ranchers and other local 

residents, indicate that restrictions should not be placed on ongoing resource uses such as livestock grazing, oil 

and gas development, coal development, and other activities.. Off-road recreation opportunities would be 

expanded; OHV open areas would continue, and off-road game retrieval by the general public would be 

allowed. 

Some groups and individuals believe management under Alternative D would not be adequate for the long-term 

preservation of public resources and would feel that this alternative would not offer the opportunity to address 

current or future problems. Quality of life for these people, including some American Indians, would potentially 

decline under this alternative. In addition, recreationists who desired a primitive, quiet experience may not feel 

this alternative would provide this type of experience in the future. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Groups and individuals who give a high priority to the prairie ecosystem (this category would include some 

American Indians), including greater sage-grouse habitat, may feel that these resources would be adequately 

protected and that the opportunities they desired would be available in the future. Opportunities for primitive, 

quiet recreation experiences would improve under this alternative. OHV areas would be limited and off-road 

travel for game retrieval would not be allowed, which would potentially allow American Indians to engage in 

traditional religious practices in an unencumbered way. Groups and individuals who give a high priority to 

resource use, including many ranchers and other local residents, may support this alternative, although they may 

also feel there are too many restrictions on oil and gas development, which would potentially affect their current 

lifestyle and quality of life. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

No alternative considered would result in any identifiable disproportionate impacts specific to any minority or 

low-income population or community. The BLM has considered all input from persons or groups regardless 

of age, income status, race, or other social or economic characteristics. The low-income population in the 

planning area, with the exception of American Indians, does not appear to be associated with any specific 

BLM resources or activities, and the impacts to American Indians are not considered disproportionate. 

ECONOMICS 

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 

Assumptions made to facilitate the analysis of the alternative management actions set guidelines and provide 

reasonably foreseeable levels of development that would occur within the planning area over the analysis period 

(20 years). However, these assumptions should not be interpreted as constraining or redefining the management 

objectives and actions proposed for each alternative as described in Chapter 2. If discussion of a resource does 

not appear in the following sections, it is because assumptions were not made for that resource or resource use. 

See the Economics Appendix (including Table 1) for more detailed information regarding this analysis. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Economics 

4-404

The purpose of the economic analysis is to estimate and compare the relative impacts of the BLM resource 

management actions by alternative and should not be viewed as an economic prediction of jobs or income. 

Sufficient funding and personnel would be available for implementation of any alternative. 

Implementation of all alternatives would comply with all valid existing rights, federal regulations, BLM 

policies, and other requirements. 

Appropriate funding would be available to maintain the functional capability of all developments. 

The discussion of impacts is based on the best available data. Knowledge of the planning area and professional 

judgment (based on observation and analysis of conditions and responses in similar areas) were used to infer 

environmental impacts where data are limited. 

The economic analysis assesses the economic impacts of the direct use of resources in terms of jobs and 

income. This type of analysis does not include other types of economic value that may be associated with 

unique natural resources and protected areas. These types of values (often referred to as non-market values) 

include natural amenities and quality of life, non-use values, bequest values, and ecosystem services. 

Natural amenities and quality of life have been increasingly recognized as important factors in the economic 

prospects of many rural communities in the American West and elsewhere (Rudzitis and Johnson 2000). 

Subsequently, while natural amenities and quality of life do not directly generate income in the same sense as a 

ranch or a coal mine, they do act to attract and keep residents and may attract new businesses. Open spaces, 

scenery, and protected lands are important to residents of Montana and the Rocky Mountain West and may 

contribute to healthy economies and lifestyles (Rasker, Alexander, van den Noort, and Carter 2004). However, 

this relationship is difficult to quantify (as is quantitatively assessing the impact of different management 

actions on economic activities that these amenities are believed to generate indirectly). In this case, the impacts 

of the alternatives relative to Alternative A are not expected to result in measurable changes in this type of 

indirect economic activity. 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

The ecosystem valuation used was the benefit transfer method; the economic value of similar recreation uses 

from studies already completed for another location or issue were used to estimate the value of current 

recreation uses in the RMP. (Economic value is the estimated average expenditures related to recreation on 

public lands.) 

No attempt has been made to assign monetary values to the ecosystem services (e.g., benefits associated with 

watershed processes, soil stabilization and erosion control, improved air quality, climate regulation and carbon 

sequestration, and biological diversity) that would be provided because these values are difficult to quantify at 

this level of analysis. In addition to the difficulties involved in developing accurate estimates of these values, 

the impacts of project alternatives are rarely quantified in the type of units that would allow these values to be 

assigned. However, the fact that no monetary value is assigned to ecosystem services in this document does not 

reduce their importance in the decision-making process. 

Hazardous fuel treatment costs are included for the purposes of this analysis in the total BLM expenditures 

identified by alternative. Projected annual fuel treatment costs range from $306,000 in Alternatives A and D to 

$642,000 in Alternative B; $918,000 in Alternative C; and $1.2 million in Alternative E. Other potential 

wildland-fire-related costs (such as property loss, lost revenues, and increased suppression costs) are difficult to 

project and unknown. Generally, fire suppression costs and risk to life and property should be reduced on 

wildland fires occurring in areas in which hazardous fuels have been treated compared to fires occurring in 

untreated areas. For example, fires generally burn hotter, flame length is higher, and tree canopy fires are more 

likely in non-treated areas. See Table 4-139 and Table 2 in the Economics Appendix for more information 

regarding cost associated with treatments in the planning area. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Economics 

4-405

The alternatives 

contain different 

approaches to, and 

levels of, vegetation 

treatment as well as 

different approaches to 

wildland fire 

management. It is 

anticipated that fuels 

treatments on BLMadministered lands 

within the planning 

area would tend to 

reduce threats to life 

and property and 

contribute to fuels 

conditions more conducive to successful wildland fire control in the event of unplanned fires in treated areas. 

However, it is not possible to project the level of non-prescribed wildland fire that would occur under any of the 

alternatives. 

None of the alternatives would be expected to change economic diversity (the number of economic sectors), 

economic dependency (which occurs when the local economy is dominated by a limited number of industries), 

or population (less than 1 percent). While the alternatives have the potential to impact local businesses and 

individuals, the contribution of MCFO-related activities to the local economy and the relative differences 

between the alternatives would not be large enough to cause measurable impacts to economic diversity or 

dependency. This is also the case with respect to economic stability, which is typically assessed in terms of 

seasonal unemployment, sporadic population changes, and fluctuating income growth rates. MCFO-related 

activities include agriculture, oil and gas exploration and production, and recreation, all of which are 

characterized by seasonal employment. The MCFO-related contribution to the area economy accounts for an 

estimated 2.9 percent of the jobs and 4.4 percent of the labor income (Table 4-140). This section summarizes 

economic impacts (by BLM program areas) unlikely to vary substantially by alternative. Local economies for 

counties in the planning area are characterized in Chapter 3, Affected Environment. See the Economics 

Appendix for more information regarding MCFO’s contribution to the economy, including Tables 3 through 5. 

Livestock grazing on BLM-administered land in the 17-county planning area would continue to involve 

approximately the same number of operators, and less than half of the farms or ranches in the planning area 

would hold grazing permits. The amount of livestock grazing would not change among the alternatives and 

BLM-administered lands would continue to provide about 4.1 percent of the total forage needed to feed 

livestock in the planning area. Additionally, the dependency on BLM-administered forage for each county 

would remain relatively unchanged from the numbers displayed in Table 4-141. 

Livestock producers’ economic dependence on BLM-administered forage would also remain unchanged and 

this forage would continue to be a critical element of some livestock producers’ complement of grazing, forage, 

and hay production. 

Approximately 93 percent of the AUMs sold within the planning area would continue to be Section 3 permits 

(of which 12.5 percent of revenues are distributed to the state and local counties). Seven percent of the AUMs 

are Section 15 permits (of which 50 percent of revenues are distributed to state and local counties). 

Grazing management employment and income impacts are displayed under the agricultural section. The 

employment and labor income response coefficients would remain relatively unchanged; for every 1,000 head 

month change in livestock grazing on BLM-administered lands, there would be a corresponding change of 0.2 

jobs and $4,377 in labor income (see the Economics Appendix).

TABLE 4-139.

POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE FUELS TREATMENT 

AND SUPPRESSION COST COMPARISON TABLE

Alternative

A B C D E

Fuels 

Treatments 

Costs

$306,000 $642,000 $918,000 $306,000 $1.200,000

Relative 

Suppression 

Costs

Trending 

along the 

10-year 

average 

suppression 

costs

Reduced 

suppression 

costs1

Reduced 

suppression 

costs1

Trending 

along the 

10-year 

average 

suppression 

costs1

Reduced 

suppression 

costs1

1Note: Compared to Alternative A (No Action Alternative)
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Economics 

4-406

TABLE 4-140.

CURRENT ROLE OF MCFO-RELATED CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE AREA ECONOMY

Contribution Area

Industry

Employment 

(jobs)

Labor Income 

(Thousands of 2010 

dollars)

Area 

Totals

BLMRelatedArea 

Totals

BLMRelated

Agriculture 9,616 70 $146,858 $1,281

Mining 2,404 648 $186,984 $53,958

Utilities 734 7 $99.816 $971

Construction 2,276 14 $88,995 $594

Manufacturing 594 4 $24,522 $131

Wholesale trade 1,154 26 $52,483 $1,191

Transportation and warehousing 1,837 24 $122,458 $1,476

Retail trade 4,473 97 $116,715 $2,390

Information 695 9 $30,669 $355

Finance and insurance 1,669 33 $54,928 $963

Real estate, rental, and leasing 1,070 23 $17,267 $449

Professional, scientific, and tech services 1,133 30 $41,080 $1,249

Management of companies 42 3 $3,429 $256

Administration, waste management, and removal 

services 761 13 $13,678 $201

Educational services 535 3 $14,365 $73

Health care and social assistance 5,336 74 $203,811 $2,567

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 1,362 20 $20,090 $285

Accommodation and food services 3,225 106 $50,419 $1,670

Other services 3,190 46 $69,722 $938

Government 11,559 321 $562,271 $14,135

Total 53,664 1,572 1,920,561 85,132

BLM as Percentage of Total (%) --- 2.93% --- 4.43%

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service, Montana Field 

Office, compiles grazing fees paid by Montana producers for grazing livestock on privately owned, nonirrigated land. The average fee paid on an AUM basis was $18.40 per month in 2010. 

Federal coal production would remain near current levels to support continued operation of the four existing 

mines in the planning area. The annual amount of federal coal produced (25,288,000 short tons per year) and 

the royalties from this production ($41,504,000) would remain the same under all the alternatives (Table 4-142). 

The current production of oil and gas from active federal leases and federal mineral disbursements from current 

production would be expected to continue under each alternative. Current production includes 3.6 mmbo and 

9.2 million mcf (thousand cubic feet) of natural gas (Table 4-142). 

Oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development would increase as described in the MCFO RFD for fluid 

minerals (see the Minerals Appendix). By development area and ownership, this RFD predicts the total number 

of oil and gas wells that would be drilled over the next 20 years. For this analysis, the RFD well numbers were 

divided by 20 to determine an annual average number to estimate the impacts on production of the proposed 

resource management actions by alternative. The economic analysis estimates the impacts on the additional 

production and revenues from the BLM-administered wells predicted for each alternative. 

Employment and income impacts displayed in Tables 4-143 and 4-144 include the impacts of oil and gas and 

coal exploration, development, and production. Under all alternatives, minerals-related activities on BLMadministered mineral estate would also continue to be the largest contributor to local employment and income 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Economics 

4-407

of all the major BLM-administered land uses. The employment and labor income response coefficients would 

remain relatively unchanged: 

 for every 1,000 mcf of natural gas production, there would be a corresponding change of 0.01 jobs and 

$534 in labor income; 

 for every 1,000 barrels (bbl) of oil production, there would be a corresponding change of 0.2 jobs and 

$13,182 in labor income; 

 for every 1,000 short tons of coal production, there would be a corresponding change of 0.01 jobs and 

$454 in labor income. 

Silver buffaloberry in the planning area 

The public lands in the planning area offer a wide variety of 

recreational activities. The number of visits was estimated at 

135,255 for fiscal year 2009 and has been increasing 4.2 percent 

per year, from 2004 to 2009. The activities are categorized as 

fish- and wildlife-related, including hunting, fishing, and wildlife 

viewing, or general, which includes all of the other activities. 

Fish and wildlife activities account for two-thirds of the use on 

public lands and recreation use occurs at the 11 developed sites 

and on public lands throughout the planning area. (Activities that 

do not occur at the recreation sites are categorized as dispersed 

use.) Developed sites accounted for approximately 12 percent of the total recreation use, on average, from 2005 

to 2009. (The value of recreation activities and expenditure data from surveys comes from studies already 

completed for similar locations or issues; see the Economics Appendix, including Tables 6 and 7). The 

expenditure categories include day trips and overnight trips by local and non-local visitors. 

TABLE 4-141. 

ESTIMATED ANNUAL LIVESTOCK GRAZING BY ALTERNATIVE

Class of Livestock1 Current 

Management2 Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Cattle and horses 

(AUMs) 480,081 480,019 426,606 469,089 470,470 468,607

Sheep and goats

(AUMs) 20,376 20,376 15,984 19,765 19,765 20,376

Section 3 AUMs 466,202 465,367 411,609 454,634 455,919 454,754

Section 15 AUMs 34,255 35,028 30,981 34,220 34,316 34,229

Total federal 

revenues ($1,000)2 $675.6 $675.5 $597.5 $660.0 $661.8 $660.1

Total local 

revenues ($1,000)3 $101.8 $102.2 $90.3 $99.8 $100.1 $99.8

Local revenue –

Section 3 $78.7 $78.5 $69.5 $76.7 $76.9 $76.7

Local revenue –

Section 15 $23.1 $23.6 $20.9 $23.1 $23.2 $23.1

\1

1 head month (Cattle and Horses) = 0.78 AUMs. Therefore 1.28 x Total AUMs = Total head months.

1 head months (Sheep and Goats) = 0.2 AUMs. Therefore 5 x Total AUMs = Total head months.

2Grazing Fee = $1.35/AUM (2008). Total revenue = Total AUMs x $1.35.

3

(Sec. 3 AUMs x $1.35 x 0.125) + (Sec. 15 AUMs x $1.35 x 0.5) = Total Local Revenues
4-408

EconomicsENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCESCHAPTER 4

TABLE 4-142.

ESTIMATED ANNUAL CHANGE IN FEDERAL MINERAL PRODUCTION AND ACTIVITY BY ALTERNATIVE

Commodity or Activity Baseline2 Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Oil and gas average acres

Leased 20085 through 2010 35,082 35,082 2,509 31,279 31,876 22,578

Existing acres leased 886,065

Oil and gas, rents ($1,000) $1,329 $52.6 $3.8 $46.9 $47.8 $33.9

Natural gas, Total (mcf) 54,841,000 3,427,000 2,689,000 3,341,000 3,354,000 3,144,000

Natural gas, BLM production (mcf) 9,230,000 795,000 57,000 709,000 722,000 512,000

Natural gas royalties($1,000) at $3.25/mcf1$3,750 $323 $23.1 $288 $293 $208

Oil prod, Total (bbl) 29,059,000 2,060,000 1,616,000 2,008,000 2,016,000 1,889,000

Oil prod, BLM (bbl) 3,626,000 478,000 34,164 426,000 434,000 307,000

Oil royalties ($1,000) at $80.03 X/bbl1$36,272 $4,779 $342 $4,261 $4,343 $3,076

Oil/gas wells (dry holes) BLM 16 1 14 14 10

Oil/gas wells (dry holes) Total 69 54 67 67 63

Oil/gas wells (Producers) Total 3,424 251 197 245 245 230

Oil/gas wells (producers) BLM 634 58 4 52 58 37

CBNG wells

(producers)Total 918 58 45 56 56 53

CBNG wells

(producers), BLM 152 13 1 12 12 9

CBNG wells (dry

holes) Total 2 3 2 2 2

CBNG wells (dry holes) BLM 1 0 0 0 0

Coal produced (short tons), BLM 25,288,000 0 0 0 0 0

Coal produced (short tons) Total 43,100,000 0 0 0 0 0

Coal royalties ($1,000) at $9.55/ton $41,504 0 0 0 0 0

Coal rents ($1,000) $150 0 0 0 0 0

1Prices were taken from the MDNRC’s 2010 Trust Land Management Annual Report.

2Baseline includes the average fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2009 oil, gas and coal production and royalties and the fiscal year 2010 totals for wells. The federal oil and gas 

production and revenue estimates represent the average annual additions to the baseline numbers from the RFD for each alternative. Coal production and revenues are 

the same for all alternatives. New wells were estimated to produce the following quantities on average: Oil well, 15,000 (bbl) per year, gas well 20,000 (mcf) per year.
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Economics 

4-409

The employment and labor income response coefficients would remain relatively unchanged: 

 for every 1,000 day visits, there would be a corresponding change of 0.15 jobs and $3,804 in labor 

income; 

 for every 1,000 non local-overnight visits, there would be a corresponding change of 0.60 jobs and 

$14,069 in labor income; and 

 for every 1,000 local-overnight visits, there would be a corresponding change of 0.11 jobs and $3,042 

in labor income (see the Economics Appendix). 

Existing use authorizations (e.g., ROWs, permits, and lease rentals) would continue to generate an estimated 

$40,000 of revenue annually under all alternatives. 

Wind energy development is anticipated with each of the alternatives. There would be one ROW issued for a 

utility-scale (see BLM IM 2009-013) wind energy project in the planning area in the short term. The project 

would include a minimum of 25 1.5-megawatt turbines. The annual rental revenue to the federal government 

would be $4,155 per megawatt of the total installed capacity of the wind energy project on public lands. There 

is no statutory authority to share FLPMA ROW revenues with states or counties. 

TABLE 4-143.

AVERAGE ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT BY MAJOR INDUSTRY BY ALTERNATIVE

Industry Total Number of Jobs: BLM-related

Current Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Agriculture 70 77 61 75 77 75

Mining 648 1,005 663 886 921 851

Utilities 7 11 7 10 11 10

Construction 14 18 14 16 17 16

Manufacturing 4 6 4 6 6 5

Wholesale trade 26 66 29 60 61 51

Transportation and 

warehousing 24 61 27 56 56 47

Retail trade 97 137 100 126 128 121

Information 9 15 9 14 14 13

Finance and insurance 33 54 34 49 51 46

Real estate, rental, and 

leasing 23 43 24 39 40 35

Professional, scientific, and 

tech services 30 74 32 67 69 57

Management of companies 3 8 3 7 7 6

Administration, waste 

management, and removal 

services

13 23 13 21 21 19

Educational services 3 4 3 4 4 4

Health care and social 

assistance 74 108 75 97 101 94

Arts, entertainment, and 

recreation 20 27 21 25 26 25

Accommodation and food 

services 106 137 111 129 130 125

Other services 46 71 47 64 66 61

Government 321 332 316 329 330 326

Total 1,572 2,278 1,596 2,081 2,135 1,986

Percent Change from 

Current (%) --- 45.0 1.5 32.4 35.8 26.4

Source: Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 2012
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Economics 

4-410

Payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) from the federal government to the 17 counties would continue to be 

approximately $2.307 million under all alternatives. There are no specific major land tenure adjustments 

pending within the planning area. Although land tenure adjustments would potentially occur, it is not possible to 

determine how PILT and local property taxes would be affected. 

Invasive weed treatments would not change among the alternatives. Invasive vegetation species treatments 

would occur on about 2,179 acres per year and about two-thirds of these treatments would be completed 

through agreements or contracts, with the remaining weed treatments completed by BLM employees. 

The BLM-administered timber harvest would vary by alternative while the salvage sales are estimated at $7,100 

under all alternatives. Four percent of non-stewardship timber receipts are returned through the state to the 

counties of origin (Table 4-145). 

TABLE 4-144. 

ANNUAL AVERAGE LABOR INCOME BY MAJOR INDUSTRY BY ALTERNATIVE

Industry Thousands of 2010 dollars: BLM-Related

Current Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Agriculture $1,281 $1,593 $1,112 $1,530 $1,586 $1,504

Mining $53,958 $82,119 $55,106 $72,234 $75,203 $69,793

Utilities $971 $1,555 $994 $1,419 $1,453 $1,320

Construction $594 $778 $597 $686 $716 $688

Manufacturing $131 $230 $140 $213 $216 $193

Wholesale trade $1,191 $2,983 $1,309 $2,712 $2,759 $2,318

Transportation and 

warehousing $1,476 $3,705 $1,610 $3,396 $3,447 $2,882

Retail trade $2,390 $3,385 $2,460 $3,099 $3,170 $2,977

Information $355 $605 $368 $552 $564 $507

Finance and insurance $963 $1,599 $983 $1,460 $1,494 $1,345

Real estate, rental, and 

leasing $449 $976 $477 $880 $901 $774

Professional, scientific, 

and tech services $1,249 $3,155 $1,364 $2,840 $2,904 $2,434

Management of 

companies $256 $642 $280 $571 $587 $494

Administration, waste 

management, and 

removal services

$201 $361 $210 $329 $336 $299

Educational services $73 $106 $74 $96 $99 $92

Health care and social 

assistance $2,567 $3,745 $2,612 $3,384 $3,488 $3,247

Arts, entertainment, and 

recreation $285 $369 $301 $348 $350 $338

Accommodation and 

food services $1,670 $2,158 $1,757 $2,037 $2,049 $1,976

Other services $938 $1,449 $961 $1,324 $1,357 $1,243

Government $14,135 $14,650 $13,970 $14,533 $14,559 $14,382

Total $85,132 $126,164 $86,684 $113,642 $117,238 $108,807

Percent Change from 

Current (%) --- 48.2 1.8 33.5 37.7 27.8

Source: Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 2012
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Economics 

4-411

Forestry management employment and income impacts are displayed under the Agricultural section. The 

employment and labor income response coefficients would remain relatively unchanged; for every 1,000 

million cubic feet change in timber harvest on public lands, there would be a corresponding change of 27 jobs 

and $670,000 in labor income (see the Economics Appendix, including Table 8) 

TABLE 4-145.

ANNUAL TIMBER HARVEST BY ALTERNATIVE

Treatment Current 

(2007) Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Sawtimber, fuel wood, 

post/poles, and house 

logs ccf (100 cubic 

feet)

621 mbf

=

169 

acres

621 

mbf =

169 

acres

0

650 

mbf

1,100 

mbf

1,100 

mbf

Personal use permits 

(firewood and 

Christmas trees)

48 48 0 60 60 60

Timber Revenues, all 

products $30,500 $30,500 0 $32,000 $54,000 $54,000

Salvage Sales $7,100 $7,100 $7,100 $7,100 $7,100 $7,100

MCFO expenditures for BLM employee salaries ($7.2 million) and program operations ($5.9 million) would be 

the same for all alternatives. The BLM offices within the planning area would continue to employ about 161 

employees (105 permanent and 56 other than permanent). Non-salary expenditures are purchases made in 

support of resource programs and operations and include items such as contracts, gasoline, diesel, ammunition 

and explosives, animal feed, and computer equipment. BLM expenditures would support approximately 227 

jobs and $9.5 million in labor income under each alternative.

Estimated costs to local governments would also remain unchanged (demand for services and infrastructure 

would not change). 

Under all alternatives, economic diversity indicated by the number of economic sectors would remain relatively 

unchanged, although shifts in emphasis could occur. BLM resource management would impact the local 

economy’s dependence on the livestock industry, oil and gas exploration and production, coal mining, and 

recreation activities. Management actions pertaining to mineral development, mostly oil and gas development 

and payments to state and counties, would generate the most employment and labor income. Mining, 

government, and agriculture are the industrial sectors within the local economy that would be most influenced 

by BLM-administered land and mineral uses. The BLM-related employment and labor income by major 

industry are shown for each alternative in Tables 4-143 and 4-144. Additionally, the employment, income, and 

revenue impacts of BLM resource management would not be spread equally among the counties and 

communities within the planning area. 

ALTERNATIVE A 

Estimates of the employment and labor income that would occur under Alternative A are based on anticipated 

resource management actions, the resulting resource outputs, and projected BLM revenue levels. Estimated 

BLM-related average annual employment and labor income are summarized by resource program areas in 

Tables 4-143 and 4-144. 

Current management would continue to authorize approximately 500,395 AUMs annually and support 

approximately 82 jobs and $1.8 million in labor income. Livestock grazing on BLM-administered land in the 

17-county planning area would continue to involve approximately the same number of operators. The economic 

dependence of livestock producers on BLM-administered forage would also remain unchanged and BLMadministered forage would continue to comprise a critical element of some livestock producers’ complement of 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Economics 

4-412

grazing, forage, and hay production. Annual federal revenues from livestock grazing fees would continue to be 

about $675,500 annually, of which about $102,200 would be distributed to the counties. 

Oil and gas development under Alternative A would occur at the annual average rate of production as predicted 

in the MCFO RFD for fluid minerals (see the Minerals Appendix). This includes 58 producing oil and gas wells 

(32 oil wells and 26 conventional gas wells) and 13 CBNG wells per year. 

Federal oil production would increase 478,000 bbl per year, a 13.2-percent increase over the baseline 

production of 3.6 mmbo. Approximately 95 percent of the production would come from three areas: the Cedar 

Creek Anticline (Fallon and Wibaux counties), the northeast Williston Basin (Richland and Sheridan counties), 

and the PRB (Carter, Powder River, and Rosebud counties). The remainder would occur in the Poplar Dome 

area (Roosevelt County) and the Porcupine Dome area (Rosebud County).

Federal natural gas production would increase 795,000 mcf per year, an 8.6-percent increase over baseline 

production of 9.2 million mcf. Two thirds of new production would be from conventional natural gas wells. 

Approximately 80 percent would occur in the Cedar Creek Anticline (Fallon and Wibaux counties). The 

remainder would occur in the Poplar Dome area (Roosevelt County), the Porcupine Dome area (Rosebud 

County), and throughout the planning area. One third of the new production would be from CBNG wells. All of 

the CBNG production would occur in the PRB in Big Horn, Powder River, and Rosebud counties. 

Annual federal revenues associated with oil and gas production would increase at the same rates as production 

on federal minerals (Table 4-146). The increase in oil royalties would be approximately 13.2 percent ($4.8 

million) per year, from the current estimated levels of $36.3 million. The increase in natural gas royalties would 

be 8.6 percent ($323,000) per year, from current estimated levels of $3.8 million. Federal oil and gas leasing 

activity would continue at the same rate as the preceding 5 years (35,082 acres per year). The total rents and 

bonuses would be $2.67 million. 

The additional mineral revenues distributed to the state would be approximately $2.5 million, of which onefourth is shared with the counties ($620,000). This is an approximately 6-percent increase over the baseline and 

a 7-percent increase over the average of $8.92 million distributed to the counties from 2006 to 2010. 

It is estimated that coal, oil, and gas exploration, development, and production on federal minerals would 

support about 1,673 local jobs and an estimated $105.1 million in local labor income. Total annual federal 

revenues from mineral leasing, production, and sales would be an estimated $90.8 million. 

Recreation use would continue to increase at the annual average rate from 2004 to 2009 (4.2 percent) to 140,909 

visits. Recreation activities would support approximately 93 jobs and $2.2 million in labor income (Table 4-

147). The net expenditures for recreation opportunities would represent an estimated $9.2 million annually. 

Revenues from recreation use permits, campground receipts, and outfitter and guide receipts would be 

approximately $41,875 per year for Alternative A (see the Economics Appendix). 

Annual timber harvest performed by private businesses would continue to produce about 621 mbf of sawtimber. 

About 48 personal use permits (including Christmas tree permits and firewood permits) would be issued 

annually. Annual revenues from timber product sales and permits would be an estimated $16,000. Four percent 

of non-stewardship timber receipts are returned through the state to the counties of origin. Timber management 

would continue to support approximately 3 jobs and $74,000 in total labor income in the local economy. 

Overall, the estimated total (direct, indirect, and induced) number of local jobs and associated local labor 

income contributed by BLM-administered land and resource management under Alternative A would be about 

2,278 jobs and $126 million. These figures would reflect increases of 45 percent and 48.2 percent over current 

levels. The largest employment and labor income impacts would occur in the mining and government industry 

sectors. All program revenues to the federal government would be $91.7 million, a 6.2-percent increase from 

current management. Annual payments to the counties would be approximately $13.3 million and most of this 

would be related to oil and gas production and PILT payments (Table 4-148). The demographic and economic 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Economics 

4-413

trends described in Chapter 3 to provide context for impacts would be expected to continue. See the Economics 

Appendix for more information per alternative regarding recreation, livestock grazing, costs of ecosystem 

restoration, and BLM employment and expenditures (Tables 1 through 8). 

TABLE 4-146.

ESTIMATED ANNUAL FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REVENUES BY 

ALTERNATIVE

Resource Use Current1,3 Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Federal

Oil and gas leasing: bonus $2,615 $2,615 $187 $2,332 $2,376 $1,683

Oil and gas leasing: rents21,329 1,382 1,333 1,376 1,377 1,363

Oil royalties236,272 41,054 36,614 40,534 40,615 39,348

Gas royalties23,750 4,073 3,773 4,038 4,043 3,958

Coal rents3150 150 150 150 150 150

Coal royalties341,504 41,504 41,504 41,504 41,504 41,504

Subtotal Minerals 85,620 90,775 83,561 89,933 90,065 88,006

Livestock grazing fees 676 676 598 660 662 660

Special Recreation Permits 39 42 38 40 42 42

Recreation Use Permits 0 0 0 0 0 0

ROW rents 40 40 40 40 40 40

Timber sales 30 30 0 32 54 54

Wind energy rent 0 156 156 156 156 156

Total $86,405 $91,719 $84,393 $90,861 $91,019 $88,298

Percent change (%) 6.2 -2.3 5.2 5.3 2.2

State/County

Livestock grazing (Sec. 3) 78.7 78.5 69.5 76.7 76.9 76.7

Livestock grazing (Sec. 15) 23.1 23.6 20.9 23.1 23.2 23.1

Mineral payments-state241,098 43,572 40,109 43,168 43,231 42,243

Mineral paymentscounties2 10,274 10,893 10,027 10,792 10,808 10,561

PILT32,307 2,307 2,307 2,307 2,307 2,307

Timber sales 1.2 1.2 0 1.3 2.2 2.2

Wind Energy

Local Total (excludes 

county mineral 

payments)

43,508 45,982 42,506 45,576 45,640 44,653

Percent change (%) 5.7 -2.3 4.8 4.9 2.6

County share 12,684 13,303 12,424 13,200 13,217 12,971

Percent change (%) 4.9 -2.0 3.9 4.2 2.3

1Annual averages

2Changes by alternative for oil and gas lease rents and production revenues and the state and county mineral 

payments includes revenues from the existing leases (the baseline).

3Coal lease revenues and PILT payments are the same for all alternatives.

3All figures are in $1,000 of dollars

ALTERNATIVE B 

Estimates of the employment and labor income that would occur under Alternative B are based on the 

anticipated resource management actions, the resulting resource outputs, and projected BLM revenue levels. 

Management actions under Alternative B would reduce the number of authorized AUMs to 442,590, which 

would reflect an 11.6-percent reduction from current management. Livestock grazing on BLM-administered 

land in the 17-county planning area would continue to involve approximately the same number of operators. 

The economic dependence of livestock producers on BLM-administered forage would also remain unchanged 

and BLM-administered forage would continue to comprise a critical element of some livestock producers’ 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Economics 

4-414

complement of grazing, forage, and hay production. Compared to annual federal revenues from livestock 

grazing under current management, fees would decrease 11.5 percent to an estimated $597,500 annually. The 

share distributed to the counties would decrease 11.6 percent to an estimated $90,300. Livestock grazing would 

support approximately 72 jobs and $1.57 million in labor income. 

Oil and gas 

development under 

Alternative B would 

be reduced by 93 

percent from the 

annual average rate of 

production as 

predicted in the 

MCFO RFD for fluid 

minerals (see the Minerals Appendix). This includes an additional 4 producing oil and gas wells (2 oil wells and 

2 conventional gas wells) and 1 CBNG well per year. 

Federal oil production would increase 34,200 bbl per year, a 1-percent increase over the current production of 

3.6 mmbo. The 93-percent reduction in leasing and production would be expected to occur proportionately 

across the development areas. 

Federal natural gas production would increase 57,000 mcf per year, a 1-percent increase over the current 

production of 9.2 million mcf. The 93-percent reduction in leasing and production would be expected to occur 

proportionately across the development areas. 

Annual federal 

revenues associated 

with oil and gas 

production would 

increase at the same 

rates as production on 

BLM-administered 

minerals. The 

increase in oil 

royalties would be 1 percent, $342,000 per year, from current estimated levels of $36.3 million. The increase in 

natural gas royalties would be 1 percent, $23,000 per year, from current estimated levels of $3.75 million. 

Federal oil and gas leasing activity would also be reduced by 93 percent to 2,509 acres per year. The total rents 

and bonuses would be $191,000, a reduction of $2.5 million from the baseline. 

The mineral revenues distributed to the state would be reduced by approximately $1 million, of which onefourth is shared with the counties ($250,000). This is an approximately 2.4-percent decrease from the baseline 

and a 2.8-percent decrease over the average of $8.92 million distributed to the counties from 2006 to 2010 

(Table 4-148).

It is estimated that coal, oil, and gas exploration, development, and production on BLM-administered mineral 

estate would support about 1,011 local jobs and an estimated $66.3 million in local labor income annually. Total 

annual federal revenues from mineral leasing, production, and sales would be an estimated $83.6 million. 

Under Alternative B, there would be a 10-percent increase, twice the average, in recreation use (visits to 

recreation sites and dispersed use) from current management. It is estimated that about 148,781 recreation visits 

would occur under this alternative. Recreation activities would support approximately 98 jobs and $2.3 million 

in labor income. The net expenditure for recreation opportunities would represent an estimated $9.7 million 

annually (see the Economics Appendix). Revenues from recreation use permits, campground receipts, and 

outfitter and guide receipts would be approximately $37,688 per year under Alternative B. 

TABLE 4-147.

ESTIMATED RECREATION VISITS BY ALTERNATIVE

Activity Fiscal Year 

2009 Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

General, 33% 44,634 46,500 49,098 47,149 45,571 47,149

Fish-andwildlife-related, 

67%

90,621 94,409 99,683 95,727 92,524 95,727

Total 135,255 140,909 148,781 142,876 138,095 142,876

TABLE 4-148. 

ANNUAL AVERAGE BLM REVENUES AND 

PAYMENTS TO STATE AND COUNTIES

Sector Current1 Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

All program 

revenues

$86,405 $91,719 $84,393 $90,861 $91,019 $88,298

Payment to state 43,508 45,982 42,506 45,576 45,640 44,653

Counties’ share 12,863 13,303 12,424 13,180 13,217 12,971
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Economics 

4-415

There would be no annual sawtimber harvest or personal use permits allowed under this alternative. Annual 

revenues from timber and salvage sales would be an estimated $7,100. Timber management would not support 

any jobs or contribute to total labor income in the local economy under Alternative B. 

Overall, the estimated total (direct, indirect, and induced) number of local jobs and associated local labor and 

proprietor’s income contributed by BLM-administered land and resource management under Alternative B 

would be about 1,596 jobs and $86.7 million, respectively. These numbers would reflect a decrease from 

current management of 1.5 percent in BLM-related jobs and 1.8 percent in income. The largest employment and 

labor income would continue to occur in the mining and government industry sectors. All program revenues to 

the federal government would be about $84.4 million, a decrease of 2.3 percent. Annual payments to the 

counties would be approximately $12.4 million, most of which would be related to oil and gas production and 

PILT payments. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Estimates of the employment and labor income that would occur under Alternative C are based on anticipated 

resource management actions, the resulting resource outputs, and projected BLM revenue levels. Estimated 

BLM-related average annual employment and labor income are summarized by resource program areas in 

Tables 4-143 and 4-144. 

The impact of the proposed resource management actions in Alternative C would reduce the authorized AUMs 

to 488,857, a 2.3-percent reduction from current management, and support approximately 80 jobs and $1.74 

million in labor income. Livestock grazing on BLM-administered land in the 17-county planning area would 

continue to involve approximately the same number of operators. The economic dependence of livestock 

producers on BLM-administered forage would also remain unchanged and BLM-administered forage would 

continue to comprise a critical element of some livestock producers’ complement of grazing, forage, and hay 

production under this alternative. Compared to current management, annual federal revenues from livestock 

grazing fees would decrease 2.3 percent to an estimated $660,000 annually. The share distributed to the 

counties would decrease 2.3 percent to an estimated $99,800. 

Oil and gas development under Alternative C would be reduced by 10.8 percent from the annual average rate of 

production as predicted in the MCFO RFD for fluid minerals (see the Minerals Appendix). This includes 62 

producing oil and gas wells, 28 oil wells, 24 conventional gas wells, and 12 CBNG wells per year. 

Federal oil production would increase 426,000 bbl per year, an 11.7-percent increase over the current 

production of 3.6 mmbo. The 10.8-percent reduction in leasing and production would be expected to occur 

proportionately across the development areas. 

Federal natural gas production would increase 709 thousand mcf per year, a 7.7-percent increase over the 

current production of 9.2 million mcf. The 10.8-percent reduction in leasing and production would be expected 

to occur proportionately across the development areas. 

Annual federal revenues associated with oil and gas production would increase at the same rates as production 

on BLM-administered minerals. The increase in oil royalties would be 11.7 percent, $4.3 million per year, from 

current estimated levels of $36.3 million. The increase in natural gas royalties would be 7.7 percent, $288,000 

per year, from current estimated levels of $3.75 million. Federal oil and gas leasing activity would also be 

reduced by 10.8 percent to 31,279 acres per year while the total rents and bonuses would be $2.38 million. 

The additional mineral revenues distributed to the state would be approximately $2.07 million, of which onefourth is shared with the counties, $518 thousand. This is an approximately 5-percent increase over the baseline 

and a 5.8-percent increase over the average of $8.92 million distributed to the counties from 2006 to 2010 

(Table 4-148).
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Economics 

4-416

Coal, oil, and gas exploration, development, and production on BLM-administered mineral estate would be 

expected to support about 1,478 local jobs and an estimated $92.7 million in local labor income annually. Total 

annual BLM revenues from mineral leasing, production, and sales would be an estimated $89.9 million. 

The management actions under Alternative C would cause a 10-percent increase in visits to recreation sites and 

a 5-percent increase in dispersed use from current management. The total estimated recreation visits would be 

142,876, a 5.6-percent increase from current management. Alternative C would support approximately 94 jobs 

and $2.2 million in labor income. The net expenditure for recreation opportunities would represent an estimated 

$9.7 million annually. Revenues from recreation use permits, campground receipts, and outfitter and guide 

receipts would be approximately $39,781 per year for Alternative C (see the Economics Appendix). 

Annual timber harvest performed by private businesses would increase to about 650 mbf of sawtimber. About 

60 personal use permits (including Christmas tree permits and firewood permits) would be issued annually. 

Annual revenues from timber product sales and permits would be an estimated $32,000. Four percent of 

non-stewardship timber receipts are returned through the state to the counties of origin. Timber management 

would continue to support approximately three jobs and $76,000 in total labor income in the local economy. 

Overall, the estimated total (direct, indirect, and induced) number of local jobs and associated local labor 

income contributed by BLM-administered land and resource management under Alternative C would be about 

2,081 jobs and $113.6 million, respectively. These figures reflect increases of 32.4 percent and 33.5 percent 

over current levels. The largest employment and labor income impacts would continue to occur in the mining 

and government industry sectors. All program revenues to the federal government would be $90.9 million, a 

5.1-percent increase from current management. Annual payments to the counties would be approximately $13.2 

million, most of which would be related to oil and gas production and PILT payments. 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Estimates of the employment and labor income that would occur under Alternative D are based on anticipated 

resource management actions, the resulting resource outputs, and projected BLM revenue levels. Estimated 

BLM-related average annual employment and labor income are summarized by resource program areas in 

Tables 4-143 and 4-144. 

The impact of the proposed management actions in Alternative D would reduce the authorized AUMs to 

490,235, a 2-percent reduction from current management, and support approximately 80 jobs and $1.74 million 

in labor income. Livestock grazing on BLM-administered lands in the 17-county planning area would continue 

to involve approximately the same number of operators. The economic dependence of livestock producers on 

BLM-administered forage would also remain unchanged, and BLM-administered forage would continue to 

comprise a critical element of some livestock producers’ complement of grazing, forage, and hay production. 

Annual federal revenues from livestock grazing fees would remain at the same level as current management, 

about $661,800 annually, of which about $100,100 would be distributed to the counties. 

Oil and gas development in Alternative D would be reduced by 9.1 percent from the annual average rate of 

production, as predicted in the MCFO RFD for fluid minerals (see the Minerals Appendix). This includes 65 

producing oil and gas wells, 29 oil wells, 24 conventional gas wells, and 12 CBNG wells per year. 

Federal oil production would increase by 434,000 bbl per year, a 12-percent increase over the current 

production of 3.6 mmbo. The 9.1-percent reduction in the leasing and production is expected to occur 

proportionately across the development areas. 

Federal natural gas production would increase 722,000 thousand mcf per year, a 7.7-percent increase over the 

current production of 9.2 million mcf. The 9.1-percent reduction in the leasing and production would be 

expected to occur proportionately across the development areas. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Economics 

4-417

Annual BLM revenues associated with oil and gas production would increase at the same rates as production on 

federal minerals. The increase in oil royalties would be 11.8 percent, $4.3 million per year, from current 

estimated levels of $36.3 million. The increase in natural gas royalties would be 7.8 percent or $294,000 per 

year, from current estimated levels of $3.75 million. BLM oil and gas leasing activity would also be reduced 9.1 

percent to 31,876 acres per year. The total rents and bonuses would be $2.42 million. 

The additional mineral revenues distributed to the state would be approximately $2.13 million, of which onefourth is shared with the counties ($533,000). This is an approximately 5.2-percent increase over the baseline 

and a 6-percent increase over the average of $8.92 million distributed to the counties from 2006 to 2010 (Table 

4-148).

It is estimated that coal, oil, and gas exploration, development, and production on BLM-administered minerals 

would support about 1,532 local jobs and an estimated $96.3 million in local labor income annually. Total 

annual BLM revenues from mineral leasing, production, and sales would be an estimated $90.1 million. 

The resource management actions under Alternative D would result in a 2.1-percent increase (one-half the 

annual average rate) in total visits. The total estimated recreation visits would be 138,095, a 2.1-percent increase 

from current management, and Alternative D would support approximately 91 jobs and $2.1 million in labor 

income. The net expenditure for recreation opportunities would represent an estimated $9.0 million annually. 

Revenues from recreation use permits, campground receipts, and outfitter and guide receipts would be 

approximately $41,875 per year for Alternative D (see the Economics Appendix). 

Annual timber harvests performed by private businesses would continue to produce about 1,100 mbf of 

sawtimber, and about 60 personal use permits (including Christmas tree permits and firewood permits) would 

be issued annually. Annual revenues from timber product sales and permits would be an estimated $54,000. 

Four percent of non-stewardship timber receipts are returned through the state to the counties of origin. Timber 

management would continue to support approximately 5 jobs and $134,000 in total labor and proprietor’s 

income in the local economy. 

Overall, the estimated total (direct, indirect, and induced) number of local jobs and associated local labor 

income contributed by BLM-administered land and resource management under Alternative D would be about 

2,135 jobs and $117.2 million, which would reflect increases of 35.8 percent and 37.7 percent over current 

levels. The largest employment and labor income impacts would continue to occur in the mining and 

government industry sectors. All program revenues to the federal government would be $91 million, a 5.3-

percent increase from current management. Annual payments to the counties would be approximately $13.2 

million, most of which would be related to oil and gas production and PILT payments. 

ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Estimates of the employment and labor income that would occur under Alternative E are based on anticipated 

resource management actions, the resulting resource outputs, and projected BLM revenue levels. Estimated 

BLM-related average annual employment and labor income are summarized by resource program areas in 

Tables 4-143 and 4-144. 

The impact of the proposed management actions in Alternative E would reduce the authorized AUMs to 

488,983, which would be 2.3 percent fewer than current management, and support approximately 80 jobs and 

$1.74 million in labor income. Livestock grazing on BLM-administered lands in the 17-county planning area 

would continue to involve approximately the same number of operators. The economic dependence of livestock 

producers on BLM-administered forage would also remain unchanged, and BLM-administered forage would 

continue to comprise a critical element of some livestock producers’ complement of grazing, forage, and hay 

production. Annual federal revenues from livestock grazing fees would remain at the same level as current 

management, about $660,000 annually, of which about $99,800 would be distributed to the counties. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Economics 

4-418

Oil and gas development in Alternative E would be reduced by 35.6 percent from the annual average rate of 

production, as predicted in the MCFO RFD for fluid minerals (see the Minerals Appendix). This includes 46 

producing oil and gas wells, 20 oil wells, 17 conventional gas wells, and 9 CBNG wells per year. 

Federal oil production would increase by 307,000 bbl per year, an 8.5-percent increase over the current 

production of 3.6 mmbo. The 35.6-percent reduction in the leasing and production is expected to occur 

proportionately across the development areas. 

Federal natural gas production would increase 512 thousand mcf per year, a 5.5-percent increase over the 

current production of 9.2 million mcf. The 35.6-percent reduction in leasing and production would be expected 

to occur proportionately across the development areas. 

Annual BLM revenues associated with oil and gas production would increase at the same rates as production on 

federal minerals. The increase in oil royalties would be 8.5 percent, $3.1 million per year, from current 

estimated levels of $36.3 million. The increase in natural gas royalties would be 5.5 percent or $208,000 per 

year (from current estimated levels of $3.75 million). BLM oil and gas leasing activity would also be reduced 

35.6 percent to 22,578 acres per year. The total rents and bonuses would be $1.72 million. 

The additional mineral revenues distributed to the state would be approximately $1.15 million, of which onefourth is shared with the counties ($286,000). This is an approximately 2.8-percent increase over the baseline 

and a 3.2-percent increase over the average of $8.92 million distributed to the counties from 2006 to 2010 

(Table 4-148).

It is estimated that coal, oil, and gas exploration, development, and production on BLM-administered minerals 

would support about 1,384 local jobs and an estimated $87.9 million in local labor income annually. Total 

annual BLM revenues from mineral leasing, production, and sales would be an estimated $88 million. 

The resource management actions under Alternative E would result in a 10-percent increase (one-half the 

annual average rate) in total visits. The total estimated recreation visits would be 142,876, which would reflect a 

5.6-percent increase from current management, and Alternative E would support approximately 94 jobs and 

$2.2 million in labor income. The net expenditure for recreation opportunities would represent an estimated 

$9.3 million annually. Revenues from recreation use permits, campground receipts, and outfitter and guide 

receipts would be approximately $39,781 per year for Alternative E (see the Economics Appendix). 

Annual timber harvests performed by private businesses would continue to produce about 1,100 mbf of 

sawtimber, and about 60 personal use permits (including Christmas tree permits and firewood permits) would 

be issued annually. Annual revenues from timber product sales and permits would be an estimated $54,000. 

Four percent of non-stewardship timber receipts are returned through the state to the counties of origin. Timber 

management would continue to support approximately 5 jobs and $134,000 in total labor and proprietor’s 

income in the local economy. 

Overall, the estimated total (direct, indirect, and induced) number of local jobs and associated local labor 

income contributed by BLM-administered land and resource management under Alternative E would be about 

1,986 jobs and $109 million. These would reflect increases of 26.4 percent and 27.8 percent over current levels. 

The largest employment and labor income impacts would continue to occur in the mining and government 

industry sectors. All program revenues to the federal government would be $88.3 million, a 2.2-percent increase 

from current management. Annual payments to the counties would be approximately $13 million, most of 

which would be related to oil and gas production and PILT payments. 
CHAPTER 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Hazardous Materials and Waste 

4-419

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE 

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Under all alternatives, environmental conditions would be protected through hazardous waste or materials 

management. Any authorized uses would adhere to federal and state requirements to reduce or eliminate 

impacts. Procedures in place to address unauthorized use and accidental events would help to minimize, to the 

greatest extent possible, public exposure and environmental impacts. 

In terms of health and safety, land use authorizations would not be issued for uses that would involve the 

disposal or storage of material that would contaminate the land. Lands proposed for acquisition or disposal 

would need to be inventoried for the presence of hazardous materials. The presence of contaminants would 

potentially lead to actions such as the modification or abandonment of a land tenure adjustment proposal or 

remediation (in the form of cleanup and removal of the contaminants). 

With increased recreational and commercial use of public surface in the planning area would come risks 

inherent to increases in the amount of hazardous materials generated, used, transported, and stored. However, 

no substantial new hazardous materials uses or waste generation would occur within the planning area. 

Implementing hazardous materials management activities would address human health and environmental risks 

from potential hazardous materials release or exposures. Hazardous materials in the planning area would be 

managed to reduce risks to visitors and employees, to restore contaminated lands, and to carry out emergency 

response activities, in accordance with appropriate laws, policies, and regulations. An active remediation 

program would remain in place under all alternatives. Indirect impacts related to risks from hazardous materials 

during remediation would exist in the planning area. 

Under all alternatives, activities would comply with the requirements of Onshore Order 6 for hydrogen sulfide 

(H2S) plans (BLM 1990a). Additionally, any hydrogen sulfide wells would be placed a safe distance from (more 

than 2 miles), or prohibited within, the vicinity of towns, cities, designated campgrounds, areas of high public 

use, and frequent recreation sites.

Forested hill in the planning area 
This page intentionally left blank.