CHAPTER 2: 

 ALTERNATIVES 

Miles City Field Office 

Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement 

BLM
CHAPTER 2 

ALTERNATIVES

2-1

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 2 describes the management alternatives and management alternative development process. Table 2-1, 

Comparison of Alternatives, and Table 2-2, Summary Comparison of Impacts by Alternative, presents the 

alternatives.

Table 2-1 is organized into four main categories: Resources, Resource Uses, Special Designations, and Social 

and Economic Considerations. Each category includes the program and its goals and objectives, Management 

Common to all Alternatives, and Management by Alternative.

Table 2-2, at the end of this chapter, provides a summary of the impacts of management actions proposed under 

each alternative. For a full description of the effects from each alternative, see Chapter 4.

MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Management goals and objectives were defined for each resource and resource use that the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) must address in the planning process. The management goals and objectives are presented 

in Table 2-1 and apply to all alternatives.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Management Common to all Alternatives is existing management that would continue regardless of any 

alternative selection. Where management actions from the current Big Dry and Powder River resource 

management plans (RMPs), as amended, were found to meet the BLM’s current goals and no issue was raised, 

alternatives to current management were not developed. In these cases, the decisions from the existing RMPs 

are still appropriate to meet the goals and objectives for management of the public lands. These nonissue actions 

are considered in the Management Common to all Alternatives sections of Table 2-1. A key component of 

Management Common to all Alternatives would be carrying forward 13 existing areas of environmental 

concern (ACECs): Ash Creek Divide (7,921 acres), Bug Creek (3,837 acres), Hell Creek (19,373 acres), and 

Sand Arroyo (9,052 acres) paleontological ACECs; Big Sheep Mountain (363 acres), Hoe (147 acres), Jordan

Bison Kill ACEC (160 acres), Powder River Depot (1,401 acres), Seline (80 acres), cultural ACECs; Piping 

Plover (15 acres) and Black-footed Ferret (11,221 acres) wildlife ACECs; Finger Buttes (1,520 acres) scenic

ACEC; and Smoky Butte (80 acres) geological ACEC.

Lands acquired within the planning area would be managed the same as like adjacent lands. The Terry Badlands 

lands with wilderness characteristics area is acquired lands within the Terry Badlands WSA. These lands would 

be managed in accordance with BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas. The area would be 

managed per VRM Class I, oil and gas leasing would be closed, and surface-disturbing activities in general 

would not be allowed.

Where routes will remain available for motorized use within wilderness study areas (WSAs), such use will be 

continued on a conditional basis. Use of the existing authorized routes in the WSA (“primitive routes” when 

located within WSAs) could continue as long as the use of these routes does not impair wilderness suitability, as 

provided by BLM Manual 6330, Management of BLM Wilderness Study Areas. If Congress designates the area 

as wilderness, the routes may be closed unless otherwise specified by Congress. In the interim, if use or noncompliance is found through monitoring efforts to impair the area’s suitability for wilderness designation, the 

BLM will take further action to limit use of the routes or close them. The continued use of these routes, 

therefore, is based on user compliance and non-impairment of wilderness values.
CHAPTER 2 

ALTERNATIVES

2-2

DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES 

Alternatives were developed as a framework to measure impacts that might occur through management. The 

alternatives do not constitute management decisions; instead, they represent varying approaches to managing 

public land and activities. Alternative E, the Preferred Alternative, functions as the BLM’s draft plan for 

managing the public land and resources; however, it is subject to change between the Draft RMP and the 

Proposed RMP/Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) because of new information the public may raise 

during the public comment period on the Draft RMP.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL 

Five alternatives (A through E) were developed to offer a range of management options for resolving issues. 

Each alternative provides for varying levels of compatible resource use and development opportunities and each 

is consistent with law, regulation, and policy. Detailed management directions are provided for each alternative 

in Table 2-1. Where rights-of-way (ROWs) are addressed, renewable energy ROWs are included unless they are 

addressed separately. A summary of the alternatives is provided below.

Alternative A (No Action) would be the continuation of present management in the planning area and 

provide baseline information from which to identify potential environmental consequences when 

compared to the other alternatives. If selected, this management option would follow the existing 

RMPs. Key components of Alternative A include those described below.

• Special status species habitats would continue to be managed to provide for their continued 

presence in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. There would be no Sage-grouse

Habitat – Protection Priority or Restoration Areas under Alternative A.

• Oil and gas leasing would be offered on 5.4 million acres. There would be no areas closed to 

oil and gas leasing under Alternative A. There would be no oil and gas master leasing plan 

(MLP) areas identified.

• Livestock grazing would be allowed on 2.7 million acres and prohibited on 240 acres.

• Most development activities would be allowed in riparian areas (unless the riparian areas were 

classified either functional-at risk with downward trend or nonfunctional).

• Renewable energy ROWs, such as for wind and solar, would be open in the majority of the 

planning area (98 percent of BLM-administered surface in the planning area). 

• Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be Open on 2,400 acres; Limited on 2.8 million acres; 

and Closed on 80 acres.

• The following were designated special recreation management areas (SRMAs) because of 

their unique recreational values in the planning area: Powder River Depot (162 acres), 

Calypso (71 acres), and Lewis and Clark Trail (16,350 acres). These areas would be managed 

as SRMAs for intensive recreation management.

• Lands with wilderness characteristics (5,236 acres) were identified within the Devil’s Creek 

Common area. There would be no actions specifically identified to protect lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The BLM would manage these lands in accordance with existing 

decisions: oil and gas leasing would be allowed with lease terms, ROWs would be allowed,

and the area would be managed according to VRM Class II (5,127 acres) and VRM Class III 

(109 acres).

• Battle Butte Battlefield ACEC (121 acres) and Reynolds Battlefield ACEC (324 acres) would 

not be increased in size.

Alternative B would focus on natural processes and other unobtrusive methods for natural resource 

use and management, conserve the most land area for sensitive and fragile resources, and propose 

greater opportunities for dispersed non-motorized recreation while offering fewer motorized and 

developed recreation opportunities. This alternative would emphasize the improvement and protection 

of wildlife habitat and sensitive plant and animal species, improvement of riparian areas, and 

implementation of management actions that improve water quality and enhance protection of historic 
CHAPTER 2 

ALTERNATIVES

2-3

and cultural sites. Key components of Alternative B include the following:

• Special status species habitats would be managed with an emphasis on maintaining and 

improving important habitats. A Protection Priority ACEC for sage-grouse habitat would 

include the interim management areas; Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP) Core 

Areas (1.3 million acres in which surface-disturbing activities would be prohibited) (Map 2);

and two Restoration Areas: Cedar Creek (196,000 acres) and South Carter (64,000 acres) 

where management would need to be designed to maintain sage-grouse habitat functionality.

• Oil and gas leasing would be offered on approximately 3.3 million acres and not offered on 

approximately 2.1 million acres.

• An oil and gas MLP to protect important sage-grouse habitat has been identified for an area in 

Carter County (Carter MLP Area) (Map 3). In the Carter MLP Area, the Sage-grouse Habitat 

– Protection Priority ACEC would not be offered for oil and gas leasing to protect important 

sage-grouse values. Oil and gas leasing would be offered in the Sage-grouse Habitat –

Restoration Area and Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas of the MLP area with a 

controlled surface use (CSU) stipulation. The best management practices (BMPs) for sagegrouse found in the Best Management Practices Appendix would be considered during project 

implementation (e.g., locate roads to avoid important areas and habitat, place infrastructure in 

already disturbed locations in which the habitat has not been restored, and control the spread 

and effects from nonnative plant species). BMPs would be implemented at the discretion of 

the Miles City Field Office (MCFO) on a project-specific basis, depending on the specific 

characteristics of the project area and the types of disturbance being proposed. BMPs required 

would become conditions of approval (COAs) during project implementation. Upon their 

expiration, existing leases in the Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority ACEC would not 

be reoffered for leasing. Lease development of existing leases would be allowed without a cap 

for surface disturbance because so few acres are currently leased.

• All livestock grazing (except domestic sheep and goats) would be allowed on 2.5 million

acres and prohibited on 210,000 acres. Domestic sheep and goats grazing would be allowed 

on 2.1 million acres and prohibited on 390,000 acres.

• Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would not be allowed in riparian and wetland

areas.

• Renewable energy ROWs, such as for wind and solar, would be open on 400,000 acres (14

percent of the BLM-administered surface in the planning area) and excluded on 2.4 million 

acres.

• OHV use would be Open on 2,900 acres; Limited on 2.8 million acres; and Closed on 35,000 

acres.

• The following would be designated special recreation management areas (SRMAs) because of 

their unique recreational values in the planning area: Powder River Depot (162 acres), 

Calypso (71 acres), Lewis and Clark Trail (14,499 acres), Howrey Island (592 acres), 

Matthews (91 acres), Dean S. Reservoir (162 acres), Pumpkin Creek Ranch (21,206 acres), 

Glendive Short Pine (2,753 acres), Terry (72 acres), Strawberry Hill (4,248 acres), and 

Moorhead (13 acres) These areas would be managed as SRMAs for intensive recreation 

management.

• The BLM would manage 5,236 acres within the Devil’s Creek Common area to protect 

wilderness characteristics as a priority over other multiple uses in the area. Oil and gas leasing 

would be allowed with an NSO stipulation, surface-disturbing activities would not be allowed 

if they did not meet the goal identified for lands with wilderness characteristics, and the area 

would be managed according to VRM Class II.

• Cedar Creek Battlefield (1,022 acres), Long Medicine Wheel (179 acres), Walstein (2,054 

acres), Yonkee (40 acres), Battle Butte Battlefield (237 acres), and Reynolds Battlefield (922 

acres) would be designated cultural ACECs; and Flat Creek (547 acres) and Powderville

(27,151 acres) would be designated paleontological ACECs. Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection 

Priority Areas (1.3 million acres) would be designated an ACEC under this alternative.

Alternative C would allow resource use (e.g., energy and mineral development and other commodity 

uses) while providing protection to sensitive resources. Alternative C would allow for greater
CHAPTER 2 

ALTERNATIVES

2-4

production levels of minerals, greater development of public lands, and more livestock grazing than 

Alternative B. Key components of Alternative C include the following:

• Special status species habitats would be managed to help provide for their continued presence 

in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. There would be three Sage-grouse Habitat

– Protection Priority Areas: North Garfield (171,000 acres), North Rosebud (112,000 acres), 

and Carter (314,000 acres). Two areas would be designated Sage-grouse Habitat – Restoration

Areas: Cedar Creek (51,000 acres) and South Carter (64,000 acres). Management in these 

areas would be restricted to maintain sage-grouse habitat functionality.

• Oil and gas leasing would be offered on all 5.4 million acres.

• An oil and gas MLP to protect important sage-grouse habitat has been identified for an area in 

Carter County (Carter MLP Area). In the MLP area, oil and gas leasing would be offered with 

a CSU stipulation. Lease development would be phased: the high and moderate oil and gas

development potential areas that overlay the Sage-grouse Habitat – Restoration Area and 

Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas would be offered for leasing first (western 

portion of the MLP). Within a 5-year period after the ROD is signed, the BLM would 

determine if any wells were drilled and producing. If production were occurring, the BLM 

would wait to lease the remainder of the MLP until production ceased and the area returned to 

sage-grouse habitat. The eastern portion of the MLP would then be offered for oil and gas

leasing with a CSU stipulation. Under Alternative C, the general Mitigation Guidelines and 

Objectives found in the Best Management Practices Appendix would be considered (e.g.,

remote telemetry would be used to reduce vehicle traffic on oil and gas operations, two-track 

[primitive] roads would be used whenever possible, and invasive species would be controlled 

using an integrated pest management approach).

• All livestock grazing (except domestic sheep and goats) would be allowed on 2.7 million 

acres and prohibited on 6,800 acres. Domestic sheep and goat grazing would be allowed on 

2.7 million acres and excluded on 8,300 acres.

• Surface-disturbing activities would avoid riparian and wetland areas.

• Renewable energy ROWs, such as for wind and solar, would be open on 1.3 million acres (47 

percent of BLM-administered surface in the planning area), avoided on 620,000 acres, and 

excluded on 860,000 acres.

• OHV use would be Open on 660 acres; Limited on 2.8 million acres; and Closed on 550 

acres.

• The following would be designated special recreation management areas (SRMAs) because of 

their unique recreational values in the planning area: Powder River Depot (162 acres), 

Calypso (71 acres), Lewis and Clark Trail (14,499 acres), Howrey Island (592 acres), 

Matthews (91 acres), Dean S. Reservoir (162 acres), Pumpkin Creek Ranch (21,206 acres), 

Glendive Short Pine (2,753 acres), Terry (110 acres), Strawberry Hill (4,248 acres), and 

Moorhead (13 acres) These areas would be managed as SRMAs for intensive recreation 

management.

• Lands with wilderness characteristics (5,236 acres) were identified within the Devil’s Creek 

Common area. Management actions and restrictions from other resource values would 

contribute to the protection of wilderness characteristics. For example, oil and gas leasing 

would be allowed with a CSU stipulation (192 acres) and lease terms (5,044 acres), ROWs

would be allowed, and the area would be managed according to VRM Class II.

• Cedar Creek Battlefield (1,022 acres), Long Medicine Wheel (179 acres), Walstein (2,054

acres), Yonkee (40 acres), Battle Butte Battlefield (237 acres), and Reynolds Battlefield (922 

acres) would be designated cultural ACECs, and Flat Creek (547 acres) and Powderville

(27,151 acres) would be designated paleontological ACECs.

Alternative D provides the widest range of uses, emphasizing recreation, mineral, and energy development, and 

identifies areas most appropriate for these uses. Although similar to Alternative C, Alternative D proposes the 

least restrictive management actions for energy and commodity development but maintains protections to 

resources required by laws and regulations. With the exception of sage-grouse habitat management, restrictions 

to protect resources would be implemented to the extent necessary to meet legal requirements. Key components 

of Alternative D include the following:
CHAPTER 2 

ALTERNATIVES

2-5

• Special status species habitats would be managed to provide for their continued presence in 

accordance with applicable laws and regulations. There would be two Sage-grouse Habitat –

Protection Priority Areas: North Garfield (171,000 acres) and Carter (314,000 acres). Two 

areas would be designated Sage-grouse Habitat – Restoration Areas: Cedar Creek (21,000 

acres) and South Carter (58,000 acres). Management in these areas would be restricted to 

maintain sage-grouse habitat functionality.

• Oil and gas leasing would be offered on all 5.4 million acres.

• An oil and gas MLP to protect important sage-grouse habitat has been identified for an area in

Carter County (Carter MLP Area). Oil and gas leasing would be offered with a CSU 

stipulation in the entire MLP area. Leasing would not be phased. The BMPs for sage-grouse 

found in the Best Management Practices Appendix would be considered during project 

implementation (e.g., locate roads to avoid important areas and habitats, place infrastructure 

in already disturbed locations in which the habitat has not yet been restored, and control the 

spread of nonnative plant species). BMPs would be implemented at the discretion of the 

MCFO on a project-specific basis, depending on the specific characteristics of the project area 

and the types of disturbance being proposed. BMPs required would become COAs during 

project implementation.

• Livestock grazing would be allowed on 2.7 million acres and prohibited on 3,100 acres.

• Surface-disturbing activities would avoid riparian and wetland areas.

• Renewable energy ROWs, such as for wind and solar, would be open on 1.7 million acres (62

percent of the BLM-administered surface in the planning area), avoided on 490,000 acres, and 

excluded on 560,000 acres. 

• OHV use would be Open on 2,000 acres; Limited on 2.8 million acres; and Closed on 0 acres.

• No SRMAs would be designated.

• Lands with wilderness characteristics (5,236 acres) were identified within the Devil’s Creek 

Common area. Management actions and restrictions identified for other resource values 

would contribute to the protection of wilderness characteristics. For example, oil and gas 

leasing would be allowed with a CSU stipulation (192 acres) and lease terms (5,044 acres),

ROWs would be allowed, and the area would be managed according to VRM Class II.

• Cedar Creek Battlefield (1,022 acres), Long Medicine Wheel (179 acres), Walstein (2,054

acres), Yonkee (40 acres), Battle Butte Battlefield (237 acres), and Reynolds Battlefield (922 

acres) would be designated cultural ACECs; and Flat Creek (547 acres) and Powderville

(27,151 acres) would be designated paleontological ACECs.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) would allow resource use (e.g., energy and mineral 

development and other commodity uses) while providing protection to sensitive resources. Alternative 

E would allow for greater production level of minerals, greater development of public lands, and more 

livestock grazing than Alternative B. Key components of Alternative E include the following:

• Special status species habitats would be managed to help provide for their continued presence 

in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. There would be three Sage-grouse Habitat 

– Protection Priority Areas: North Garfield (171,000 acres), North Rosebud (173,000 acres), 

and Carter (448,000 acres). Four areas would be designated Sage-grouse Habitat –

Restoration Areas: Decker area (8,300 acres), Cedar Creek (29,000 acres), South Carter

(64,000 acres), and a source population area (8,000 acres). Management in these areas would 

be restricted to maintain sage-grouse habitat.

• Oil and gas leasing would be offered on all 5.4 million acres.

• An oil and gas MLP to protect important sage-grouse habitat has been identified for an area in 

Carter County (Carter MLP Area). The majority of the MLP area would allow oil and gas

leasing with an NSO stipulation to protect important sage-grouse values in the Sage-grouse

Habitat – Protection Priority Area. Oil and gas leasing would also be offered in the remainder 

of the area, which is the Sage-grouse Habitat – Restoration Area and Sage-grouse Habitat –

General Habitat Areas with a CSU stipulation (Map 4). The general mitigation guidelines and 

the BMPs for sage-grouse found in the Best Management Practices Appendix would be 

considered during project implementation (e.g., locate roads to avoid important areas and 
CHAPTER 2 

ALTERNATIVES

2-6

habitats, place infrastructure in already disturbed locations in which the habitat has not yet 

been restored, and control the spread of nonnative plant species). BMPs would be 

implemented at the discretion of the MCFO on a project-specific basis, depending on the 

specific characteristics of the project area and the types of disturbance being proposed. BMPs 

required would become COAs during project implementation.

• Livestock grazing would be allowed on 2.7 million acres and prohibited on 3,125 acres.

• Surface-disturbing activities would avoid riparian and wetland areas.

• Renewable energy ROWs, such as for wind and solar, would be open on 1.5 million acres (55

percent of the BLM-administered surface in the planning area), avoided on 1.2 million acres, 

and excluded on 12,000 acres.

• OHV use would be Open on 2,000 acres; Limited on 2.8 million acres; and Closed on 2,800 

acres.

• The following would be designated special recreation management areas (SRMAs) because of 

their unique recreational values in the planning area: Powder River Depot (162 acres), 

Calypso (71 acres), Lewis and Clark Trail (14,499 acres), Howrey Island (592 acres), 

Matthews (91 acres), Dean S. Reservoir (162 acres), Pumpkin Creek Ranch (19,435 acres), 

Glendive Short Pine (2,272 acres), Terry (110 acres), Strawberry Hill (4,248 acres), and 

Moorhead (13 acres) These areas would be managed as SRMAs for intensive recreation 

management.

• Lands with wilderness characteristics (5,236 acres) were identified within the Devil’s Creek 

Common area. Management actions and restrictions identified for other resource values 

would contribute to the protection of wilderness characteristics. For example, oil and gas 

leasing would be allowed with a CSU stipulation on 5,236 acres (see the VRM II stipulation 

in the Minerals Appendix), ROWs and other surface-disturbing activities would be allowed by 

the authorized officer (AO) when they met the goal of lands with wilderness characteristics,

and the area would be managed according to VRM Class II.

• Cedar Creek Battlefield (1,022 acres), Long Medicine Wheel (179 acres), Walstein (2,054 

acres), Yonkee (40 acres), Battle Butte Battlefield (320 acres), and Reynolds Battlefield (922 

acres) would be designated cultural ACECs, and Flat Creek (547 acres) and Powderville

(9,518 acres) would be designated paleontological ACECs.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM

DETAILED ANALYSIS

The following alternatives were considered but not carried forward for detailed analysis because they are 

already part of an existing plan, policy, or administrative function. 

Reevaluate Wilderness Study Area Recommendations

The BLM received a proposal requesting the reevaluation of suitability of existing WSAs for wilderness

designation. This alternative was considered but not analyzed in detail because Section 603 wilderness

recommendations for WSAs are now before Congress and cannot be changed by the BLM. However, the BLM 

has reevaluated the entire planning area for wilderness characteristics. (See Lands with Wilderness

Characteristics in Chapter 3 for more information.)

Non-energy Leasable Minerals

Development of non-energy leasable minerals, such as sodium and potash, has never been proposed or 

permitted in the planning area, and, because the development potential for these resources is minimal to nonexistent in the planning area, these actions were considered but not analyzed in detail in the RMP.
CHAPTER 2 

ALTERNATIVES

2-7

Designating Major Transportation and Energy Corridors

Major transportation and energy corridors were considered but not analyzed in detail. Because federal lands are 

scattered in a checkerboard land pattern interspersed with private and state lands in most of the planning area, a 

major transportation or energy corridor would not be feasible to implement. However, in consideration of 

corridors, the RMP does state in the Lands and Realty, Management Common to all Alternatives section, 

“Whenever possible, ROWs would be constructed within or next to compatible existing ROWs, such as 

highways and railroads."

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Sportsmen Area

An area abutting the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge was identified by 30 sportsmen’s clubs as a 

high quality fishing and hunting area and named the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Sportsmen 

Area. The groups designating the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Sportsmen Area are concerned 

with oil and gas leasing (and potential exploration) and any potential effects to hunting and fishing. Much of the 

groups’ area of concern is considered and analyzed in the RMP (see proposed management under the Sagegrouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas; Wilderness; Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA [Missouri River portion]; 

and ACECs [existing and proposed] sections). However, restrictions to oil and gas were not analyzed on 

approximately 65,000 BLM-administered oil and gas acres. To determine if analysis was needed, the BLM 

referred to the oil and gas potential development scenario, which includes these lands (Map 5). Oil and gas has 

high, medium, and low development potential in the planning area, and the majority of the 65,000 acres not 

analyzed are located in areas of low oil and gas development potential (all but approximately 40 acres). 

However, because development is not likely to occur on these acres, restricting oil and gas development was 

considered but not analyzed.

Analyzing an Alternative that makes all Lands in the Planning Area Unavailable for Livestock Grazing (No 

Grazing Alternative)

An alternative that proposes to make the entire planning area unavailable for livestock grazing would not meet 

the purpose and need of the Draft RMP. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that agencies 

study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal that 

involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. No issues or conflicts have 

been identified during this land use planning effort that require the complete elimination of livestock grazing 

within the planning area for their resolution (BLM Washington Office [WO] Instruction Memorandum [IM] 

2012-069). Where appropriate, livestock removals and use adjustments have been incorporated in this planning 

effort. Because the BLM has considerable discretion through its grazing regulations to determine and adjust 

stocking levels, seasons-of-use, and grazing management activities and to allocate forage to uses of the public 

lands in RMPs, the analysis of an alternative to entirely eliminate grazing is not needed.

The planning area is located in the northern portion of the Great Plains Ecoregion (USEPA 2012a) and the 

rangelands in the planning area are classified as mixed-grass prairie. The rangelands of the Great Plains have a 

long evolutionary history of grazing and grazing is accepted by grassland ecologists as a keystone process of the 

grassland ecosystem (Fuhlendorf and Engle 2001; Milchunas, Sala, and Lauenroth 1988; Knapp et al. 1999). 

There is also agreement among many scientists and natural resource managers that some level of grazing 

disturbance is necessary to assure the ecological integrity of the mixed-grass prairie ecosystem (Parks Canada 

2002). 

From 1956 through 1972, the BLM conducted a classification of public lands to estimate the amount of 

available forage within the planning area. These are typically referred to as the “Missouri River Basin Surveys”.

From this effort, multiple sub-basin reports were generated, which provided the carrying capacities by animal 

unit months (AUMs) for all BLM-administered lands at the time of survey.
CHAPTER 2 

ALTERNATIVES

2-8

The measurement of the available forage for livestock grazing was conducted by trained professionals and 

involved intensive vegetation sampling (clipping, weighing, and ocular estimation). The BLM, in cooperation 

with grazing advisory boards, used the information to make adjustments to the AUMs allocated to a grazing

permit. This cooperative effort resulted in implementation of appropriate changes to grazing permits in the 

planning areas. These changes were implemented in a timely manner and completed prior to 1975.

These historical grazing allocations have been included in the existing RMPs and allocation of vegetation 

generally ranges from 25 to 40 percent for livestock and 75 to 60 percent for other uses (e.g. wildlife, soil 

protection, and other uses).

Current resource conditions on BLM-administered land, including range vegetation, watershed, and wildlife 

habitat, as reflected in land health assessments, do not warrant prohibition of livestock grazing throughout the 

entire planning area. Following initial surveyed forage allocations, land health evaluations, inventories, and 

monitoring data (vegetative and levels of use) have been the basis for increasing or decreasing permitted use.

Through this process the planning area has changed the grazing allocations on allotments to ensure that the 

healthy ecological systems are provided for future generations.

Livestock grazing is a well-established use within the BLM’s multiple use mandate. The BLM considered but 

did not analyze in detail an alternative that would make all 2.8 million acres of public lands in the planning area 

unavailable for livestock grazing because such an alternative is not reasonable, viable, or necessary. 

In accordance with the BLM’s H-1601-1 Land Use Planning Handbook and BLM WO IM No. 2012-169, the

BLM considered a range of alternatives with respect to both areas that were available or unavailable for 

livestock grazing and the amount of forage allocated to livestock on an area-wide basis. The range of 

alternatives considered includes a meaningful reduction in livestock grazing, both through a reduction in areas 

available to livestock grazing and forage allocation.

The BLM’s approach to livestock grazing is described in detail in the Livestock Grazing Appendix, which 

complies with BLM’s IM 2012-069 as well as the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook. The BLM developed 

a range of alternatives that sharply defines the issues and provides a clear basis for choice among options by the 

decision maker. The BLM analyzed closing 390,000 acres to sheep and goat grazing and 210,000 acres to all 

livestock grazing under Alternative B, in which the BLM identified unresolved conflicts for various uses of 

available resources (such as between livestock grazing and proposed ACECs). 

The BLM also analyzed a range of alternatives that varied the amount of forage allocated to livestock. In areas 

open to livestock grazing, Alternative B allocates one-third less forage to sheep and goats than Alternative A, 

existing management. Alternative B also reduces AUMs to meet rangeland health standards. Alternative B also 

includes other reductions in livestock grazing through the use of forage reserves, voluntary retirement of 

allotments, limitations on livestock grazing near cultural or recreation sites, and limitations on the use of salt 

and supplements as well as prohibiting any new range infrastructure.

Livestock grazing is and has been an important use of the public lands in the planning area for many years and 

is a continuing government program. The Council of Environmental Quality guidelines for compliance with 

NEPA require that agencies analyze the No Action Alternative in all EISs (40 Code of Federal Regulations 

[CFR] 1502.14(d)). For the purposes of this NEPA analysis, the No Action Alternative is to continue the status 

quo, which includes livestock grazing. For this reason and those stated above, a no grazing alternative for the 

entire planning area was dismissed from further consideration in the RMP. See the Livestock Grazing section in 

Table 2-1 for alternatives considering a reduction in livestock grazing.

Conservation Groups Alternative

During the range-wide scoping effort for sage-grouse, several conservation organizations submitted scoping 

comments and proposed management actions and alternatives for sage-grouse conservation (referred to here as 

the Conservation Groups Alternative). In summary, the primary intent of these proposed alternatives and 

management actions was to: 
CHAPTER 2 

ALTERNATIVES

2-9

 add additional measures (beyond those conservation measures identified in A Report on National 

Greater Sage‐Grouse Conservation Measures, produced by the Sage-grouse National Technical Team) 

(BLM 2011a) in order to maintain and increase sage-grouse abundance and, 

 designate two additional habitat types, the Greater Sage-grouse ACEC and Sage-grouse Habitat –

Restoration Areas.

These proposed actions and alternatives submitted by these organizations were determined to be substantially 

similar to those actions and habitat areas considered within the range of alternatives in this RMP. As described 

in the Fish and Wildlife, Special Status Species section in Chapter 2, this RMP delineates three types of sagegrouse habitat areas as part of the planning process, including Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas, 

Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority, and Sage-grouse Habitat – Restoration Areas. Varying degrees of 

management are considered and analyzed as part of the range of alternatives within each of these proposed 

habitat areas in order to achieve the goals or objectives for each sage-grouse habitat area, as well as address the 

conservation measures and management practices to conserve greater sage-grouse consistent with A Report on 

National Greater Sage‐Grouse Conservation Measures, produced by the Sage-grouse National Technical Team

(BLM 2011a). Additionally, this RMP includes Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for greater 

sage-grouse (see the Best Management Practices Appendix). The appendix identifies best practices, design 

features, and proactive management activities to conserve greater sage-grouse that would be applied during 

project-specific activities through subsequent environmental review and analysis.

Specific to the organizations’ proposed alternative to designate sage-grouse ACECs and Restoration Areas, this 

RMP does include, within the range of alternatives for detailed study, a Greater Sage-grouse ACEC (Alternative 

B) and Restoration Areas for sage-grouse. Table 2-1 provides a summary of the range of acreages for General, 

Protection Priority, and Restoration Habitat Areas for greater sage-grouse and provides a summary of the range 

of alternatives for sage-grouse (e.g., allowable uses, constraints, and other actions). This range of alternatives is 

adequate to compare impacts to sage-grouse from different conservation measures as well as the size of habitat 

classifications.

In summary, the additional alternatives and actions proposed through the Conservation Groups Alternative were 

determined to have substantially similar effects to the actions and habitat areas considered within the range of 

alternatives identified above. For example, the alternatives range from open to fluid mineral leasing and ROW

development to a no-lease stipulation for new oil and gas development and exclusion areas for ROWs.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN 

The preferred alternative was selected in consideration of anticipated effects of management actions and 

available scientific information and studies. However, conditions may change over time, and management 

actions already implemented can be improved as new technology and information become available. It is also 

possible that changes in land use would require different management actions in order to protect the resource. 

To provide management flexibility and address changing conditions using best management practices (BMPs), 

the Miles City Field Office (MCFO) will monitor and evaluate the approved plan (record of decision or ROD) 

using a process that provides optimum methods for evaluating effectiveness of management actions. This 

process will measure the effectiveness of existing actions by monitoring these actions and applying the results 

of new scientific research when a threshold or “trigger” is met. (See the Monitoring Appendix for items 

monitored and management options if a trigger were reached.)

MITIGATION GUIDELINES AND BEST MANAGEMENT 

PRACTICES

Mitigation measures and conservation actions are BMPs, operating procedures, or design features that have 

been developed to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for potentially significant adverse 

environmental impacts associated with surface-disturbing or disruptive activities. 
CHAPTER 2 

ALTERNATIVES

2-10

For the purposes of applying mitigation measures, surface-disturbing and disruptive activities are defined as 

described below.

Surface-disturbing activities are the physical disturbance or removal of land surface and vegetation. Some 

examples of surface-disturbing activities include, but are not limited to, construction of roads, well pads, 

pipelines, power lines, reservoirs, facilities, recreation sites, and mining. Vegetation renovation treatments that 

involve soil penetration or substantial mechanical damage to plants (plowing, chiseling, chopping, and other 

activities) are also surface-disturbing activities. This definition is not intended to prohibit all activities or 

authorized uses. For example, emergency activities (fire suppression, search and rescue, and other activities) or 

rangeland monitoring, routine maintenance associated with an approved authorization, dispersed recreational 

activities (hunting, hiking, and other activities), and livestock grazing are not considered surface-disturbing 

activities.

Disruptive activities are those uses and activities that are likely to alter the behavior of, displace, or cause 

excessive stress to wildlife populations occurring at a specific location or time. In this context, disruptive 

activities refer to those actions that alter behavior or cause the displacement of wildlife such that reproductive 

success is negatively affected or the physiological ability to cope with environmental stress is compromised. 

This term does not apply to the physical disturbance of the land surface, vegetation, or features. Examples of 

disruptive activities may include fence construction, noise, vehicle traffic, or other human presence regardless 

of the activity. The term is used in conjunction with protecting wildlife during crucial life stages (for example, 

breeding, nesting, birthing, and other activities) although it could apply to any resource value. This definition is 

not intended to prohibit all activities or authorized uses. For example, emergency activities (fire suppression, 

search and rescue, and other activities), or rangeland monitoring, routine maintenance associated with an 

approved authorization, dispersed recreational activities (hunting, hiking, and other activities), and livestock 

grazing are not considered disruptive activities.

These (and specific sage-grouse) mitigation measures and conservation actions are found in the Best 

Management Practices Appendix. The BLM may add additional mitigation measures as deemed necessary by 

further environmental analysis and as developed through consultation with other federal, state, and local 

regulatory and resource agencies.

The BLM will apply appropriate mitigation practices and conservation actions to BLM-authorized activities to 

minimize impacts if an evaluation of the project area indicated the presence of important wildlife species, 

seasonal wildlife habitat, or other resource concern. The sequence of mitigation actions will be as described 

below in three steps.

 Avoid: adverse impacts to resources are to be avoided and no action shall be permitted if there is a 

practicable alternative with less adverse impacts.

 Minimize: if impacts to resources cannot be avoided, appropriate and practicable steps to minimize 

adverse impacts must be taken.

 Compensate: appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse 

impacts that remain. The amount and quality of compensatory mitigation may not substitute for 

avoiding and minimizing impacts.

Even after avoiding and minimizing impacts, projects that will cause adverse impacts to resources typically 

require some type of compensatory mitigation. Compensatory mitigation refers to the restoration, establishment, 

enhancement, or, in certain circumstances, preservation of resources for the purpose of offsetting unavoidable 

adverse impacts. The BLM will determine the appropriate form and amount of compensatory mitigation 

required. Methods of compensatory mitigation include restoration, establishment, enhancement, and 

preservation.

 Restoration: reestablishment or rehabilitation of a resource with the goal of returning natural or historic 

functions and characteristics to a currently degraded area. Restoration may result in a gain in function, 

acres, or both.

 Establishment (creation): the development of a resource in areas in which that resource did not 

previously exist through manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of the 
CHAPTER 2 

ALTERNATIVES

2-11

site. Successful establishment results in a net gain in acres and function.

 Enhancement: activities conducted within existing resource that heighten, intensify, or improve one or 

more functions. Enhancement is often undertaken for a specific purpose such as to improve water 

quality, floodwater retention, or wildlife habitat. Enhancement results in a gain in function, but does 

not result in a net gain in acres.

 Conservation: the permanent protection of ecologically important resources through the 

implementation of appropriate legal and physical mechanisms (i.e., conservation easements, title 

transfers, or other methods). Preservation may include protection of areas adjacent to resource location 

as necessary to ensure protection or enhancement of the ecosystem. Preservation does not result in a 

net gain of acres and may only be used in certain circumstances, including when the resources to be 

preserved contribute significantly to ecological sustainability.

There are times when mitigating project impacts through on-site mitigation alone may not be possible or 

sufficient to adequately mitigate impacts and achieve resource objectives; in these cases, it may be appropriate 

to consider off-site mitigation as a feature of one or more of the alternatives in the impact analysis. Off-site 

mitigation is generally appropriate when the AO determines that impacts cannot be mitigated to an acceptable 

level onsite and it is expected that the land use authorization as submitted would not be consistent with the 

BLM’s resource objectives. The BLM may expressly condition its approval of an action on the applicant’s 

commitment to take actions, and the BLM may, if necessary, seek appropriate enforcement action to ensure the 

terms of the contract are met.

Because of site-specific circumstances, some mitigation measures and conservation actions may not apply to 

some activities (e.g., a resource or conflict is not present on a given site) or may require slight variations from 

measures and actions described in the Best Management Practices Appendix. Proposed variations will be 

addressed as site-specific mitigation applied in the permitting process. All variations in mitigation measures and 

conservation actions will require appropriate analysis and disclosure as part of activity authorization. It is 

anticipated that variations in the mitigation measures and conservation actions will be approved in very limited 

circumstances and only in coordination with state wildlife management agencies. Mitigation measures and 

conservation actions selected for implementation will be identified in the ROD or decision record for those 

activities. The proponent must implement those identified mitigations because they are commitments made as 

part of the BLM decision. Because these decisions create a clear obligation for the BLM to ensure any proposed 

mitigation adopted in the environmental review process is performed, there is assurance that mitigation will lead 

to a reduction of environmental impacts in the implementation stage and include binding mechanisms for 

enforcement (CEQ 2011). The determination of adequate application of the mitigation measures and 

conservation actions for specific projects will remain with the BLM’s AO. 

HOW TO READ TABLE 2-1

Each alternative plan is presented in table format by column. To learn about an alternative and potential 

management actions, read down the table. To compare alternatives, read across the table. All acreage numbers 

in the table are approximate. All of the management actions considered apply to BLM-administered lands and 

minerals only. Acre figures may overlap and adding these figures will not result in accurate total acreage. For 

example, if an action reads “the BLM would make significant cultural sites available for scientific study” this 

action would apply to BLM-administered lands only. If conflicting management actions are proposed for the 

same acreage (and the resources for that action are present) within an alternative, then the most restrictive action 

would be implemented (unless a safety hazard was identified or the action were to conflict with existing law and 

regulation). For example, if an alternative prohibits surface-disturbing activities in a 200-acre area of crucial 

winter range but a later action in the same alternative allows a surface-disturbing activity (and crucial winter 

range is present), the activity would not be allowed. This would also apply if an alternative prohibits surfacedisturbing activities but hazards to the public were found on the same acreage; in this case, the BLM would 

allow the removal or elimination of the hazard, including any necessary surface disturbance.

Some management actions have additional details, which are included in footnotes at the end of the table. 

All stipulations for oil and gas can be found in the Minerals Appendix.
CHAPTER 2 

ALTERNATIVES

2-12

Where acres are provided in Table 2-1, the data for that resource have been collected; where data are 

incomplete, an assumption is made regarding the acre numbers (and is found in the Assumptions to the Analyses

section of Chapter 4). For example, although the BLM is aware that there are sensitive soils in the 2.8 millionacre planning area, not all of these areas are mapped. Where field data have not been collected, the BLM 

provides acreage assumptions for analysis based on agency professionals’ expertise and judgment.

Upon plan approval (ROD), valid existing rights would not be changed by the decisions in this document until a 

permit or lease expired; following this, the area would be subject to the decisions reached in this document. 

However, the BLM will continue to coordinate with private surface owners before approving minerals activities 

under their private surface. Surface owner requirements can be incorporated as COAs prior to approving an 

action.

HOW TO READ TABLE 2-2

Table 2-2, Summary Comparison of Impacts by Alternative, presents a brief summary of the potential impacts 

that would occur under each alternative. Each alternative plan is presented in table format by column. To 

compare impacts by alternative, read down the table. To compare impacts by resource, resource use, special 

designation area, or topic, read across the table. See Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences for complete 

analysis of each alternative. 

For a description of Resources, Resource Uses, Special Designations, and Social and Economic by alternative, 

see the table below or, for electronic drafts, click on the following link to take you to a specific resource:

Air Resources and Climate, Back Country Byways, Cultural Resources, Environmental Justice, Facilities, Fish 

and Wildlife (Aquatics and Terrestrial), Forestry and Woodland Products, Hazardous Materials and Waste,

Vegetation – Invasive Species, Lands and Realty, Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, Livestock Grazing,

Minerals, National Trails, Paleontological Resources, Recreation, Renewable Energy, Riparian and Wetland,

Social and Economic, Soils, Special Designation Areas, Special Status Species, Special Status Species – Plants, 

SRMAs, Transportation, Travel Management and OHV, Vegetation, Visual Resources, Water Resources,

Wilderness, and Wildland Fire Management and Ecology.

 Glendive Short Pine Off-Highway Vehicle Area parking in Dawson County
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-13

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

RESOURCES

AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE

Goal 1 – Maintain or enhance air quality and air quality related values (AQRVs) in the planning area and at sensitive areas (e.g., Class 

I areas) in and near the planning area.

Goal 2 – Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when feasible.

Goal 3 – Evaluate the observed and anticipated long-term dynamic of climate change and minimize the impact of GHGs from projects 

to the degree practicable and reasonably foreseeable.

Goal 4 – Provide for diverse, healthy ecosystems that are resilient to stressors such as climate change.

Goal 5 – Provide for flexible, adaptable management that allows for timely responses to changing climatic conditions.

Goal 6 – Maintain or improve the ability of BLM-administered lands to reduce (sequester) atmospheric GHGs.

Objective 1 – Comply with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 7401 et seq.).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Air Resources and 

Climate

Action 1 – The BLM would participate in local, state, tribal, and federal ambient air quality monitoring 

programs.

Action 2 – Air resource and climate change monitoring would be conducted as described in the Monitoring 

Appendix and in the Air Resources and Climate Appendix (see also Map 6).

Action 3 – Prescribed burning activities would be managed in accordance with Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality (MDEQ) regulations and USEPA guidance.

Action 4 – Emission reduction BMPs would be considered during project-level planning.

Action 5 – Methane emissions from proposed new or expanded coal mines would be estimated as part of 

project-level planning, and emission reduction measures would be considered.

Action 6 – Actions that reduced or mitigated GHG emissions by actions such as enhanced energy efficiency, use 

of lower GHG-emitting technologies, and the capture or beneficial use of fugitive methane emissions would be 

prioritized.

Action 7 – The BLM would promote vegetative capture and storage of carbon, with consideration for resource 

objectives, by using Standards for Rangeland Health and Montana forestry and rangeland BMP guidelines at the 

project-planning and implementation level.

Action 8 – The BLM would adjust the timing of BLM-authorized activities as needed to accommodate longterm changes in seasonal weather patterns while considering the impacts to other resources and resource uses.

Action 9 – Healthy sustainable rangelands that supported air quality, water quality, properly functioning uplands 

and riparian areas, diverse vegetation, and wildlife habitat would be achieved for all resource uses by meeting or 

making significant progress toward meeting the Standards for Rangeland Health.

Action 10 – The BLM would follow the Memorandum of Understanding Among the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regarding Air Quality 

Analyses and Mitigation for Federal Oil and Gas Decisions Through the National Environmental Policy Act 

Process.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-14

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

SOILS

Goal 1 – Maintain or improve the chemical, physical, and biotic properties of soil.

Soils

Objective 1 – Prevent, if possible, or limit accelerated soil loss, minimize degradation of soils, and control 

sedimentation.

Objective 2 – Maintain or improve adequate vegetation and ground cover (including biological soil crusts and 

litter) to promote soil health, productivity, and stability.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Soils 

Action 1 – Prior to authorization of surface-disturbing activities, the BLM would evaluate the activity on a caseby-case basis and, if necessary, apply measures (see the Best Management Practices Appendix), relocate the 

activity to a more suitable soil type, or deny the authorization. If necessary, an on-site inspection would evaluate 

the activity.

Action 2 – Approved surface-disturbing activities would include reclamation plans as described in the 

Reclamation Appendix. These would be site-specific plans that incorporated the project’s complexity, 

environmental concerns, and reclamation potential.

Action 3 – Monitoring would occur as described in the Monitoring Appendix.

Action 4 – Geothermal leasing would be offered in compliance with the Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (BLM 2008h).

Action 5 – Healthy sustainable rangelands that supported air quality, water quality, properly functioning uplands 

and riparian areas, diverse vegetation, and wildlife habitat would be achieved for all resource uses by meeting or 

making significant progress toward meeting the Standards for Rangeland Health.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Soils

Action 6 –

Mechanical 

treatment of 

vegetation on 

slopes greater than 

15% would be 

avoided (BLM 

1996).

Use of groundbased harvest and 

slash-treating 

equipment would 

be limited to 40% 

slopes and less 

Action 6 – Surfacedisturbing activities 

that did not benefit 

the functionality of 

the soil resource on

slopes 25% or 

greater would not be 

allowed.

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered

with a no surface 

occupancy (NSO) 

stipulation on slopes 

25% or greater.1

Action 6 – Surface-disturbing activities on slopes 25% or greater 

would be avoided unless the activity could be effectively designed 

to limit impacts to an acceptable level.2, 4

Oil and gas leasing would be offered with a CSU stipulation on 

slopes 25% or greater.1
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-15

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

(BLM 2003k).

Surface-disturbing 

activities on slopes 

30% or greater 

would be avoided 

unless the activity 

can be mitigated 

(BLM 1996).

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation on 

slopes over 30% 

(BLM 1985c).1

Soils

Action 7 –

Mechanical 

treatment of 

vegetation on 

highly erodible 

soils would be 

avoided (BLM 

1996).

Oil and gas leasing 

on sensitive soils

would be offered 

with lease terms.

Action 7 – Surfacedisturbing activities 

that did not benefit 

the functionality of

sensitive soils would 

not be allowed.

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation on 

sensitive soils.

1

Action 7 – Surface-disturbing activities on sensitive soils would 

be avoided unless the activity could be effectively designed to 

limit impacts to an acceptable level.2, 3

Oil and gas leasing would be offered with a CSU stipulation on 

sensitive soils.

1

WATER RESOURCES

Goal 1 – Maintain or enhance the beneficial uses of surface water and groundwater.

Objective 1 – Comply with applicable laws, regulations, and standards.

Objective 2 – Support natural surface water flow regimes.

Objective 3 – Protect water resources from point source and nonpoint source pollution.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Water Action 1 – The BLM would consult and coordinate activities with other federal, state, tribal, and local agencies 

as required by the Watershed Protection and Flood Control Act (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) and the Clean Water 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-16

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).

Water

Action 2 – The BLM activities conducted would meet or exceed Montana water quality standards. The BLM 

would manage or control contributions of nonpoint source pollution from federal lands and BLM-authorized 

activities to all receiving waters. The BLM would establish or maintain vegetated buffer zones to protect water 

resources.

Action 3 – The BLM would file water rights with the State of Montana for water-related BLM projects on public 

land.

Action 4 – All wells and associated facilities authorized by the BLM would be designed to protect groundwater 

systems.

Action 5 – Geothermal leasing would be offered in compliance with the Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (BLM 2008h).

Action 6 – Healthy sustainable rangelands that supported air quality, water quality, properly functioning uplands 

and riparian areas, diverse vegetation, and wildlife habitat would be achieved for all resource uses by meeting or 

making significant progress toward meeting the Standards for Rangeland Health.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Water 

Action 7 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation on 

100-year 

floodplains of 

major rivers.

1

Action 7 – Surfacedisturbing activities 

that did not benefit 

the functionality of 

the floodplain would 

not be allowed on

100-year

floodplains.

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation on 100-

year floodplains.

1

Action 7 – Surface-disturbing activities 

that did not benefit the functionality of the 

floodplain would be avoided on 100-year

floodplains unless no other practicable 

alternative existed, in which case the 

activities would only be allowed with 

measures to minimize impacts.2, 4

Oil and gas leasing would be offered with a 

CSU stipulation on 100-year floodplains.

1

Action 7 – Surfacedisturbing activities 

would avoid 

floodplains. If 

avoidance were not 

possible, surfacedisturbing activities 

would be approved 

with specialized 

design features to 

maintain or improve 

the functionality 

and resiliency of the 

floodplain.

2, 4

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation on

floodplains.

1
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-17

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Water 

Action 8 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation on 

waterbodies and 

streams.1

Action 8 – Surfacedisturbing activities 

that did not benefit 

the functionality of 

the waterbody or 

stream would not be 

allowed on 

waterbodies and 

streams.

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation on 

waterbodies and 

streams.1

Action 8 – Surfacedisturbing activities 

that did not benefit 

the functionality of 

the waterbody or 

stream would be 

avoided on 

waterbodies and 

streams and only 

allowed with 

measures to 

minimize impacts.2, 

5

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation on 

waterbodies and 

streams.1

Action 8 – Surfacedisturbing activities 

would be allowed 

on waterbodies and 

streams with 

measures to 

minimize impacts.2, 

3

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation on 

waterbodies and 

streams.1

Action 8 – Surfacedisturbing activities 

that impacted or did 

not benefit the 

functionality of the 

perennial or 

intermittent stream 

(as indicated by 

obligate wetland 

species or hydric 

soils), lake, pond, or 

reservoir would be 

avoided on these 

areas. If avoidance 

were not possible, 

surface-disturbing 

activities would be 

approved with 

specialized design 

features to minimize 

impacts to water 

quality and fish and 

wildlife habitat.

2

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation on 

perennial or 

intermittent streams

(as indicated by 

obligate wetland 

species or hydric

soils), lakes, ponds, 

and reservoirs.

1
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-18

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Water 

Action 9 – Surface 

water 

impoundments 

would be allowed.

Action 9 – New 

surface water 

impoundments 

would be allowed 

only if the natural 

flow regime and 

watershed 

functionality would 

be maintained 

within the 6

th order 

watershed. It must 

be shown that all of 

the following would 

occur:

1. Peak flows 

would be 

sufficient to 

maintain 

healthy 

channel 

characteristics 

and sediment 

transport;

2. Riparian 

vegetation 

would not 

decline;

3. Aquatic 

wildlife

habitat would 

not decline; 

and

4. Watershed 

functionality 

would not be 

reduced (see 

Action 9 – Surface water impoundments 

would be allowed with measures designed 

to maintain the natural flow regime and 

watershed functionality.2

Action 9 – Surface 

water 

impoundments 

would be allowed 

with measures 

designed to 

maintain the natural

flow regime, water 

quality, and riparian

and watershed 

functionality and 

resiliency.

2
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-19

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

the Best 

Management 

Practices and 

Reclamation 

Appendices). 

Water 

Action 10 – Flowcontrol devices on 

all existing and 

new water wells 

and spring 

developments on 

BLM-administered 

land would be 

installed on a caseby-case basis.

Action 10 – Flowcontrol devices 

would be installed 

on all existing and 

new water wells and 

spring developments 

on BLMadministered land. 

All spring 

developments would 

be designed to 

ensure that the 

riparian community 

was maintained or 

improved and 

adequate water left 

at the source for 

wildlife.

Action 10 – Flow-control devices would be 

installed on all new water wells and spring 

developments on BLM-administered land. 

New spring developments would be 

designed to ensure that the riparian

community was maintained or improved 

and adequate water left at the source for 

wildlife.

Action 10 – New 

water wells would 

be designed to 

conserve water and 

protect resources at

the outfall. New 

spring 

developments 

would be designed 

to ensure that the 

riparian community 

and water quality 

was maintained or 

improved and 

adequate water left 

at the source for 

wildlife.

VEGETATION

Goal 1 – Manage vegetation communities to restore, maintain, or enhance vegetation community health, connectivity, and diversity.

Vegetation

Objective 1 – Native plant communities that exist in a diversity of plant associations (including multi-aged

stands of trees and shrubs and healthy understory vegetation and sufficient diversity in structure, age class, and 

species composition) to support nutrient cycling and energy flows. 

Objective 2 – Vegetation that demonstrates health, vigor, and reproductive success. Shrub overstory in a variety 

of spatial arrangements and sizes across landscapes that include large contiguous blocks, islands, and corridors. 

Objective 3 – Plant communities that reflect the potential natural community or the desired plant community

appropriate for the site in the context of climate change. 

Objective 4 – Adequate organic matter (ground litter and standing dead material) in sufficient quantities to 

control erosion, replenish nutrients, maintain soil health, and meet the needs of wildlife.

Objective 5 – Maintain healthy vegetation (primarily forest, grassland, and riparian communities) while 

providing for plant resiliency.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-20

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Objective 6 – Rehabilitate or restore shrub and shrub or grassland communities that do not meet desired future 

condition because of habitat fragmentation or encroachment by conifers, decadent woody species, invasive 

species, or undesirable species.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Vegetation

Action 1 – Healthy sustainable rangelands that supported wildlife, water quality, and fisheries would be 

achieved by meeting or making significant progress toward meeting the Standards for Rangeland Health. 

Action 2 – Vegetative manipulation (or prescriptive) treatments (chemical, fire, biological, manual, and 

mechanical) would be consistent with the guidelines stated in the Final and ROD Vegetation Treatments Using 

Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (BLM 2007d and 2007g), Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 

Western States Programmatic Environmental Report (BLM 2007c), Final and ROD Vegetation Treatment on 

BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States (BLM 1991a), Northwest Area Noxious Weed Program Environmental 

Impact Statement (BLM 1985a), Supplement to the Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 1987), and BLM manuals and handbooks H-1740-1, H-1740-2, 1740, 

1745, 4180, Technical Reference 1730-1 Measuring and Monitoring Plant Populations (Elzinga, Salzer, and 

Willoughby 1998), and 6840, Special Status Species Management, as appropriate.

Action 3 – Seeding and planting projects would be conducted with locally gathered native materials (seed, 

seedlings, or other materials) or, if local materials were not available, appropriate non-local native or nonnative

materials.

Action 4 – Treatments (fertilization, mechanical treatments, or other activities) would be prioritized in areas in 

which restoration would enhance special status species habitats, establish (wildfire) fuel breaks, and restore 

wildlife habitats.

Action 5 – Guidelines from the National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (BLM 2004i) and the 

Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage-grouse in Montana–Final (Montana Sage-grouse Work 

Group 2005) would be incorporated in vegetation treatments and habitat restoration projects conducted in sagegrouse habitats.

Action 6 – Monitoring would be conducted as described in the Monitoring Appendix.

Action 7 – Special status plant species would be maintained by occurrence according to distribution from the 

Montana Natural Heritage Tracker program. Protection and mitigation measures would address site-specific 

impacts.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Haying, 

nonnative

Action 8 –

Harvesting of 

nonnative hay or 

seed would be 

allowed when 

consistent with 

Action 8 – Unless 

the actions were

warranted for fuel 

reduction,

harvesting of 

nonnative hay or 

Action 8 –

Harvesting of 

nonnative hay or 

seed would not be 

allowed in sagegrouse habitat but

Action 8 –

Harvesting of 

nonnative hay or 

seed would be 

allowed when 

consistent with 

Action 8 – Unless 

the actions were

warranted for fuel 

reduction or wildlife

habitat 

enhancement,
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-21

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

allotment 

objectives. The 

BLM would have 

the option to 

reduce AUMs

during the year the 

hay is cut if the 

cutting of hay 

would result in a 

reduction of the 

carrying capacity

for the allotment.

seed would not be 

allowed in the 

planning area.

would be allowed in 

the remainder of the 

planning area. 

Livestock grazing

would be excluded 

and AUMs

suspended only in 

the areas in which 

harvesting of 

nonnative hay or 

seed occurs. The 

hay would be sold 

on a per acre basis 

according to fair 

market value as 

established by the 

Montana 

Department of 

Agricultural 

Statistics.

allotment 

objectives. The 

BLM would have 

the option to reduce 

AUMs during the 

year the hay was cut 

if the cutting of hay 

resulted in a 

reduction of the 

carrying capacity

for the allotment.

harvesting of 

nonnative hay or 

seed would not be 

allowed in the 

planning area.

Haying, native

Action 9 –

Harvesting of 

native hay or seed 

would be allowed 

when consistent 

with allotment 

objectives.

Action 9 – Unless 

the actions were

warranted for 

hazardous fuels

reduction (or 

wildlife habitat 

enhancement), 

harvesting of native 

hay would not be 

allowed. Harvesting 

of native seed would 

be allowed for the 

purposes of seed 

collection for the 

Seeds of Success 

project and 

reclamation, 

Action 9 –

Harvesting of native 

hay would only be 

allowed where the 

area to be hayed 

was included or 

fenced into private 

lands harvested for 

native hay and used 

for agricultural 

purposes. The hay 

would be sold on a 

per acre basis 

according to fair 

market value as 

established by the 

Montana 

Action 9 –

Harvesting of native 

hay or seed would 

be allowed when 

consistent with 

allotment 

objectives.

Action 9 – Unless 

the actions were

warranted for 

hazardous fuels

reduction (or

wildlife habitat 

enhancement), 

harvesting of native 

hay would not be 

allowed. Harvesting 

of native seed 

would be allowed 

for purposes of 

collecting seed and 

for reclamation, 

restoration, and 

emergency 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-22

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

restoration, and 

emergency 

stabilization and 

rehabilitation

projects.

Department of 

Agricultural 

Statistics.

stabilization and 

rehabilitation

projects.

HARDWOOD DRAWS

Goal 1 – Protect, maintain, restore, and enhance hardwood draw communities to achieve multi-aged stands that are healthy, 

structurally diverse, and reproductively successful. Rejuvenate older stands and enhance seedling recruitment. Management actions 

would be dependent on the species found in a particular plant association (green ash, buffaloberry, chokecherry, skunkbush sumac, 

quaking aspen, cottonwoods, and other shrub species).

Hardwood Draws

Objective 1 – A desired future condition of healthy and resilient hardwood draw communities and plant 

associations within suitable habitats. Vigorous and reproductively successful plant species associated with 

hardwood draws that demonstrate diversity in age, class, and structure, provide habitat for wildlife, and exhibit a 

tendency to spread into suitable but unoccupied habitats.

Objective 2 – Manage existing stands of hardwood draw species to achieve mixed-age classes in the planning 

area over the long term.

Objective 3 – Focus treatment programs on reestablishment, recruitment, seedling and sapling survival, and 

achievement of a healthy and diverse community structure.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Hardwood Draws

Action 1 – The BLM would approximate a natural disturbance regime in selected hardwood draws using, but not 

limited to, a combination of treatments, including prescribed fire, wildfire, manual cutting, mechanical removal, 

root ripping, herbicides, and managed herbivory.

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES PLANTS

Goal 1 – Maintain or improve the quality of special status plant species and their habitat by managing known occurrences and public 

land activities to benefit those species.

Hardwood Draws

Objective 1 – Maintain the natural diversity and composition of special status species plant communities on a 

landscape scale while recognizing the impacts of natural processes (e.g., fire).

Objective 2 – Require assessments (including surveys and evaluations) for special status plant species prior to 

project implementation to determine the presence or absence of special status species if suitable habitat were 

present.

Objective 3 – Manage land tenure adjustments, easements, and interagency cooperation to conserve and 

improve habitat connectivity.

Objective 4 – Ensure that the reproductive viability and habitat needs of special status plants are not affected by 

the BLM management actions that would contribute to their decline or listing.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-23

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Special Status 

Species Plants 

Action 1 – The BLM would consider potential adverse effects and recommend mitigation measures for affected 

special status plant species in site-specific, project-level planning documents.

Action 2 – The BLM would cooperate and collaborate with federal, tribal, and state agencies and private 

landowners to actively conserve and improve special status plant species habitats and populations. The BLM 

would educate and promote awareness of special status plant species.

Action 3 – When potential special status plant species might be affected, the BLM would adjust management 

activity to protect or enhance the species occurrences.

Action 4 – The BLM would complete its obligations under applicable requirements of the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA), as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., including completion of any required procedures for conference 

or consultation.1

RIPARIAN AND WETLAND AREAS

Goal 1 – Manage riparian and wetland systems to be healthy, diverse, and functional.

Riparian and 

Wetland Areas

Objective 1 – Improve functional-at risk riparian and wetland areas toward proper functioning condition (PFC)

or a higher ecological status.

Objective 2 – Improve nonfunctional riparian and wetland areas toward PFC or a higher ecological status.

Objective 3 – Maintain or exceed PFC in riparian and wetland areas. Some riparian and wetland areas would be 

managed for conservation at a higher ecological status than PFC.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Riparian and 

Wetland Areas

Action 1 – The BLM would establish or maintain vegetated buffer zones to protect riparian and wetland areas 

from activities outside of these areas. 

Action 2 – The BLM would ensure that standards for water quality, properly functioning riparian areas, and 

habitat requirements for special status species, wildlife, and fisheries were met or exceeded.

Action 3 – The BLM would, on a case-by-case basis, use temporary or permanent enclosures (e.g., in woody 

draw or riparian areas) to promote species diversity, recruitment, and ecosystem functionality.

Action 4 – Geothermal leasing would be offered in compliance with the Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (BLM 2008h).

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Riparian and 

Wetland Areas

Action 5 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation 

within riparian

areas.1

Action 5 – Surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities

would not be 

allowed in riparian

and wetland areas.

Action 5 – Surface-disturbing and 

disruptive activities would avoid riparian

and wetland areas. If avoidance were not 

possible, surface-disturbing and disruptive 

activities would be authorized in riparian 

and wetland areas with approved 

specialized design features to improve or 

maintain PFC.

2, 6

Action 5 – Surfacedisturbing activities, 

if feasible, would 

avoid riparian and 

wetland areas and 

be avoided within 

300 feet of the 

boundary of riparian 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-24

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Linear 

underground 

facilities crossing 

wetlands, perennial 

streams, 

intermittent 

streams, or riparian

areas would be 

allowed.

Oil and gas leasing 

would not be offered 

in riparian and 

wetland areas.

Oil and gas leasing would be offered with a 

CSU stipulation in riparian and wetland

areas.1

and wetland areas. 

If avoidance were 

not feasible, 

surface-disturbing 

activities would be 

allowed with 

approved 

specialized design 

features to maintain

or exceed

functionality and 

resiliency.

2, 7

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO

stipulation in 

riparian and wetland

areas.1

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation within 

300 feet of riparian 

and wetland areas.1

Riparian and 

Wetland Areas

Action 6 – New 

spring 

developments 

would be 

authorized and 

fenced.

Action 6 – New 

spring 

developments 

would not be 

authorized in 

riparian and wetland

areas.

Action 6 – New spring developments 

would be designed to maintain or exceed 

the integrity, functionality, and resiliency 

(including water quality and habitat for 

fisheries and wildlife) of the associated 

wetland, riparian area, stream, or creek. 

Action 7 – No 

trough or tank 

would be installed 

in areas containing 

Action 7 – New 

livestock water 

developments 

(troughs or tanks) 

Action 7 – New livestock water 

developments (troughs or tanks) would be 

located at least 0.25 miles from perennial 

and intermittent streams. This would not 

Action 7 – New 

livestock water 

developments 

(troughs or tanks) 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-25

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

important riparian

and wetland

vegetation unless 

no possible 

alternative site 

exists (BLM 1996).

Troughs or tanks 

would be installed 

in riparian and 

wetland areas on a 

case-by-case basis 

(BLM 1985c).

would be located at 

least 0.25 miles 

from riparian and 

wetland areas, 

waterbodies, and 

streams.

include ephemeral streams or reservoirs. 

Approved deviations would be allowed if 

the water development benefited resources.

would be located 

and designed to 

maintain or exceed 

the integrity, 

functionality, and 

resiliency 

(including water 

quality and habitat 

for fisheries and 

wildlife) of the 

associated wetland, 

riparian area, 

stream, or creek. 

INVASIVE SPECIES

Goal 1 – Manage vegetation communities to restore, maintain, or enhance vegetation community health and diversity.

Invasive Species

Objective 1 – Manage for healthy native plant communities by reducing, preventing expansion of, or 

eliminating the occurrence of invasive species.

Objective 2 – Manage uses on BLM-administered wetlands, waterbodies, and other water resources consistent 

with Montana state law to minimize the potential spread of aquatic invasive species.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Invasive Species

Action 1 – The BLM would manage invasive species in accordance with the Final (and Record of Decision) 

Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 2007d and 2007g), which provides an integrated 

approach designed to improve the overall quality of public lands for wildlife, watershed, recreation, and 

livestock forage.

Action 2 – Pest management would utilize Integrated Weed/Pest Management (using, but not limited, to manual, 

mechanical, prescribed fire, chemical, biological, cultural, and educational methods) and work within federal 

guidelines, laws, statutes, plans, and regulations to manage infestations of invasive species on the BLM, 

Montana, and local invasive species lists.

Action 3 – Weed management prescriptions would be included in all new treatment projects and incorporated 

into existing contracts, agreements, task forces, designated weed-free management areas, and land use 

authorizations that resulted in ground-disturbing activities. 

Action 4 – Certified weed-seed-free forage (hay, grains, cubes, pelletized feeds, straw, and mulch) would be 

used or authorized on BLM-administered lands.

Action 5 – The BLM would evaluate the effectiveness of weed management activities at project- and field-office 

levels.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-26

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Action 6 – Contractor and BLM equipment would be power-washed to remove weed seeds and plant parts 

before entering and leaving ground-disturbing project areas when necessary or as required. All boats and other 

aquatic recreation vehicles would be power-washed to remove weed seeds, plant parts, and invasive species 

before entering and leaving waterbodies on BLM-administered lands.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Invasive Species

Action 7 –

Surface-disturbing 

activities would be 

allowed on BLMadministered lands 

in areas of invasive 

species

infestations.

Action 7 – Surfacedisturbing activities 

would not be 

allowed on BLMadministered lands 

in areas of invasive 

species infestations.

Action 7 – Surface-disturbing activities would be allowed on 

BLM-administered lands in areas of invasive species infestation 

only with approved mitigation measures in place.2

Action 8 – There 

would be no 

priority treatment 

areas identified. 

Invasive species

would continue to 

be treated on a 

case-by-case basis.

Action 8 – Priority 

treatment areas 

would be any areas 

in which Montanadesignated invasive 

species were 

present.

Action 8 – Using 

Early Detection 

Rapid Response, 

priority treatment 

areas would be 

designated in 

publicly accessible

areas, riparian areas, 

and special status 

species habitat 

areas.

Action 8 – Priority 

treatment areas 

would be areas in 

which the 

surrounding private 

lands were within 

an active invasive 

species treatment 

area and in which 

the respective 

private landowners 

were actively 

controlling invasive 

species.

Action 8 – Using 

Early Detection 

Rapid Response, 

treatment areas 

would be prioritized 

in publicly 

accessible areas, 

riparian areas, 

emergency 

stabilization and 

rehabilitation areas, 

and special status 

species habitat 

areas. The rest of 

the public lands in 

the planning area

would be next in 

priority. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE

Goal 1 – Provide functional wildlife habitat.

Fish and Wildlife

Objective 1 – Maintain and enhance habitats to support well-distributed, healthy, and diverse populations of 

wildlife and fish species.

Objective 2 – Cooperate with entities to identify decommissioned power lines for potential removal.

Objective 3 – Cooperate with entities to identify existing power lines that do not meet the most recent guidance 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-27

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

from the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (currently 2006).

Objective 4 – Incorporate habitat objectives into coordinated resource management, habitat management, 

surface-disturbance-related plans, or allotment management plans (AMPs) for the improvement or maintenance 

of wildlife habitat. 

Objective 5 – Prioritize installment of fish screens on all diversions within 10 years.

Objective 6 – Prioritize making all culverts, oil skimmers, and road and trail crossings fish passable within 10 

years.

Objective 7 – Manage prairie streams and rivers according to federal and state laws, scientific principles, and 

proactive management to protect, maintain, and enhance healthy populations of aquatic wildlife including fish, 

amphibians, reptiles, bivalves, and aquatic arthropods (invertebrates and crustaceans).

Objective 8 – Manage for healthy native aquatic, stream, and riparian communities by reducing or preventing 

the expansion of or eliminating the occurrence of nonnative invasive species.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Fish and Wildlife 

Action 1 – The BLM would maintain, restore, or improve habitat for sensitive, threatened, endangered, and 

candidate species for federal listing.

Action 2 – The BLM would manage prairie streams to meet or exceed PFC and provide functional and resilient 

habitat for aquatic species (see the Chapter 3, Riparian and Wetland Areas section for a more complete 

description of PFC). 

Action 3 – Geothermal leasing would be offered in compliance with the Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (BLM 2008h).

Action 4 – Healthy sustainable rangelands that supported air quality, water quality, properly functioning uplands 

and riparian areas, diverse vegetation, and wildlife habitat would be achieved for all resource uses by meeting or 

making significant progress toward meeting the Standards for Rangeland Health.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Fish and 

Wildlife, 

Aquatics

Action 5 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation 

within 0.25 miles 

of designated 

reservoirs with 

fisheries

(4,000 acres).1

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed within 

Action 5 – Surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities 

would not be 

allowed in or within 

0.5 miles of 

designated sport-fish

reservoirs unless the 

activities were 

beneficial to aquatic 

wildlife habitat 

(10,000 acres).2, 7

Action 5 – Surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities 

would be avoided in 

and within 0.25 

miles of designated 

sport-fish reservoirs 

and would only be 

approved with 

design features to 

minimize impacts 

(3,800 acres). 2, 4

Action 5 – Surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities 

would be allowed 

adjacent to 

designated sportfish reservoirs with 

BLM-approved 

design features to 

minimize impacts 

(170 acres).2, 4

Oil and gas leasing 

Action 5 – Surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities 

would be avoided in 

and within 0.25 

miles of designated 

sport-fish reservoirs 

and would only be 

approved with 

design features to 

mitigate impacts to 

fishery resources 

and the user 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-28

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

those acres. Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation in and 

within 0.5 miles of 

designated sport-fish

reservoirs (10,000 

acres).1

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation in and 

within 0.25 miles of 

designated sportfish reservoirs 

(4,000 acres).1 

would be offered by 

designated sportfish reservoirs with 

design features to 

minimize impacts 

(CSU) (167 acres).1

experience (3,800 

acres).2, 4

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation in and 

within 0.25 miles of 

designated sportfish reservoirs 

(4,000 acres).1

Fish and Wildlife, 

Aquatics

Action 6 – Fish 

passage would be 

required on a caseby-case basis for 

new culverts, oil

skimmers, and road 

and rail crossings. 

Action 6 – Newly constructed or 

replacement stream-crossing structures 

(culverts, oil skimmers, and road and trail 

crossings) would be built to enable fish

passage and protect habitat from erosion 

and damming streams.

Action 6 – Fish 

passage would be 

required on a caseby-case basis for 

new culverts, oil

skimmers, and road 

and rail crossings. 

Action 6 – Newly 

constructed or 

replacement streamcrossing structures 

(culverts, oil

skimmers, and road 

and trail crossings) 

would be built to 

enable fish passage 

and protect habitat 

from erosion and 

damming streams.

There may be 

instances where the 

BLM uses culverts 

or road crossings to 

block nonnative 

invasive species 

from migrating 

upstream or 

downstream.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-29

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Fish and 

Wildlife, 

Terrestrial

Action 1 – For migratory bird conservation and to restore, enhance, and maintain habitats for all birds, the BLM 

would use the 2010 MOU between the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and BLM, To Promote 

the Conservation of Migratory Birds, and Executive Order 13186 (January 1, 2001). The Fish and Wildlife 

Appendix outlines the recommended strategies for migratory birds. 

Action 2 – Predator control would be permitted subject to the stipulations outlined in the annual Montana 

Wildlife Services Animal Damage Management Work Plan and Fiscal Year Summary Report for the Bureau of 

Land Management. Predator control areas not subject to United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Animal Damage Control would be subject to the same stipulations that apply to those counties where predators 

are managed by the USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

Action 3 – Overhead power lines, where authorized, would follow the recommendations in the most recent 

guidance from the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee, currently 2006. 

Action 4 – The BLM would follow and utilize wildlife conservation and management plans in which the BLM 

was a signatory in concert with its partners. 

Action 5 – Refer to the Wildland Fire Management and Ecology section for management actions concerning 

wildlife habitat.

Action 6 – Geothermal leasing would be offered in compliance with the Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (BLM 2008h).

Action 7 – Healthy sustainable rangelands that supported air quality, water quality, properly functioning uplands 

and riparian areas, diverse vegetation, and wildlife habitat would be achieved for all resource uses by meeting or 

making significant progress toward meeting the Standards for Rangeland Health.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Fish and Wildlife, 

Terrestrial

Action 8 – Power 

lines would not be 

required to be 

buried (BLM 

1996). 

Within the Powder 

River RMP area, 

low-voltage power 

lines associated 

with oil and gas

would be buried if 

feasible (BLM 

2008i).

Action 8 – The 

BLM would not 

authorize 

aboveground power 

lines unless burying 

the power lines was

not technologically 

feasible.

Action 8 – Power lines would be allowed with specialized design 

features to maintain the capability of habitats to support diverse 

and viable populations of all wildlife species associated with the 

specific habitat type.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-30

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Big Game

Crucial Winter 

Range

Action 9 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with a 

timing restriction 

from December 1 

to March 31 within 

Big Game Crucial 

Winter Range areas 

(2,500,000 oil and 

gas acres).1

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed on 

those acres during 

that same period 

(1,600,000 

geophysical acres).

Action 9 – Surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities

would not be 

allowed in Big 

Game Crucial 

Winter Range areas 

(1,600,000 BLMadministered surface 

acres and 2,300,000 

mineral material

acres).

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO

stipulation in Big 

Game Crucial 

Winter Range areas 

(2,500,000 oil and 

gas acres).1

Action 9 – Surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities

would be allowed in 

Big Game Crucial 

Winter Range areas 

with specialized 

design features to 

maintain the 

functionality of the 

habitat (1,600,000 

BLM-administered 

surface acres and 

2,300,000 mineral 

material acres).2

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation in Big 

Game Crucial 

Winter Range areas 

(2,500,000 oil and 

gas acres).1

Action 9 – Surfacedisturbing activities 

would be allowed in 

Big Game Crucial 

Winter Range areas 

with specialized 

design features to 

maintain the 

functionality of the 

habitat (1,600,000 

BLM-administered 

surface acres and 

2,300,000 mineral 

material acres).2

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation in Big 

Game Crucial 

Winter Range areas 

(2,500,000 oil and 

gas acres).1

Action 9 – Surfacedisturbing activities 

would be allowed 

within Big Game

Crucial Winter 

Range areas with 

specialized design 

features to maintain 

the habitat capable 

of supporting the 

long-term 

populations of 

wintering big game 

associated with this 

winter range 

(1,600,000 BLMadministered 

surface acres and 

2,300,000 mineral 

material acres).2

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation within 

Big Game Crucial 

Winter Range areas 

(2,500,000 oil and 

gas acres).1

Sharp-tailed 

Grouse Leks 

and Nesting 

Habitat

Action 10 –

Surface 

disturbance (other 

than water 

developments and 

fences) would not 

be authorized 

within 0.25 miles 

Action 10 –

Surface-disturbing 

and disruptive 

activities would be 

allowed on and 

within 4 miles of 

sharp-tailed grouse 

leks with specialized 

Action 10 –

Surface-disturbing 

and disruptive 

activities would be 

allowed on and 

within 2 miles of 

sharp-tailed grouse 

leks with 

Action 10 –

Surface-disturbing 

activities would be 

allowed on and 

within 2 miles of 

sharp-tailed grouse 

leks with 

specialized design 

Action 10 –

Surface-disturbing 

and disruptive 

activities would be 

allowed on and 

within 2 miles of 

sharp-tailed grouse 

leks with 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-31

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

of sharp-tailed 

grouse leks (21,000 

acres) (BLM 

1996). 

Disturbance would 

not be authorized 

within 2 miles of a 

lek from March 1 

to June 15 

(700,000 acres) 

(BLM 1996).

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation within 

0.25 miles of 

sharp-tailed grouse 

leks (42,000 acres)

(BLM 1996).

1

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a timing 

restriction from 

March 1 to June 15 

within 2 miles of a 

lek (1,500,000 

acres) (BLM 

1996).

1

design features to 

maintain the 

functionality of the 

sharp-tailed grouse 

nesting habitat and 

lek site (1,300,000 

BLM-administered 

surface acres and 

3,000,000 mineral 

material acres).2

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation on and 

within 4 miles of 

sharp-tailed grouse 

leks (3,000,000 

acres).

1

specialized design 

features to maintain 

the functionality of 

the sharp-tailed 

grouse nesting 

habitat and lek site 

(700,000 BLMadministered 

surface acres and 

1,400,000 mineral 

material acres).

2

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation on and 

within 2 miles of 

sharp-tailed grouse 

leks (1,500,000 

acres).1

features to maintain 

the functionality of 

the sharp-tailed 

grouse nesting 

habitat and lek site 

(700,000 BLMadministered 

surface acres and 

1,400,000 mineral 

material acres).2

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation on and 

within 2 miles of 

sharp-tailed grouse 

leks (1,500,000 

acres).1

specialized design 

features to maintain 

the sharp-tailed 

grouse nesting 

habitat and lek site 

at a level capable of 

supporting the longterm populations

associated with the 

lek (700,000 BLMadministered 

surface acres and 

1,400,000 mineral 

material acres).

2

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation on and 

within 2 miles of 

sharp-tailed grouse 

leks (1,500,000 

acres).1

Colonial 

Waterbirds

(except interior 

least tern; see 

below)

Action 11 –

Surface-disturbing 

activities would not 

be allowed within 

1,000 feet of 

Double-crested 

Action 11 –

Surface-disturbing 

and disruptive 

activities would not 

be allowed in or 

within 0.25 miles of 

Action 11 –

Surface-disturbing 

and disruptive 

activities would be 

allowed with 

specialized design 

Action 11 –

Surface-disturbing 

activities would be 

allowed with 

specialized design 

features to minimize 

Action 11 –

Surface-disturbing 

and disruptive 

activities would be 

allowed in or within 

0.25 miles of 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-32

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Cormorant and 

Great Blue Heron

rookeries (90 

acres) (BLM 

1996).

Oil and gas leasing 

would be allowed 

with lease terms 

(50 acres).

waterbird nesting 

colonies unless the 

project proponent 

submitted a plan that 

showed that the 

effects could be 

minimized.

Oil and gas leasing 

would not be offered 

in or within 0.25 

miles of waterbird 

nesting colonies

(300 acres).1

features to minimize 

disturbance to 

waterbird nesting 

colonies.

2

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation in 

waterbird nesting 

colonies(50 acres).

1

disturbance to 

waterbird nesting 

colonies.

2

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation in 

waterbird nesting 

colonies(50 acres).

1

waterbird nesting 

colonies if the 

project proponent 

submitted a plan 

that showed that the 

effects could be 

minimized (260 

acres).

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation in and 

within 0.25 miles of 

waterbird nesting 

colonies(300 

acres).

1

Bighorn Sheep 

Range

(68,000 BLMadministered 

surface acres; 

56,000 locatable

mineral acres; 

98,000 mineral 

material acres; 

98,000 oil and gas

acres) 

Action 12 – Oil

and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation within 

the designated 

Bighorn Sheep 

Range.

1

Action 12 –

Surface-disturbing 

and disruptive 

activities would not 

be allowed in the 

designated Bighorn 

Sheep Range.

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered in 

the designated 

Bighorn Sheep 

Range with an NSO 

stipulation.1

Action 12 –

Surface-disturbing 

and disruptive 

activities would be 

allowed in the 

Bighorn Sheep 

Range with 

specialized design 

features to maintain 

the functionality of 

the habitat.2

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered in 

the designated 

Bighorn Sheep 

Range with a CSU 

stipulation.1

Action 12 –

Surface-disturbing 

activities would be 

allowed in the 

Bighorn Sheep 

Range with 

specialized design 

features to maintain 

the functionality of 

the habitat.2

Oil and gas leasing

would be offered in 

the designated 

Bighorn Sheep 

Range with a CSU 

stipulation.1

Action 12 –

Surface-disturbing 

and disruptive 

activities would 

require a plan to 

maintain bighorn 

sheep habitat and 

avoid or minimize 

habitat loss. The 

plan would need to 

be prepared by the 

proponent and 

approved by the 

AO.

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-33

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

stipulation in the 

designated Bighorn 

Sheep Range.

1

Bighorn Sheep 

Range

Action 13 –

Grazing permits for 

domestic sheep or 

goats would be 

renewed on a caseby-case basis 

within the Bighorn 

Sheep Range

(68,000 acres). 

Action 13 – Grazing 

permits for domestic 

sheep or goats

would not be 

renewed and grazing 

applications for

domestic sheep or 

goats would not be 

approved in or 

within 14.3 miles of 

the Bighorn Sheep 

Range (400,000 

acres). 

Action 13 –

Grazing permits for 

domestic sheep or 

goats would not be 

renewed and 

grazing applications 

for domestic sheep 

or goats would not 

be approved in or 

within 14.3 miles of 

the Bighorn Sheep 

Range where the 

BLM administers 

51% or more of the 

pasture. 

Action 13 –

Grazing permits for 

domestic sheep or 

goats would be 

renewed and 

grazing applications 

for domestic sheep 

or goats would be 

approved in and 

within 14.3 miles of 

the Bighorn Sheep 

Range where the 

BLM administers 

51% or more of the 

pasture. 

Action 13 –

Grazing permits for 

domestic sheep or 

goats would be 

renewed on a caseby-case basis within 

the Bighorn Sheep 

Range (68,000 

acres) and within a 

14.3-mile buffer

area.

Action 14 –

Grazing of 

domestic sheep or 

goats for invasive 

species control 

would be approved 

within 14.3 miles 

of the Bighorn 

Sheep Range

(400,000 acres).

Action 14 – Grazing 

of domestic sheep or 

goats for invasive 

species control 

would not be 

approved in or 

within 14.3 miles of 

the Bighorn Sheep 

Range (400,000 

acres).

Action 14 – Grazing of domestic sheep or goats for invasive 

species control would be allowed with specialized design features 

in and within 14.3 miles of the Bighorn Sheep Range to effectively 

mitigate the potential impacts of interactions between domestic 

sheep and goats and wild bighorn sheep (400,000 acres).2

Prairie Falcon

Action 15 – Oil

and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a timing 

stipulation from 

March 1 to August 

1 within 0.5 miles 

of raptor nest sites 

active within the 

Action 15 –

Surface-disturbing 

and disruptive 

activities would not 

be allowed in or 

within 0.5 miles of 

prairie falcon nest 

sites active within 

the past 7 years

Action 15 –

Surface-disturbing 

activities would be 

allowed in and 

within 0.5 miles of 

prairie falcon nest 

sites active within 

the past 7 years with 

specialized design 

Action 15 –

Surface-disturbing 

activities would be 

allowed in and 

within 0.5 miles of

prairie falcon nest 

sites active within 

the past 2 years with 

specialized design 

Action 15 –

Surface-disturbing 

and disruptive 

activities would be 

allowed in and 

within 0.5 miles of

prairie falcon nest 

sites active within 

the past 7 years with 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-34

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

past 2 years 

(190,000 acres)

(BLM 1996).

1

(10,000 BLMadministered surface 

acres and 28,800 

BLM-administered 

mineral acres).

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation in and 

within 0.5 miles of 

nest sites active 

within the past 7 

years (18,000 

acres).

1

features to minimize 

disturbance to the 

nest site and 

maintain 

functionality of the 

habitat (10,000 

BLM-administered 

surface acres and

29,000 BLMadministered 

mineral acres).

2

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation in and 

within 0.5 miles of 

nest sites active 

within the past 7 

years (18,000 

acres).

1

features to minimize 

disturbance to the 

nest site and 

maintain 

functionality of the 

habitat (10,000 

BLM-administered 

surface acres and

29,000 BLMadministered 

mineral acres).

2

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation in and 

within 0.5 miles of 

nest sites active 

within the past 2 

years (18,000 

acres).

1

specialized design 

features that 

maintained the 

habitat so that 

prairie falcons 

would not be 

precluded from 

using the nest site

(10,000 BLMadministered 

surface acres and

29,000 BLMadministered 

mineral acres).

2

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation in and 

within 0.5 miles of 

nest sites active 

within the past 7 

years (18,000 

acres).

1

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES, FISH AND WILDLIFE

Goal 1 – Maintain, enhance, or restore habitats for special status fish and wildlife species.

Special Status 

Species, Fish and 

Wildlife

Objective 1 – Conserve and enhance habitat for listed species so that BLM actions contribute to their delisting

(6840, Special Status Species Management).

Objective 2 – Conserve the needs of special status species and do not authorize any actions that may contribute 

to the need to list special status species (6840, Special Status Species Management).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Special Status 

Species, Fish and 

Wildlife

Action 1 – The BLM would continue participation in the development and implementation of recovery plans, 

management plans, and conservation strategies for special status species (see the Fish and Wildlife Appendix and 

the Best Management Practices Appendix for more information). 

Action 2 – The BLM would utilize the Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan and the Montana Bald Eagle 

Management Guidelines: An Addendum to Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan (Montana Bald Eagle 

Working Group 1994 and 2010). 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-35

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Action 3 – The MCFO would work with the Montana Black-footed Ferret and Prairie Dog Working Groups to 

identify potential black-footed ferret reintroduction sites in the planning area. 

Action 4 – The BLM would complete its obligations under applicable requirements of the ESA, as amended, 

including completion of any required procedures for conference or consultation.1

Action 5 – Geothermal leasing would be offered in compliance with the Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (BLM 2008h).

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Special Status 

Species Raptors

(burrowing owl, 

bald eagle, golden 

eagle, ferruginous 

hawk, Swainson’s 

hawk, peregrine 

falcon, and northern 

goshawk) 

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation 

within 0.5 miles of 

ferruginous hawk 

nest sites active 

within the past 2 

years (50,000 

acres) (BLM 

1996).

1

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation within 

0.5 miles of bald 

eagle nest sites 

active within the 

past 7 years and 

within bald eagle 

nesting habitat in 

riparian areas 

(49,000 acres).1

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation in 

peregrine falcon 

Action 6 – Surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities

would not be 

allowed in or within 

0.5 miles of raptor

nest sites active 

within the past 7 

years (61,000 BLMadministered surface 

acres and 89,000 

mineral material

acres).

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation in and 

within 0.5 miles of

nest sites active 

within the past 7 

years (90,000 

acres).1

Action 6 – Surfacedisturbing activities 

would be allowed in 

and within 0.5 miles 

of raptor nest sites 

active within the 

past 7 years with 

specialized design 

features to minimize 

disturbance to the 

nest site and 

maintain 

functionality of the 

habitat (61,000 

BLM-administered 

surface acres and 

89,000 mineral 

material acres).2

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation in and 

within 0.5 miles of 

nest sites active 

within the past 7 

years (90,000 

acres).1

Action 6 – Surfacedisturbing activities 

would be allowed in 

and within 0.5 miles 

of raptor nest sites 

active within the 

past 2 years with 

specialized design 

features to minimize 

disturbance to the 

nest site and 

maintain 

functionality of the 

habitat (61,000 

BLM-administered 

surface acres and

89,000 mineral 

material acres).2

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation in and 

within 0.5 miles of 

nest sites active 

within the past 2 

years (90,000 

acres).1

Action 1 – Surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities 

would be allowed in 

and within 0.5 miles 

of raptor nest sites 

active within the 

past 7 years with 

specialized design 

features that 

maintained the 

habitat so that 

raptors would not 

be precluded from 

using the nest site 

(61,000 BLMadministered 

surface acres and 

89,000 mineral 

material acres).2

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation in and 

within 0.5 miles of 

nest sites active 

within the past 7 

years (90,000 

acres).1
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-36

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

nesting sites and 

within 1 mile of 

identified peregrine 

falcon nesting sites 

(0 acres).1

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a timing 

stipulation from 

March 1 to August 

1 within 0.5 miles 

of raptor nest sites 

active within the 

past 2 years 

(190,000 acres)

(BLM 1996).

1

Piping Plover

(also see Piping 

Plover ACEC)

Action 7 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation 

within 0.25 miles 

of wetlands

identified as piping 

plover habitat

(50,000).

1

Action 7 – Surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities

would not be 

allowed in or within 

0.25 miles of

wetlands identified 

as piping plover 

habitat (730 BLMadministered surface 

acres and 11,000 

BLM-administered 

mineral acres).

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation in and 

within 0.25 miles of 

wetlands identified 

Action 7 – Surface-disturbing and 

disruptive activities would not be allowed 

in or within 0.25 miles of wetlands

identified as piping plover habitat unless 

the functionality of the habitat were 

maintained (730 BLM-administered 

surface acres and 11,000 BLMadministered mineral acres).

Oil and gas leasing would be offered with a 

CSU stipulation in and within wetlands

identified as piping plover habitat (50,000

acres).

1

Action 7 – Surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities

would be allowed in 

piping plover 

habitat if the habitat 

were maintained at 

a level capable of 

supporting longterm piping plover 

populations 

associated with the 

habitat (730 BLMadministered 

surface acres and 

11,000 BLMadministered 

mineral acres). 

Oil and gas leasing 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-37

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

as piping plover 

habitat (50,000

acres).

1

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation in piping

plover habitat

(5,400 acres).1

Interior Least 

Tern

Action 8 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation 

within 0.25 miles 

of wetlands

identified as 

interior least tern 

habitat (56,000 

acres).1

Action 8 – Surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities

would not be 

allowed in or within 

0.25 miles of 

wetlands identified 

as interior least tern 

habitat (9,300 BLMadministered surface 

acres and 73,000

BLM-administered 

mineral acres).

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation in and 

within 0.25 miles of 

wetlands identified 

as interior least tern 

habitat (56,000

acres).

1

Action 8 – Surface-disturbing and 

disruptive activities would not be allowed 

in or within 0.25 miles of wetlands

identified as interior least tern habitat 

unless the functionality of the habitat were 

maintained (9,300 BLM-administered 

surface acres and 73,000 BLMadministered mineral acres).

Oil and gas leasing would be offered with a 

CSU stipulation in and within 0.25 miles of 

wetlands identified as interior least tern 

habitat (56,000 acres).

1

Action 8 – Surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities

would be avoided in 

and within 0.25 

miles of interior 

least tern habitat

(9,300 BLMadministered 

surface acres and 

73,000 BLMadministered 

mineral acres).

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation in and 

within 0.25 miles of 

interior least tern 

habitat (56,000 

acres).

1

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Black-footed 

Ferrets

Action 9 – Prior to surface disturbance, potential black-footed ferret habitat (prairie dog colonies [towns] and 

complexes 80 acres or more in size and not designated black-footed ferret reintroduction sites) would be 

examined to determine the absence or presence of black-footed ferrets. The findings of this examination may 

preclude use and occupancy or result in some restrictions to the operator’s plans. 

Oil and gas leasing would be offered with the above CSU.1

Action 10 – Geothermal leasing would be offered in compliance with the Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (BLM 2008h).
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-38

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Black-tailed 

Prairie Dogs

Action 11 – Management of black-tailed prairie dog colonies on public lands would be subject to the 

Conservation Plan for Black-tailed and White-tailed Prairie Dogs in Montana (Montana Prairie Dog Working 

Group 2002). 

Action 12 – Geothermal leasing would be offered in compliance with the Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (BLM 2008h).

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Black-tailed 

Prairie Dogs

Action 13 – In the 

absence of black 

footed ferrets, oil

and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with lease terms

(11,000 acres).

Action 13 – In the 

absence of blackfooted ferrets, 

surface-disturbing 

and disruptive 

activities would not 

be allowed in or 

within 0.5 miles of

black-tailed prairie 

dog colonies.

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation in and 

within 0.5 miles of 

black-tailed prairie 

dog colonies

(280,000 acres).

1

Action 13 – In the 

absence of blackfooted ferrets, 

surface-disturbing 

and disruptive 

activities would not 

be allowed in or 

within 0.25 miles of

black-tailed prairie 

dog colonies.

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation in and 

within 0.25 miles of 

black-tailed prairie 

dog colonies

(96,000 acres).

1

Action 13 – In the 

absence of blackfooted ferrets, 

surface-disturbing 

activities would be 

allowed in blacktailed prairie dog 

colonies with 

specialized design 

features to maintain 

the functionality of 

the habitat.2

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation in blacktailed prairie dog 

colonies(11,000 

acres).

1

Action 13 – In the 

absence of blackfooted ferrets, 

surface-disturbing 

activities would be 

allowed within 

active or inactive 

black-tailed prairie 

dog colonies with 

specialized design 

features that 

maintained habitat 

capable of 

supporting the longterm population 

levels of the 

wildlife species 

associated with this 

habitat.

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation in blacktailed prairie dog 

colonies(11,000 

acres).

1
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-39

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Pallid Sturgeon

Action 14 – Oil

and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation on 

waterbodies, 

streams, and 100-

year floodplains of 

major rivers (500 

acres).

1

Action 14 –

Surface-disturbing 

and disruptive 

activities would not 

be allowed in or 

within 0.5 miles of

river and stream 

centerline identified 

as pallid sturgeon 

habitat (14,000 

BLM-administered 

surface acres). 

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation in and 

within 0.5 miles of 

river and stream 

centerline identified 

as pallid sturgeon 

habitat (20,000 

acres).

1

Action 14 –

Surface-disturbing 

and disruptive 

activities would not 

be allowed in or 

within 0.5 miles of

river and stream 

centerline identified 

as pallid sturgeon 

habitat (14,000 

BLM-administered 

surface acres).

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation in and 

within 0.5 miles of 

river and stream 

centerline identified 

as pallid sturgeon 

habitat (20,000 

acres).

1

Action 14 –

Surface-disturbing 

and disruptive 

activities would not 

be allowed in or 

within 0.5 miles of

river and stream 

centerline identified 

as pallid sturgeon 

habitat unless the 

functionality of the 

habitat was

maintained (14,000 

BLM-administered 

surface acres). 

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation in and 

within 0.5 miles of 

river and stream 

centerline identified 

as pallid sturgeon 

habitat (20,000 

acres).

1

Action 14 –

Surface-disturbing 

and disruptive 

activities in and 

within 0.5 miles of 

rivers and streams 

identified as pallid 

sturgeon habitat 

would require a 

plan to maintain 

pallid sturgeon 

habitat (17,000 

BLM-administered 

surface acres). The 

plan would need to 

be prepared by the 

proponent and 

implemented upon 

approval by the AO.

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation. Prior to 

surface-disturbing 

or disruptive 

activities occurring 

in or within 0.5 

miles of river or 

stream shorelines 

identified as pallid 

sturgeon habitat, a 

plan to maintain 

pallid sturgeon 

habitat would be

prepared by the 

proponent and 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-40

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

implemented upon 

approval by the AO

(24,000 acres).

1

SAGE-GROUSE

Goal 1 – Provide for the long-term conservation, enhancement, restoration, and connectivity of the sagebrush steppe/mixed grass

complex in a manner that supports sustainable sage-grouse populations and a healthy diversity and abundance of wildlife species.

Goal 2 – Manage wet meadows to maintain a component of perennial forbs with diverse species richness relative to site potential (e.g.,

reference state) to facilitate brood rearing. Also conserve or enhance these wet meadow complexes to maintain or increase the amount 

of edge and cover within that edge to minimize elevated mortality during the late brood-rearing period. Where riparian areas and wet 

meadows meet PFC, strive to attain reference state vegetation relative to the ecological site description.

Sage-grouse

Objective 1 – Identify opportunities for native plant restoration and initiate on an average of 500 acres annually.

Objective 2 – Design and implement fuels treatments with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush 

ecosystems.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Sage-grouse

Action 1 – Geothermal leasing would be offered in compliance with the Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (BLM 2008h).

Action 2 – The BLM would identify areas in which acquisitions (including subsurface mineral rights) or 

conservation easements benefited sage‐grouse habitat.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Sage-grouse

Habitat (see the 

Fish and Wildlife 

Appendix for more 

information about 

sage-grouse habitat 

classifications)

Action 3 – In the 

allotments in Table 

1 (see the Livestock 

Grazing Appendix), 

in which the 

Standards for 

Rangeland Health 

were not met and 

livestock grazing 

was a causal factor 

and site-specific 

analyses 

demonstrated that 

Standards for 

Rangeland Health 

could be achieved, 

grazing permits 

Action 3 – The 

allotments in Table 

1 (see the Livestock 

Grazing Appendix), 

in which the 

Standards for 

Rangeland Health 

were not met 

(including Sagegrouse Habitat), and 

livestock grazing 

was a causal factor 

in the failure to meet 

these standards, 

would be eliminated 

and closed to 

livestock grazing.

Action 3 – The allotments in Table 1 (see the Livestock Grazing 

Appendix), in which the Standards for Rangeland Health were not 

met (including Sage-grouse Habitat), livestock grazing was a 

causal factor in the failure to meet these standards, and there was 

no progress towards meeting Standards for Rangeland Health in 

the allotments within 5 years of the initial determination would be 

eliminated and closed to livestock grazing.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-41

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

would be issued 

with specific 

grazing seasons 

and livestock 

numbers and other 

terms and 

conditions 

designed to make 

progress toward 

meeting the 

Standards for 

Rangeland Health.

Sage-grouse

Action 4 – There 

would be no

priority habitats. 

Sage-grouse

habitat would be 

managed uniformly 

throughout the 

planning area.

Action 4 – The 

BLM would 

designate the areas 

described below 

(see Map 7 and the 

Fish and Wildlife 

Appendix).

General Habitat 

Areas would include 

approximately 1.1 

million surface acres 

and 2.0 million oil

and gas acres.

Protection Priority

Areas would include 

the: 

 Interim 

Management 

Areas and 

MFWP Core 

Areas 

(approximately 

Action 4 – The 

BLM would

designate the areas 

described below 

(see Map 8 and the 

Fish and Wildlife 

Appendix).

General Habitat 

Areas would 

include 

approximately 

760,000 surface 

acres and 1.6 

million oil and gas

acres.

Protection Priority

Areas would 

include the:

 North Garfield

Area 

(approximately

171,000 surface 

Action 4 – The 

BLM would 

designate the areas 

described below 

(see Map 9 and the 

Fish and Wildlife 

Appendix).

General Habitat 

Areas would 

include 

approximately 

560,000 surface 

acres and 1.0 

million oil and gas

acres.

Protection Priority

Areas would 

include the:

 North Garfield

Area 

(approximately

171,000 surface 

Action 4 – The 

BLM would 

designate the areas 

described below 

(see Map 4 and the 

Fish and Wildlife 

Appendix).

General Habitat 

Areas would 

include 

approximately 

400,000 surface 

acres and 800,000 

oil and gas acres.

Protection Priority

Areas would 

include the:

 North Garfield

Area 

(approximately

171,000 surface 

acres and 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-42

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

1,067,000 

surface acres 

and 2,077,000 

oil and gas

acres).

Restoration Areas 

would include the:  Cedar Creek

Area 

(approximately 

196,000 

surface acres; 

220,000 oil

and gas acres); 

and

 South Carter

Area 

(approximately 

64,000 surface 

acres and 

169,000 oil

and gas acres).

acres and 

389,000 oil and 

gas acres);

 North Rosebud

Area 

(approximately

112,000 surface 

acres and 

150,000 oil and 

gas acres); and 

 Carter Area 

(approximately 

314,000 surface 

acres and 

530,000 oil and 

gas acres).

Restoration Areas 

would include the:  Cedar Creek

Area 

(approximately 

51,000 surface 

acres and 

69,000 oil and 

gas acres); and

 South Carter

Area 

(approximately 

64,000 surface 

acres and 

169,000 oil and 

gas acres).

acres and 

389,000 oil and 

gas acres); and

 Carter Area 

(approximately 

314,000 surface 

acres and 

530,000 oil and 

gas acres).

Restoration Areas 

would include the:  Cedar Creek

Area 

(approximatel

y 21,000 

surface acres 

and 25,000 oil

and gas acres); 

and

 South Carter

Area 

(approximatel

y 58,000 

surface acres 

and 133,000 

oil and gas

acres).

389,000 oil and 

gas acres); 

 North Rosebud

Area (173,000 

surface acres 

and 238,000 oil

and gas acres); 

and

 Carter Area 

(approximately 

448,000 surface 

acres and 

776,000 oil and 

gas acres).

Restoration Areas 

would include the:  Decker area

(approximately 

8,300 surface 

acres and 

69,000 oil and 

gas acres);

 Cedar Creek

Area 

(approximately 

29,000 surface 

acres and 

43,000 oil and 

gas acres); 

 South Carter

Area 

(approximately 

64,000 surface 

acres and 

169,000 oil
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-43

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

and gas acres); 

and 

 a source 

population area 

(approximately 

8,000 surface 

acres and 

8,000 oil and 

gas acres).

SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT – GENERAL HABITAT AREAS

Goal 1 – Within General Habitat Areas, maintain habitat for viable sage-grouse populations to promote movement and genetic 

diversity. Maintain, restore, or enhance sage-grouse habitat and connectivity between sagebrush habitats with emphasis on habitats

occupied by sage-grouse.

Sage-grouse 

Habitat – General 

Habitat Areas

Objective 1 – Maintain the integrity of sage-grouse habitat and promote movement and genetic diversity to 

support sustainable sage-grouse populations.

Objective 2 – Enhance general sage‐grouse habitat to replace population declines in areas elsewhere within the 

habitat.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Sage-grouse 

Habitat – General 

Habitat Areas (see 

the Fish and 

Wildlife Appendix 

for more 

information about 

sage-grouse habitat 

classifications)

Action 1 – Where deemed effective, water developments would be managed to reduce the spread of West Nile

virus (see BMPs identified in the Fish and Wildlife Appendix).

Action 2 – Where restoration of disturbed areas was required, the BLM would follow the guidelines in the Fish 

and Wildlife and Reclamation Appendices.

Action 3 – High-voltage power lines would be allowed (see the Lands and Realty section for further guidance).

Action 4 – Geothermal leasing would be offered in compliance with the Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (BLM 2008h).

Action 5 – Riparian communities would continue to be managed to meet Standards for Rangeland Health 

(Standard 2) to ensure riparian areas and wetlands were in PFC. The BLM would enhance or restore riparian 

composition and structure beyond PFC in riparian areas where and when appropriate for other resource values 

(see the Best Management Practices Appendix).

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Sage-grouse 

Habitat – General 

Habitat Areas

Action 6 – Surface 

disturbance (other 

than water 

developments and 

fences) would not 

be authorized 

Action 6 – Surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities

(including ROWs) 

would not be 

allowed on or within 

Action 6 – Surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities

(including ROWs) 

would not be 

allowed on or 

Action 6 – Surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities

(including ROWs) 

would not be 

allowed on or 

Action 6 – Surfacedisturbing and

disruptive activities

(including ROWs) 

would be avoided 

on and within 2 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-44

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

within 0.25 miles 

of sage-grouse leks 

(5,000 acres)

(BLM 1996). 

Disturbance would 

not be authorized 

within 2 miles of a 

lek from March 1 

to June 15 

(220,000) (BLM 

1996).

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation within 

0.25 miles of sagegrouse leks (11,000 

acres) (BLM 

1996).

1

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a timing 

stipulation from 

March 1 to June 15 

in sage-grouse 

nesting habitat 

within 2 miles of a 

lek (540,000 

acres).1

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a timing 

restriction from 

4 miles of leks

except when the 

activity maintained

sage-grouse habitat 

functionality.8

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation on and 

within 4 miles of 

leks (1,100,000 

BLM-administered 

surface acres; 

2,000,000 oil and 

gas acres).1

within 3.1 miles of 

leks except when 

the activity

maintained sagegrouse habitat 

functionality.8

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation on and 

within 3.1 miles of 

leks (760,000 BLMadministered 

surface acres; 

1,600,000 oil and 

gas acres).1

within 2 miles of

leks except when 

the activity 

maintained sagegrouse habitat.8

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation on and 

within 2 miles of 

leks (560,000 BLMadministered 

surface acres; 

1,000,000 oil and 

gas acres).1

miles of leks except 

when the activity 

maintained sagegrouse habitat.8

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation on and 

within 2 miles of 

leks (400,000 BLMadministered 

surface acres; 

800,000 oil and gas

acres).1
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-45

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

December 1 to 

March 31 within 

crucial winter 

range for wildlife

(68,000 acres)

(BLM 1996).

1

Locatable mineral 

entry and location 

would be open 

(BLM 1985c). 

Mineral material 

sales and permits 

would be allowed 

(BLM 1985c). 

Renewable energy

would be open 

(solar or wind) 

(BLM 1985c).

ROWs would be 

allowed (BLM 

1985c).

Season-of-use and 

livestock numbers 

for grazing permits 

would be 

determined on a 

case-by-case basis.

No continuous 

noise restrictions 

would be applied 

except for 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-46

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

programmatic 

guidance as 

outlined in the 

Supplement to the 

Montana Statewide 

Oil and Gas 

Environmental 

Impact Statement 

and Proposed 

Amendment of the 

Powder River and 

Billings Resource 

Management Plans 

(e.g., restrict noise 

levels from 

production 

facilities to 50 

decibels; 4,100,000 

acres) (BLM 

2008i). There 

would be no noise 

restrictions in the 

remainder of the 

planning area.

Use of heavy 

equipment that 

exceeds 50 

decibels would be 

restricted within 2 

miles of a lek from 

4:00 a.m. to 8:00 

a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 

to 10:00 p.m. 

during April 1 to 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-47

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

June 30 (300,000 

acres) (BLM 

2008i). 

Action 7 – Power 

lines would not be 

required to be 

buried (BLM 

1996). 

Oil and gas lowvoltage power lines 

would be buried if 

feasible (BLM 

2008i).

Action 7 – The 

BLM would not 

authorize 

aboveground lowvoltage power lines 

on sage-grouse 

winter occurrence 

points, winter 

concentration areas, 

leks, and within 4 

miles of leks 

(1,000,000 acres).

Action 7 – All lowvoltage power lines 

would be buried on 

sage-grouse winter

occurrence points,

winter 

concentration areas,

leks and within 3.1 

miles of a lek unless 

the power lines 

could be sited or 

designed in a 

manner that 

maintained the 

functionality of the 

habitat (760,000 

acres).

Action 7 – All lowvoltage power lines 

would be buried on

sage-grouse winter 

occurrence points, 

winter 

concentration areas, 

leks and within 2 

miles of a lek unless 

not technologically 

feasible (560,000 

acres).

Action 7 – Lowvoltage power lines 

would be buried on 

and within 2 miles 

of a lek if 

technologically 

feasible (560,000 

acres).

SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT – PROTECTION PRIORITY AREAS

Goal 1 – In cooperation with other conservation partners, maintain or increase sage‐grouse abundance and distribution by conserving, 

enhancing, or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend.

Goal 2 – Where suitable conservation actions cannot be achieved, seek to acquire state and private lands with intact subsurface mineral 

estate by donation, purchase, or exchange in order to best conserve, enhance, or restore sage‐grouse habitat.

Sage-grouse

Habitat –

Protection Priority 

Areas (see the Fish 

and Wildlife 

Appendix for more 

information about 

sage-grouse habitat 

classifications)

Objective 1 – Manage sage-grouse habitat to maintain or increase sage-grouse populations.

Objective 2 – Maximize the integrity and quality of the sage-grouse habitat through the management of direct 

and indirect impacts.

Objective 3 – Restore or enhance degraded sage-grouse habitat.

Objective 4 – Initiate restoration on 500 acres annually. 

Objective 5 – To maintain or increase current populations, manage or restore priority areas so that at least 70%

of the land cover provides adequate sagebrush habitat to meet sage‐grouse needs.

Objective 6 – Prioritize implementation of restoration projects based on environmental variables that improve 

the probability of project success in areas most likely to benefit sage‐grouse.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-48

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Sage-grouse

Habitat –

Protection Priority 

Areas

Action 1 – Where deemed effective, water developments would be managed to reduce the spread of West Nile

virus (see BMPs identified in the Best Management Practices Appendix).

Action 2 – Where restoration of disturbed areas was required, the BLM would follow the guidelines in the Fish 

and Wildlife and Reclamation Appendices.

Action 3 – Geothermal leasing would be offered in compliance with the Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (BLM 2008h).

Action 4 – Where the federal government owns the surface and the mineral estate is in nonfederal ownership, 

the BLM would apply appropriate fluid mineral BMPs (see the Best Management Practices Appendix) to surface 

development.

Action 5 – The BLM would approve withdrawal proposals not associated with mineral activity when the land 

management was consistent with sage‐grouse conservation measures (see the Best Management Practices 

Appendix). Withdrawal proposals would be evaluated at the project level.

Action 6 – In areas with minority federal ownership, an additional, effective mitigation agreement would be 

included for any disposal of federal land. As a final preservation measure, consideration should be given to 

pursuing a permanent conservation easement.

Action 7 – Motorized travel would be limited to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails, at a minimum, until 

travel management was complete and routes were either designated or closed.

Action 8 –The BLM would emphasize management of the transportation system to reduce impacts to natural 

resources from authorized roads and trails (see the Best Management Practices Appendix). The BLM would also 

stress closing and restoring unauthorized user-created roads and trails to prevent resource damage.

Action 9 –Priority for travel planning could change through implementation and monitoring based on resource 

needs, special status species (including greater sage-grouse), funding, and staffing.

Action 10 – New roads and trails determined to be necessary for permanent or long-term use as part of BLM’s 

transportation system would be constructed subject to NEPA and approved engineering standards. Consideration 

would be given to use demands, location, safety, and resource constraints when determining the level of road 

necessary, in accordance with BLM Manuals 9113 and 9114.

Action 11 – Special status species (including greater sage-grouse) would be included as one of the criteria used 

in making route designations (see the Best Management Practices Appendix).

Action 12 – The BLM would issue special recreation use permits as appropriate for commercial, competitive, 

and special events subject to guidelines in BLM Handbook 2930, resource capabilities, social conflict concerns, 

professional qualifications, public safety, and public needs. For example, applications for special recreation 

permits in greater sage-grouse priority habitat areas may be denied if approval of the permit would adversely 

impact sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat.

Action 13 – New ROW facilities would be located within or adjacent to existing ROWs to the extent practical.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-49

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Sage-grouse

Habitat –

Protection Priority 

Areas

Action 14 – Existing power lines identified for electrocution or collision problems for wildlife or those that did 

not meet APLIC standards on public lands would be modified to prevent wildlife electrocution. The BLM would 

consider opportunities to remove or modify existing power lines (e.g., burying, anti-perching devices, or line 

location).

Action 15 – Terms and conditions for ROW corridors and development areas would incorporate BMPs and 

conservation actions as applicable (see the Best Management Practices Appendix).

Action 16 – Upon project completion, roads used for commercial access on public lands would be reclaimed 

unless, based on site-specific analysis, the route provided specific benefits for public access and did not 

contribute to resource conflicts.

Action 17 – Site-specific greater sage-grouse habitat and management objectives would be developed for BLMadministered land. These objectives would be incorporated into the respective AMPs or livestock grazing 

permits as appropriate. Specific objectives would be developed through NEPA analysis conducted in accordance 

with the permit or lease renewal process to conserve, enhance, or restore sage‐grouse habitat based on ecological 

site descriptions and assessments (including within wetland and riparian areas). See the Best Management 

Practices Appendix for mitigation practices and conservation actions to be included as appropriate in permit 

renewals and AMPs, descriptions of land health evaluations, and seasonal habitat considerations.

Action 18 – Cooperative efforts to utilize permittee or lessee monitoring and integrated ranch planning would be 

emphasized where opportunities occurred.

Action 19 – Temporary stocking rate adjustments would be completed in response to changing conditions 

(drought, fire, and other circumstances) and desired vegetative response (e.g., livestock use to modify 

vegetation).

Action 20 – Riparian communities would continue to be managed to meet Standards for Rangeland Health 

(Standard 2) to ensure that riparian areas and wetlands were in PFC. The BLM would enhance or restore riparian 

composition and structure beyond PFC in riparian areas where and when appropriate for other resource values 

(see the Best Management Practices Appendix).

Action 21 – Forage treatments that conserved, enhanced, or restored greater sage-grouse habitat would be 

allowed (see the Best Management Practices Appendix). 

Action 22 – Range improvements would be constructed to manage use of vegetation to support multiple use

resource management.

Action 23 – Existing structural range improvements and location of supplements (salt or protein blocks) would 

be evaluated to make sure that they conserved, enhanced, or restored sage-grouse habitat. Fences in high-risk 

areas (based on proximity to leks, lek size, and topography) would be removed, modified, or marked to reduce 

outright sage-grouse strikes and mortality. The presence of invasive species associated with existing range 

improvements would be monitored and treated.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-50

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Action 24 – If monitoring data demonstrated that livestock use on an allotment was adversely affecting sagegrouse or their habitat, the terms and conditions of grazing permits may be modified (43 CFR 4130.3, 4130.3-1, 

4130.3-2), or changes in active use (43 CFR 4110.3-3) could be considered to meet the Standards for Rangeland 

Health as described in 43 CFR 4180, the field office Standards for Rangeland Health and guidelines for livestock 

grazing management, or to otherwise manage, maintain, or improve sage-grouse habitat. Length (duration) of 

rest from livestock grazing would be considered following fire events.

Allotments wholly located within Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Area habitat would be considered 

for retirement where the base property owner relinquished their preference.

Sage-grouse

Habitat –

Protection Priority 

Areas

Action 25 – Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resource and resource 

use programs would be subject to mitigation or minimization guidelines and BMPs found in the Best 

Management Practices Appendix.

Action 26 – Terms and conditions would be applied to mining activities (within the constraints of the Mining 

Law) to meet land health standards for uplands, riparian and wetland areas, water quality, air quality, and native 

plant and animal species (see the Best Management Practices Appendix).

Action 27 – Area-wide terms, conditions, or other special considerations needed to protect sage-grouse values 

would be implemented through coal screen criteria (43 CFR 3461).

Action 28 – The BLM would include mitigation practices and conservation actions as permit COAs when 

approving exploration and development activities through completion of the environmental record of review (43 

CFR 3162.5), including appropriate documentation of compliance with NEPA. 

Overall consideration would be given to minimizing the impacts to sage-grouse through a project design that 

avoided, minimized, reduced, rectified, or adequately compensated for direct and indirect impacts to sage-grouse 

habitat or use and included applicable and technically feasible COAs (see the Best Management Practices 

Appendix). Selection and application of these measures would be based on current science and research on the 

effects to important breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering areas. For proposed operations, the surface 

use plan of operations (SUPO) (see 43 CFR 3162-1(f)) would address, at a minimum, the anticipated noise, 

density and amount of disturbance, mechanical movement (e.g., pump jacks), permanent and temporary 

facilities, traffic, phases of development over time, off-site mitigation, and expected periods of use associated 

with the proposed project. Seasonal habitats or project features related to potential sage-grouse impacts that are 

not addressed in the SUPO based on site-specific or project-specific considerations would be noted in the project 

file along with a rationale for not including them. In this process the following, among other items, would be 

considered:

 whether the conservation measure is “reasonable” (43 CFR 3101.1‐2) and consistent with valid existing 

rights,

 whether the action is in conformance with the approved RMP, and
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-51

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

 the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation practices and conservation actions. See the Minerals 

Appendix for information about COAs.

Sage-grouse

Habitat –

Protection Priority 

Areas

Action 29 – The BLM would protect sensitive status species habitat during suppression and prescribed fire 

activities as described in the national fire suppression guidelines and the current fire management plan (see the 

Best Management Practices Appendix).

Action 30 – Treatments to enhance special status species habitats would be prioritized.

Action 31 – BMPs and techniques included in the BLM’s Integrated Vegetation Management Handbook H1740-2 would be used.

Action 32 – Restoration of roads, primitive roads, and trails not designated in travel management plans would be 

conducted. This would also include primitive routes or roads that were not designated in WSAs and in lands with 

wilderness characteristics that have been selected for protection.

Action 33 – Site-specific travel planning within Protection Priority Areas would be completed within a 5-year 

period following the signing of the ROD.

Action 34 – Appropriate seed mixes would be used when restoring, reclaiming, or reseeding, and the use of 

transplanted shrubs (such as sagebrush) to meet habitat objectives for sensitive status species would be 

considered.

Action 35 – The use of native species would be the preferred method of revegetating disturbed sites. Noninvasive introduced species that posed little threat of displacing adjacent native vegetative communities could be 

used to restore vegetation, including under (but not limited to) the circumstances described below.

 Emergency rehabilitation is needed to control erosion or weed invasion and native seed is not available.

 A nonnative nurse crop is needed to establish native vegetation.

 The presence of a sensitive soil (as defined in the Glossary) or severe loss of topsoil on a disturbed site 

makes reestablishment of native vegetation unlikely (see the Best Management Practices and

Reclamation Appendices for more information).

Action 36 – Any mechanical treatments within big sagebrush habitat crucial to sagebrush-obligate species would 

be used to enhance that resource (see the Best Management Practices Appendix).

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Sage-grouse

Habitat –

Protection Priority 

Areas

Action 37 – An 

ACEC would not 

be designated for 

sage-grouse. 

Surface 

disturbance (other 

than water 

developments and 

Action 37 –

Protection Priority 

Areas would be 

designated an 

ACEC. Surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities 

(including ROWs) 

Action 37 – An 

ACEC would not be 

designated for sagegrouse. Surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities 

(including ROWs) 

would be allowed 

Action 37 – An 

ACEC would not be 

designated for sagegrouse. Surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities 

(including ROWs) 

would be allowed 

Action 37 – An 

ACEC would not be 

designated for sagegrouse. Surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities 

(including ROWs) 

would be avoided.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-52

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

fences) would not 

be authorized 

within 0.25 miles 

of sage-grouse leks 

(5,600 acres)

(BLM 1996). 

Disturbance would 

not be authorized 

within 2 miles of a 

lek from March 1 

to June 15 

(260,000 acres) 

(BLM 1996).

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation within 

0.25 miles of sagegrouse leks(29,000 

acres) (BLM 

1996).

1

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a timing 

stipulation from 

March 1 to June 15 

in sage-grouse 

nesting habitat 

within 2 miles of a 

lek (timing; 

1,000,000 acres)

(BLM 1996).

1

would not be 

allowed.

Oil and gas leasing 

would not be offered 

(2,100,000 acres).1

Upon expiration or 

termination of 

existing leases, 

nominations, or 

expressions of 

interest for parcels 

would not be 

accepted. Where 

drainage is likely, 

the BLM may issue 

new leases with an 

NSO stipulation 

with appropriate 

waiver, exception,

and modification

(WEM) criteria.

Locatable mineral 

entry would be

recommended for

withdrawal subject 

to valid existing 

rights.

with the below 

restriction.

The BLM would 

authorize 1 surface 

disturbance per 640 

acres with a 

cumulative, direct, 

and indirect 

disturbance of no 

more than 3% of the 

sagebrush habitat 

per 640 acres from 

the point of the 

disturbance, as long 

as functional sagegrouse habitat and 

the associated 

populations were 

maintained at the 

same levels as trend 

areas. Disturbed 

areas would have to 

be fully reclaimed 

to pre-disturbance 

conditions or to a 

desired plant 

community before 

additional 

disturbance would 

be approved.8

Oil and gas leasing 

would be allowed 

with a CSU 

stipulation 

(1,100,000 acres).1

with the below 

restriction.

The BLM would 

authorize surface 

disturbance with a 

cumulative, direct,

and indirect 

disturbance of no 

more than 10% of 

the sagebrush

habitat per 640 

acres from the point 

of the disturbance, 

as long as 

functional sagegrouse habitat and 

the associated 

populations were

maintained at the 

same levels as trend 

areas. Disturbed 

areas would have to 

be fully reclaimed 

to pre-disturbance 

conditions or to a 

desired plant 

community before 

additional 

disturbance would 

be approved.8

Oil and gas leasing 

would be allowed 

with a CSU 

stipulation (920,000 

acres).1

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation 

(1,400,000 acres).1

If mining claims

were staked for 

locatable minerals 

and a notice of 

intent (NOI) and 

plan of development 

(POD) submitted, 

the BLM would 

conduct an 

examination on the 

subject claims to 

determine the 

validity of the 

claims (CFR 

3809.100) or 

consider buyout.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-53

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a timing 

restriction from 

December 1 to 

March 31 within 

crucial winter 

range for wildlife

(68,000 acres)

(BLM 1996).

1

Locatable mineral 

entry and location 

would be open 

(BLM 1985c).

Mineral material 

sales and permits 

would be allowed 

(BLM 1985c).

Renewable energy

would be open 

(solar or wind) 

(BLM 1985c).

ROWs would be 

allowed (BLM 

1985c).

Season-of-use and 

livestock numbers 

for grazing permits 

would be 

determined on a 

case-by-case basis.

Locatable mineral 

entry and location

would be open.

Locatable mineral 

entry and location 

would be open.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-54

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

No continuous 

noise restrictions 

would be applied 

except for 

programmatic 

guidance as 

outlined in the 

SEIS (e.g., restrict 

noise levels from 

production 

facilities to 50 

decibels) (BLM 

2008i).

Use of heavy 

equipment that 

exceeds 50 

decibels would be 

restricted within 2 

miles of a lek from 

4:00 a.m. to 8:00 

a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 

10:00 p.m. during 

April 1 to June 30 

(580,000 BLMadministered 

surface acres) 

(BLM 2008i).

Power lines would 

not be required to 

be buried (BLM 

1996). 

Oil and gas lowvoltage power lines 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-55

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

would be buried if 

feasible (BLM 

2008i).

SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT – RESTORATION AREAS

Goal 1 – Continue to allow for permitted uses while maintaining habitat for source populations of sage-grouse over the long term.

Goal 2 – Manage habitat conditions needed to maintain sage-grouse populations in affected areas to facilitate future recovery of 

populations.

Goal 3 – Maintain or expand habitats to promote sage-grouse movement and genetic diversity to ensure connectivity between sagegrouse habitat.

Sage-grouse

Habitat –

Restoration Areas

Objective 1 – Restore 5,000 acres or 100 acres per year of historical habitat to a point capable of supporting 

sage-grouse populations within 50 years.

Objective 2 – Strive for no net loss of sage-grouse habitat within 10 years.

Objective 3 – Manage habitat for viable populations in restoration areas.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Sage-grouse

Habitat –

Restoration Areas

Action 1 – Where deemed effective, water developments would be managed to reduce the spread of West Nile

virus (see BMPs identified in the Fish and Wildlife Appendix).

Action 2 – Where restoration of disturbed areas was required, BLM would follow the guidelines in the Fish and 

Wildlife and Reclamation Appendices.

Action 3 – Geothermal leasing would be offered in compliance with the Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (BLM 2008h).

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Sage-grouse

Habitat –

Restoration Areas

(see the Fish and 

Wildlife Appendix 

for more 

information about 

sage-grouse habitat 

classifications)

Action 4 – Surface 

disturbance (other 

than water 

developments and 

fences) would not 

be authorized 

within 0.25 miles 

of sage-grouse leks 

(1,800 acres)

(BLM 1996). 

Disturbance would 

not be authorized 

within 2 miles of a

lek from March 1 

Action 4 – Surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities 

(including ROWs) 

would be prohibited 

in sections within 1 

mile of a lek that 

contained 3 or fewer 

wells.

Surface-disturbing 

and disruptive 

activities would be 

allowed in sections 

within 1 mile of a 

Action 4 – Surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities 

(including ROWs) 

would be allowed 

subject to 

maintenance of 

sage-grouse habitat 

functionality.8

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation that 

maintained sageAction 4 – Surfacedisturbing activities 

(including ROWs) 

would be allowed 

subject to timing 

and distance (60 

days/200 meters).

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with lease terms 

(160,000 acres).

Action 4 – Surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities 

(including ROWs) 

would be avoided in 

sage-grouse habitat 

unless the activities 

improved or 

maintained sagegrouse habitat. 

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation that 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-56

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

to June 15 (50,000 

acres) (BLM 

1996).

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation within 

0.25 miles of sagegrouse leks (4,500 

acres) (BLM 

1996).

1

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a timing 

stipulation from 

March 1 to June 15 

in grouse nesting 

habitat within 2 

miles of a lek 

(140,000) (BLM 

1996).

1

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a timing 

restriction from 

December 1 to 

March 31 within 

crucial winter 

range for wildlife 

(68,000 acres)

(BLM 1996).

1

Locatable mineral 

entry and location 

would be open 

lek that contained 4 

or more wells.8

Oil and gas leasing 

for sections within 1

mile of a lek that 

contained 3 or fewer 

wells would be 

offered with an NSO 

stipulation (400,000 

acres).1

Sections within 1 

mile of a lek that 

contained 4 or more 

wells would be open 

for leasing with a 

CSU that

maintained sagegrouse habitat 

functionality.1

grouse habitat 

functionality 

(200,000 acres).1

maintained sagegrouse habitat 

(289,000 acres).1

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation in the 

entire source 

population area 

(8,000 acres) and on 

leks in the entire 

Restoration Area.1
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-57

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

(BLM 1985c). 

Mineral material 

sales and permits 

would be allowed 

(BLM 1985c).

Renewable energy

would be open 

(solar or wind) 

(BLM 1985c).

ROWs would be 

allowed (BLM 

1985c).

Season-of-use and 

livestock numbers 

for grazing permits 

would be 

determined on a 

case-by-case basis.

No continuous 

noise restrictions 

except for 

programmatic 

guidance as 

outlined in the 

SEIS (e.g., restrict 

noise levels from 

production 

facilities to 50 

decibels) (BLM 

2008i).
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-58

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Use of heavy 

equipment that 

exceeds 50 

decibels would be 

restricted within 2 

miles of a lek from 

4:00 a.m. to 8:00 

a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 

to 10:00 p.m. 

during April 1 to 

June 30 (89,000 

acres) (BLM 

2008i).

Power lines would 

not be required to 

be buried (BLM 

1996). 

Oil and gas lowvoltage power lines 

would be buried if 

feasible (BLM 

2008i). 

SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT COMPENSATION (compensation would be for Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat 

Areas, Protection Priority Areas, and Restoration Areas).

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Sage-grouse

Habitat 

Compensation

Action 1 – Habitat 

compensation

would not be 

required.

Action 1 – For 

surface-disturbing 

activities that did 

not improve sagegrouse habitat, 

habitat 

compensation would 

be required.

Action 1 – For 

surface-disturbing 

activities that did

not improve sagegrouse habitat, 

habitat 

compensation 

would be required.

Action 1 – For 

surface-disturbing 

activities that did 

not improve sagegrouse habitat, 

habitat 

compensation 

would be required.

Action 1 – Habitat 

compensation

would not be 

required.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-59

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Implementation 

guidelines for Sagegrouse Habitat –

General Habitat 

Areas would 

include:

 1% surface 

disturbance 

cap for sagegrouse habitat,

 5% surface 

disturbance 

cap for sagegrouse habitat 

per section, 

and

 1:1 Habitat 

Compensation

Ratio.

Implementation 

guidelines for the 

Protection Priority

ACEC and 

Restoration Areas 

would include:

 1% surface 

disturbance 

cap for sagegrouse habitat,

 5% surface 

disturbance 

cap for sagegrouse habitat 

per section, 

Implementation 

guidelines for Sagegrouse Habitat –

General Habitat 

Areas would 

include:

 1% surface 

disturbance 

cap for sagegrouse habitat,

 3% surface 

disturbance 

cap for sagegrouse habitat 

per section, 

and

 1:1 Habitat 

Compensation 

Ratio.

Implementation 

guidelines for 

Protection Priority

and Restoration

Areas would 

include:

 1% surface 

disturbance 

cap for sagegrouse habitat,

 3% surface 

disturbance 

cap for sagegrouse habitat 

per section, 

Implementation 

guidelines for Sagegrouse Habitat –

General Habitat 

Areas would 

include:

 1% surface 

disturbance 

cap for sagegrouse habitat,

 10% surface 

disturbance 

cap for sagegrouse habitat 

per section, 

and

 1:1 Habitat 

Compensation 

Ratio.

Implementation 

guidelines for 

Protection Priority

and Restoration

Areas would 

include:

 1% surface 

disturbance 

cap for sagegrouse habitat,

 10% surface 

disturbance 

cap for sagegrouse habitat 

per section, 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-60

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

and

 5:1 Habitat 

Compensation

Ratio.

and

 5:1 Habitat 

Compensation

Ratio.

and

 5:1 Habitat 

Compensation

Ratio.

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGY

Fuels Management/Prescribed Fire

Goal 1 – Provide for firefighter and public safety by reducing hazardous fuel loads (risk) within the wildland urban interface. 

Goal 2 – Use naturally occurring and prescribed fire and mechanical, chemical, and biological treatments to protect or sustain the 

ecological health and function of fire-adapted ecosystems; reduce the risk of high severity wildfires to watersheds and ecosystems; and 

benefit, protect, maintain, sustain, and enhance natural and cultural resources (including wildlife habitat).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Fuels 

Management/

Prescribed Fire

Action 1 – Woody and non-woody vegetation mechanical thinning, biomass removal, and chemical and 

biological treatments would be allowed to reduce hazardous fuels or improve wildlife habitat.

Action 2 – Fuel treatment projects would be conducted in areas with high social or natural resource values 

(including wildlife habitat) as well as areas adjacent to wildland urban interface areas considered a priority area 

for treatment.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Fuels 

Management/

Prescribed Fire

Action 3 –

Prescribed fire 

would be allowed 

in Category B and 

C Fire 

Management 

Categories (BLM 

2003k).

Action 3 –

Prescribed fire 

would not be 

allowed on 

approximately 

2,500,000 acres and 

allowed in the 

remainder of the 

planning area.

Action 3 – Prescribed fire would be allowed throughout the 

planning area.

Action 4 – Sites in Condition Class 3 

(53,000 acres) would have pre-commercial 

and commercial material removed or 

treated prior to prescribed fire activities 

(BLM 2003k).

Action 4 – Areas in Condition Class 3 (53,000 acres) would be 

evaluated on a site-specific basis to determine if mechanical 

treatments or pre-commercial or commercial thinning were

necessary to reduce heavy fuel loadings or remove merchantable 

forest products prior to prescribed fire activity. Prescribed fire 

would be implemented as a management tool to improve forest

health by reducing fuels and the likelihood of stand-replacing 

crown fires and to improve the resiliency and ecological functions 

of BLM-administered forests across the planning area.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-61

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Goal 1 – Place public and firefighter safety first in any wildfire management action. 

Goal 2 – Manage wildfire (unplanned ignitions) for the protection of public health, safety, property, and resource values while 

implementing cost-containment strategies that result in minimum suppression costs. 

Goal 3 – Use a naturally occurring event such as wildfire to enhance vigor, vegetation production, reduce hazardous fuels, and 

maintain a desired mix of seral stages within the following communities: sagebrush (silver and Wyoming species), forest and 

woodlands, grasslands, riparian and wetland areas, and native species communities.

Goal 4 – Create and maintain landscape-level fuel breaks using fire management, grazing, range improvements, transportation 

corridors, terrain features, and vegetation communities to provide suppression opportunities.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Wildland Fire 

Managment

Action 1 – The BLM would prioritize fire management activities according to potential risks to life and property 

across the planning area. Wildfires adjacent to or near wildland urban or industrial interface would have the 

highest priority for fire suppression.

Action 2 – Fire suppression on public lands would be guided by national fire suppression guidelines.

Action 3 – The BLM would follow the most recent modification to the Guidance for the Implementation of 

Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (USFS, BLM, BIA, USFWS, and NPS 2009).

Action 4 – The BLM would follow all national, state, and local BLM policy with regard to fire suppression 

actions and authorizations.

Action 5 – Coal seam (subsurface) fires that pose an immediate threat to surface fire spread would be managed 

with the intent of minimizing the loss of improvements, protecting cultural and historic resources, preventing the 

spread of fire onto private property, and minimizing fire suppression costs. 

Action 6 – The BLM would follow the most recent policy for delivery of fire chemicals (retardant and foam) 

near waterways: Policy for Aerial Delivery of Wildland Fire Chemicals near Waterways and the Guidelines for 

Aerial Delivery of Retardant or Foam near Waterways (USFS et al. 2009 and 2000).

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Wildland Fire 

Managment

Action 7 – The 

BLM would use 

the management

response consistent 

with Fire 

Management 

Categories A 

through D for all 

human-caused and 

natural fires. The 

BLM would retain 

Action 7 –Fire management units and fire workload areas would be consistent with 

current wildfire management guidance and delineated and developed based on vegetation 

types and condition, predominate historical fire regime groups, and management 

constraints, objectives, and strategies.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-62

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

the current fire 

management zones 

delineated and 

managed in the 

MCFO Fire 

Management Plan

(BLM 2004g)

(Map 10).

Wildland Fire 

Managment

Action 8 –

Management of 

wildland fire to 

meet multiple 

objectives would 

not be authorized 

in the planning 

area unless it falls 

within 

management 

categories C 

(310,000 acres) 

and D (0 acres) 

(BLM 2003k)

(Map 10).

Action 8 –

Management of 

wildland fire to meet 

multiple objectives

would be authorized 

in the planning area. 

There would be no 

areas for 

management 

categories A 

through D as 

described in 

Alternative A.

Management of 

wildland fire to meet 

multiple objectives 

would be limited to 

areas of BLMadministered lands 

adjacent to lands 

administered by the 

Custer National 

Forest (13,000 

acres) and lands 

administered by the 

Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife 

Refuge (350,000 

acres) that also 

Action 8 – Management of wildland fire to meet multiple 

objectives would be authorized in the planning area. There would 

be no areas for management categories A through D as described 

in Alternative A.

Management of wildfire to meet multiple objectives would be 

authorized on any BLM-administered lands in the planning area. 

Areas would be delineated based on RMP goals. 

Wildfire management implementation plans for natural ignition to

meet multiple objectives would be developed for areas identified 

to benefit from fire.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-63

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

allow management 

of wildland fire to 

meet multiple 

objectives on their 

jurisdictional lands. 

Areas would be 

delineated based on 

goals stated above.

Wildfire 

management 

implementation

plans (natural 

ignitions to meet 

multiple objectives) 

would be developed 

for areas identified 

to benefit from fire

(Map 10).

CULTURAL RESOURCES (See Management for Cultural ACECS under Special Designation Areas)

Goal 1 – Identify, preserve, and protect significant cultural resources on BLM-administered lands and ensure that they are available to 

present and future generations for appropriate uses such as scientific studies, public education, and recreation.

Goal 2 – Provide American Indian access to enable tribes to maintain traditional values intrinsic to their cultural identities.

Goal 3 – Preserve and protect cultural resources.

Goal 4 – Reduce threats to cultural resources.

Cultural Resources

Objective 1 – Avoid disturbance and protect significant cultural properties and districts and their settings. Avoid 

disturbance or inadvertent impacts to these resources.

Objective 2 – Protect national historic sites and national historic landmarks (NHLs) and the setting or viewshed 

in which they occur.

Objective 3 – Avoid disturbance and protect cultural properties, districts, and their settings. Avoid disturbance 

and protect cultural properties (and the settings in which they occur), designated traditional cultural properties

(TCPs), those designated for traditional use, and those determined to be of particular importance to American 

Indian groups.

Objective 4 – Protect national historic trails and the setting or viewshed in which they occur.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Cultural Resources Action 1 – The BLM would comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 

U.S.C. 470 et seq.) for all federal undertakings.

1
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-64

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Action 2 – The BLM would avoid impacts to significant cultural resources by redesigning projects or mitigating 

adverse impacts.

Action 3 – The BLM would investigate and prosecute unauthorized use or destruction of significant cultural 

properties.

Action 4 – The BLM would design cultural resource awareness programs to enhance the public appreciation of 

cultural resource values.

Cultural Resources

Action 5 – The BLM would make significant cultural sites available for scientific study.

Action 6 – The BLM would conduct Class I, II, or III cultural inventories for lands that included surface 

disturbance as part of the action.

Action 7 – After the BLM issues a ROD, cultural resource management plans will begin to be prepared for each 

of the cultural ACECs. NHLs, TCPs, and NHLs listed with properties to develop first for the most significant 

sites within the planning area.

Action 8 – All cultural properties in the planning area would be allocated to one of the following categories: 

scientific use, conservation for future use, traditional use, public use, experimental use, or discharged from 

management. Identified cultural resources would be assigned to cultural resource use categories and defined in 

the Cultural Resources Appendix.

Action 9 – Management proposed for all alternatives would identify, monitor, protect, and preserve significant 

cultural resources in accordance with Sections 106 and 110 of NHPA. 

Action 10 – Adverse impacts from federal undertakings to cultural sites eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP) would be avoided if possible by project abandonment, project redesign, or as a last 

resort, mitigation of adverse impacts through data recovery or other alternative means.

Action 11 – The BLM would consult with appropriate entities and interested publics per the BLM’s WO IM 

2012-108, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and 36 CFR 800 regulations as well as American 

Indian Tribes as Sovereign nations in a government-to-government relationship per the American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act, Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act, Archeological Resources 

Protection Act, and Executive Order 13007. The BLM would consult with interested tribes to identify cultural 

values or religious beliefs that would be affected by proposed BLM actions.

Action 12 – Geothermal leasing would be offered in compliance with the Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (BLM 2008h).

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Cultural Resources

Action 13 –

Surface-disturbing 

activities would be 

allowed within the 

planning area.

Action 13 –

Surface-disturbing 

activities would not 

be allowed in or 

within 0.5 miles of 

sites if the activities 

affected or had an 

Action 13 –

Surface-disturbing 

activities would not 

be allowed in or 

within 300 feet of 

sites if the activities 

affected or had an 

Action 13 –

Surface-disturbing 

activities would be 

allowed with an 

attached stipulation 

that would state 

that, prior to surface 

Action 13 –

Surface-disturbing 

activities would be 

allowed in 

significant cultural 

sites as long as the 

activities would not 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-65

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

impact on the 

quality and setting 

of designated sites 

or areas or sites or 

areas that met the 

criteria for 

allocation for 

designation.

This action would 

also include the area 

surrounding the 

existing cultural 

ACECs.

impact on the 

quality and setting 

of designated sites 

or areas or sites or 

areas that met the 

criteria for 

allocation for 

designation.

Surface-disturbing 

activities would not 

be allowed. This 

action would also 

include the area 

surrounding the 

existing cultural 

ACECs.

Surface-disturbing 

activities that would 

not degrade the 

values of the sites 

and that provided 

for the improvement 

or maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality (e.g., 

erosion control or 

reseeding), enhance 

the values of the 

sites, and have 

beneficial outcomes 

would be allowed. 

disturbance, a 

SUPO and a 

cultural site 

mitigation plan, 

which must be 

approved by the 

AO, would be 

required for all 

surface-disturbing 

activities in the 

cultural resource or 

designated site and 

for those within 300 

feet of boundaries 

of cultural resources 

or designated sites 

or areas or sites or 

areas that meet the 

criteria for 

allocation for 

designation.

Surface-disturbing 

activities would be 

avoided whenever 

possible. If the 

surface-disturbing 

activity could not be 

avoided, approved 

measures would be 

applied to minimize 

the impact to the 

cultural resource.

affect or have an 

impact on the 

quality and setting 

of sites.

Cultural Resources

Action 14 – Oil

and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with lease terms.

1

Action 14 – Oil and 

gas leasing would be 

offered with an NSO 

stipulation that 

Action 14 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation that 

Action 14 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with a 

CSU stipulation that 

Action 14 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation that 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-66

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

restricted surfacedisturbing activities 

in the site and 

within 0.5 miles of 

site boundaries if the 

activities affected or 

had an impact on the 

quality and setting 

of designated sites 

or areas or sites or 

areas that met the 

criteria for 

allocation for 

designation 

(including cultural 

resources, NRHPeligible properties 

and districts, and 

TCPs) (except for 

those sites in Action 

16 below).1

See Chapter 3, 

Cultural Resources,

and the Glossary for 

a definition of 

designated site or 

area. This action 

includes the area 

surrounding the 

existing cultural 

ACECs.

restricted surfacedisturbing activities 

in the site and 

within 300 feet of 

site boundaries if 

the activities 

affected or had an 

impact on the 

quality and setting 

of designated sites 

or areas or sites or 

areas that met the 

criteria for 

allocation for 

designation 

(including cultural 

resources, NRHPeligible properties 

and districts, and 

TCPs).1See 

Chapter 3, Cultural 

Resources, and the 

Glossary for a 

definition of 

designated site or 

area. This action 

includes the area 

surrounding the 

existing cultural 

ACECs.

stated that, prior to 

surface disturbance, 

a SUPO and a 

cultural site 

mitigation plan, 

which must be 

approved by the 

AO, would be 

required for all 

surface-disturbing 

activities in the 

cultural resource or 

designated site and 

for those within 300 

feet of boundaries 

of cultural resources 

or designated sites 

or areas or sites or 

areas that met the 

criteria for 

allocation for 

designation 

(including cultural 

resources, NRHPeligible properties 

and districts, and 

TCPs).1See 

Chapter 3, Cultural 

Resources, and the 

Glossary for a 

definition of 

designated site or 

area.

restricted surfacedisturbing activities 

in significant 

cultural sites if the 

activities affected or 

had an impact on 

the quality and 

setting of the sites 

(including 

significant cultural 

resources, NRHPeligible properties 

and districts, and 

TCPs).1

Cultural Resources

Action 15 – Oil

and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with lease terms, 

Action 15– Oil and 

gas leasing would 

not be offered in or 

within 3.5 miles of 

Action 15 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation in 

Action 15 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with a 

CSU stipulation that 

Action 15 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation in 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-67

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

except in areas in 

which oil and gas 

leasing would be 

offered with an 

NSO stipulation.

the Fort Union

Historic Site NHL

or in or within 0.5 

miles of NHLs and 

historic battlefields.

and within 3.5 miles 

of the Fort Union

Historic Site NHL

and in and within 

300 feet of NHLs 

and historic 

battlefields.1

would state that, 

prior to surface 

disturbance or use, a 

SUPO and a 

cultural site 

mitigation plan 

must be approved 

by the AO for all 

activities in or 

within 3.5 miles of 

the Fort Union

Historic Site NHL

and in or within 300 

feet of NHLs and 

historic 

battlefields.

1

NHLs and historic 

battlefields.

1

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES (for management of Paleontological ACECs, see Special Designation Areas, the 

ACEC section)

Goal 1 – Identify, preserve, and protect significant paleontological resources and ensure that they are available to present and future

generations for appropriate uses such as scientific studies and public education.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Paleontological 

Resources

Action 1 – Subject to consistency with other laws and policies, casual collecting of invertebrates and plant 

fossils would be allowed and permits required for collection of paleontological resources (vertebrate fossils). 

Commercial collecting would not be allowed or permitted.

Action 2 – The BLM would follow the 2007 IM No. 2008-009, Potential Fossil Yield Classification System for 

Paleontological Resources on Public Lands (see the Paleontological Resources Appendix).

Action 3 – The BLM would avoid impacts to significant paleontological remains through project redesign, 

project abandonment, or mitigation of adverse impacts using scientific recovery and analysis.

Action 4 – The BLM would prepare paleontological resource awareness programs designed to enhance the 

public appreciation of paleontological resource values.

Action 5 – The BLM would encourage scientific use of paleontological resources by qualified institutions.

Action 6 – Geothermal leasing would be offered in compliance with the Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (BLM 2008h).

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Paleontological 

Resources

Action 7 –

Surface-disturbing 

Action 7 – Surfacedisturbing activities Action 7 – Surfacedisturbing activities Action 7 – Surface-disturbing activities 

would be allowed as long as the activities 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-68

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

activities would be 

allowed except for 

171 acres of 

paleontological 

locality special 

management areas

where geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed.

would not be 

allowed in or within

0.5 miles of the

localities if the 

activities would 

impact the 

paleontological 

localities, future 

paleontological 

localities, or areas 

that meet the criteria 

for designation. 

Surface-disturbing 

activities that did 

not degrade the 

locality and that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality (e.g., 

erosion control or 

reseeding), 

enhanced the values 

of the 

paleontological 

localities (or areas), 

and had beneficial 

outcomes would be 

allowed.

would not be 

allowed in or within 

300 feet of localities 

if the activities 

would impact the 

paleontological 

localities, future 

paleontological 

localities, or areas 

that meet the 

criteria for 

designation.

Surface-disturbing 

activities that did

not degrade the 

locality and that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality (e.g., 

erosion control or 

reseeding), 

enhanced the values 

of the 

paleontological 

localities (or areas), 

and had beneficial 

outcomes would be 

allowed.

would not impact the quality and setting of 

significant paleontological localities or 

areas that met the criteria for designation.

Paleontological 

Resources

Action 8 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation.1

Action 8 – Oil and 

gas leasing would be 

offered with an NSO 

stipulation that 

restricted surfacedisturbing activities 

in and within 0.5 

Action 8 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation that 

restricted surfacedisturbing activities 

in and within 300 

Action 8 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with a 

CSU stipulation that 

stated that, prior to 

surface disturbance, 

a SUPO and a 

Action 8 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation that 

restricted surfacedisturbing activities 

in localities.1
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-69

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

miles of localities.1feet of localities.1paleontological site 

mitigation plan, 

which must be 

approved by the 

AO, would be 

required for all 

surface-disturbing 

activities in and 

within 300 feet of 

significant 

localities.

1

VISUAL RESOURCES

Goal 1 – Maintain scenic qualities consistent with the management of resources and uses.

Visual Resources Objective 1 – Manage visual resources according to established guidelines for visual resource management

(VRM) class objectives.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

(See Recreation and 

Special Designation 

Areas sections for 

VRM in specific 

areas)

Action 1 – The BLM would continue to prepare rehabilitation plans to address landscape modifications on a 

case-by-case basis. The visual contrast rating system would be used during project-level planning to determine 

recommended measures to reduce impacts from visual contrasts (including the use of BMPs) and the proposed 

activity’s compliance with VRM objectives. 

Action 2 – WSAs would be managed as VRM Class I.1See the Wilderness section.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Visual Resources

Action 3 – VRM

would be managed 

according to VRM

Class I (97,000 

acres), VRM Class 

II (400,000 acres), 

VRM Class III 

(380,000 acres), 

and VRM Class IV 

(1,900,000 acres)

(Map 11)

objectives.

1

Action 3 – VRM

would be managed 

according to VRM

Class I (95,000 

acres), VRM Class 

II (580,000 acres), 

VRM Class III 

(640,000 acres), and 

VRM Class IV 

(1,400,000 acres)

(Map 12).

1

Action 3 – VRM

would be managed 

according to VRM

Class I (95,000 

acres), VRM Class 

II (410,000 acres), 

VRM Class III 

(700,000 acres), and 

VRM Class IV 

(1,600,000 acres)

(Map 13).

1

Action 3 – VRM

would be managed 

according to VRM

Class I (95,000 

acres), VRM Class 

II (360,000 acres), 

VRM Class III 

(740,000 acres), and 

VRM Class IV 

(1,600,000 acres)

(Map 14).

1

Action 3 – VRM

would be managed 

according to VRM

Class I (94,000 

acres), VRM Class 

II (410,000 acres), 

VRM Class III 

(690,000 acres), and 

VRM Class IV 

(1,600,000 acres)

(Map 15).

1
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-70

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

Goal 1 – Protect, preserve, and maintain areas’ wilderness characteristics by maintaining a high degree of naturalness and provide for 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive, unconfined recreation.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Devil’s Creek 

Common Area

Action 1 – Remove unnatural features and rehabilitate unauthorized human disturbances. Remove unauthorized 

facilities consistent with regulations.

Devil’s Creek 

Common Area

Action 2 – Monitor for development and disturbances, as well as visitor use, to identify and address potential 

impacts to wilderness characteristics.

Action 3 – Lands acquired within WSAs, such as the Terry Badlands WSA, would be managed the same as the 

WSA (see the narrative portion of Chapter 2 for further information).

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Devil’s Creek 

Common Area

Action 4 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be allowed with 

lease terms (5,236 

acres).

Action 4 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be allowed with an 

NSO stipulation 

(5,236 acres).

Action 4 – Oil and gas leasing would be allowed with a CSU 

stipulation on 5,236 acres (see the VRM II stipulation in the 

Minerals Appendix).

Action 5 – ROWs

would be allowed 

(5,236 acres).

Action 5 – Surfacedisturbing activities 

would not be 

allowed, including 

ROWs (5,236 

acres).

Action 5 – Surface-disturbing activities would be allowed, 

including ROWs, as long as they meet the goals of lands with 

wilderness characteristics (5,236 acres).

Actions 6 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(5,127 acres) and 

VRM Class III (109 

acres).

Actions 6 – The area would be managed according to VRM Class II.

RESOURCE USES

FACILITIES

Goal 1 – Provide adequate administration and recreation (and other) facilities to allow for management needs through facilities 

management based on analysis such as the Asset Business Plan to maintain, replace, construct, lease, or dispose of sites.

Facilities Objective 1 – Ensure that Universal Accessibility Standards are met for all new developed facilities and the 

retrofitting of existing facilities, where feasible.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-71

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Facilities

Action 1 – Facilities (includes administration, recreation and communication sites buildings and dams) would be 

maintained, according to BLM standards, to enhance visitor experiences and meet public health and safety 

requirements, reduce deferred maintenance costs, and provide universal accessibility as appropriate.

Action 2 – Comprehensive condition assessments would be conducted for all maintained facilities on an 

established schedule in accordance with BLM policy. Managers would review the results of the condition 

assessments and determine the need for reconstruction, maintenance, or disposal.

Action 3 – New facilities would be constructed subject to approved engineering standards. Consider use 

demands, location, safety, and resource constraints when determining the proposed location for the facility. New 

facilities would be constructed to meet energy and sustainability requirements.

Action 4 – Construction and maintenance priorities for hazard class dams would be in conformance with past 

planning documents. Emergency Action Planning would be performed as required in accordance with BLM 

policy. 

FORESTRY AND WOODLAND PRODUCTS (see also Vegetation)

Goal 1 – Promote healthy, resilient, and vigorous forestland communities. Forestland mosaics would be managed for diversity of stand 

structures and species components that complemented other resource values, including (but not limited to) recreation, wildlife, 

rangelands, fisheries, and wood production.

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products

Objective 1 – Provide woody and non-woody biomass consistent with other resource uses as part of an 

ecologically healthy system and consistent with the principles of multiple use.

Objective 2 – Develop management strategies and implement treatments to improve the health, sustainability, 

resiliency, and productivity of forests, woodlands, and the desired vegetative community based on scientifically 

sound principles and an environmentally responsible level of timber sales.

Objective 3 – Manage forest vegetation structure, species composition, patch size, pattern, and distribution in a 

manner that reduced the occurrence of severe wildfires and forest insect and disease outbreaks.

Objective 4 – Implement selective treatments on forests and woodlands that mimic natural disturbance regimes 

to enhance resiliency to wildfires and insect and disease outbreaks. Manage forest resources to improve 

resilience to catastrophic events and maintain and enhance their ability for the long-term sequestration of carbon.

Objective 5 – Maintain and promote forest stand structures with large trees appropriate to forest types and 

successional stages.

Objective 6 – Promote forest and woodland vegetation regeneration and recovery on forested lands after 

management treatments, insect and disease outbreaks, and wildfire events.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products

Action 1 – All forest management activities would meet or exceed Montana’s Streamside Management Zone 

Law (77 5-301 et seq. Montana Code Annotated) and the Water Quality BMPs for Montana Forests (Logan 

2001) (see the Forestry and Woodland Products Appendix). 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-72

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Action 2 – Woody and non-woody biomass product removal would be allowed in all forest and juniper

woodland types, with the exception of designated WSAs and ACECs that prohibited the removal of forest

products.

Action 3 – Forest health restoration projects that reduced hazardous fuel loadings and improved forest resiliency 

to disturbances from wildfires, insects, and diseases would be the highest priority (including timber salvage 

opportunities).

Action 4 – All management activities that removed dead or live trees would take into consideration other 

resources values (such as wildlife habitat, watershed health, soils stability, snag recruitment and large tree 

retention, local economic opportunities, public safety, hazardous fuels, visual integrity, and any other relevant 

concerns).

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products

Action 5 –

Forestlands in the 

planning area with 

10% or more 

canopy cover per 

acre would be 

managed for the 

enhancement of 

other resources, not 

for the production 

of forest products 

or sawtimber

(BLM 1996). 

Action 5 –

Forestlands would 

not be managed for 

forest products or 

sawtimber, except 

for trees deemed 

safety hazards.

Action 5 – Forestlands would be managed to enhance the health 

and resiliency of forest and woodland resources (e.g., tree growth, 

wildlife habitat, aesthetics, forage production, and other criteria) 

and for a diversity of forest products.

Action 6 – Wood 

product sales for 

post and poles, 

Christmas trees, 

and firewood 

would be allowed 

in the Knowlton, 

Pine Unit, Missouri 

Breaks, and all 

other areas allowed 

under the 

Fire/Fuels 

Management Plan 

Action 6 – Wood 

product sales for 

post and poles, 

Christmas trees, and 

firewood would not

be allowed in the 

planning area.

Action 6 – Sales for other forest products (e.g., post and poles, 

Christmas trees, firewood, juniper boughs, and other materials)

would be allowed in all areas that supported these products and 

met management objectives. These areas would be delineated in 

accordance with the management goals and objectives stated 

above.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-73

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Environmental 

Assessment/Plan 

Amendment for 

Montana and the 

Dakotas (BLM 

2003k).

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products

Action 7 – Sales 

for sawtimber

would not be

allowed except for 

salvage harvest of 

ponderosa pine

affected by insects, 

fire, or other 

natural causes 

(BLM 1996).

Action 7 – Sales for 

sawtimber would 

not be allowed 

except salvage 

harvest of ponderosa 

pine affected by 

insects.

Action 7 – Sales for 

sawtimber would be 

allowed for 

sustainable resource 

health and forest

products 

production. 

Probable sale 

quantity (PSQ) for 

commercial 

sawtimber would be 

allowed up to 650 

thousand board feet 

per year (mbf/year).

PSQ values may be 

adjusted based on 

monitoring 

evaluations; in 

response to 

unforeseen events 

(such as wildfires); 

current inventories; 

and insect, disease, 

or climate 

conditions.

Action 7 – Sales for sawtimber would be 

allowed for sustainable resource health and 

forest products production.

PSQ for commercial sawtimber would be 

allowed up to 1,100 mbf/year.

PSQ values may be adjusted based on 

monitoring evaluations; in response to 

unforeseen events (such as wildfires); 

current inventories; and insect, disease, or 

climate conditions.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-74

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Cottonwood

Trees

Action 8 – Harvest of cottonwood would 

be allowed on public lands only when 

human safety was a factor or disease or 

insect infestations were threatening 

cottonwood stands (BLM 1996).

Action 8 – Harvest of cottonwood would be allowed only to 

restore the health and resiliency of cottonwood stands or to 

remove hazard trees.

LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Goal 1 – Provide forage for livestock grazing consistent with other resources and uses as part of an ecologically healthy system 

consistent with multiple use and sustained yield.

Goal 2 – Utilize grazing activities to manage for the biological integrity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems to sustain vegetation, fish, 

and special status species, while providing for multiple uses of BLM-administered lands.

Goal 3 – Provide opportunities for livestock grazing to support and sustain local communities while providing habitat for native plants, 

fish, and animals (including special status species) and meeting or exceeding PFC for uplands and riparian areas and Montana’s air 

and water quality standards.

Livestock Grazing

Objective 1 – Maintain sustainable forage levels for livestock and to provide for wildlife habitat.

Objective 2 – Using grazing BMPs, maintain existing desirable rangeland conditions or improve rangeland 

health.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Livestock Grazing

Action 1 – Management actions that included grazing use, grazing activity plans and systems, range 

improvements, and vegetation treatment would be designed to maintain or improve vegetation conditions or 

achieve desired habitats.

Action 2 – Increases or decreases in grazing preference AUMs would be implemented based on resource 

conditions within an allotment.

Action 3 – Livestock grazing use adjustments in response to drought, fire, flood, and insect infestations would 

be made on a case-by-case basis and consistent with the BLM’s Policy for Administering Public Land Grazing 

in Montana, North and South Dakota during Periods of Drought.

Action 4 – Allotment categorization would use criteria found in Handbook 1740-1 and WO IM 2009-018 (BLM 

2008d) and new criteria outlined in the Livestock Grazing Appendix. Allotment category designations would be 

changed as new information becomes available, such as monitoring, Standards for Rangeland Health

assessments, habitat assessments, and special status species data. Changes in allotment categorizations would be 

documented via plan maintenance. 

Action 5 – Fence construction or modification specifications would follow standards in the BLM Fencing 

Manual Handbook H-1741-1. Deviations would be allowed if environmental analysis showed a resource benefit.

Action 6 – The BLM would follow the BLM’s 1997 Record of Decision for Standards for Rangeland Health 

and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management Final Environmental Impact Statement for Montana and 

North and South Dakota.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-75

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Livestock 

Grazing

Authorization

Action 7 –

Approximately 

2,700,000 acres 

and an estimated 

546,508 AUMs 

would be open to 

livestock grazing

(see Table 2 in the 

Livestock Grazing

Appendix; Map 16 

on the Map CD).

Action 7 –

Approximately 

2,500,000 acres and 

an estimated 

502,706 AUMs 

would be open to all 

livestock grazing 

except domestic 

sheep and goats.

From the available

acres, 2,100,000 

acres and an 

estimated 422,903 

AUMs would be 

open to domestic 

sheep and goats.

Action 7 –

Approximately 

2,700,000 acres and 

an estimated 

545,189 AUMs 

would be open to 

livestock grazing, 

except domestic 

sheep and goats.

From the available

acres, 2,700,000 

acres and 544,578 

AUMs would be 

open to domestic 

sheep and goats.

Action 7 –

Approximately 

2,700,000 acres and 

an estimated 

545,943 AUMs 

would be open to 

livestock grazing. 

Action 7 –

Approximately 

2,700,000 acres and 

an estimated 

544,709 AUMs 

would be open to 

livestock grazing.

Action 8 –

Livestock grazing

would be excluded 

on approximately 

240 acres (62 

AUMs) (Map 17). 

Action 8 –

Approximately 

210,000 acres 

(43,000 AUMs) 

would be excluded 

from all livestock 

grazing. Domestic 

sheep and goat

grazing would be 

excluded on 390,000 

acres (79,803 

AUMs) (Map 18).

Action 8 –

Approximately 

6,800 acres (1,300 

AUMs) would be 

excluded from all 

livestock grazing. 

Domestic sheep and 

goat grazing would 

be excluded on 

8,300 acres (611 

AUMs) (Map 19).

Action 8 –

Livestock grazing

would be excluded 

on 3,100 acres (627 

AUMs) (Map 20).

Action 8 –

Livestock grazing

would be excluded 

on 3,125 acres 

(1,257 AUMs)

(Map 21).

Action 9 – In the 

allotments in Table 

1 (see the Livestock 

Grazing Appendix), 

in which the 

Standards for 

Rangeland Health 

were not met and 

Action 9 – The 

allotments in Table 

1 (see the Livestock 

Grazing Appendix), 

in which the 

Standards for 

Rangeland Health 

were not met 

Action 9 – The allotments in Table 1 (see the Livestock Grazing 

Appendix), in which the Standards for Rangeland Health were not 

met (including Sage-grouse Habitat), livestock grazing was a 

causal factor in the failure to meet these standards, and there was 

no progress towards meeting Standards for Rangeland Health in 

the allotments within 5 years of the ROD of the RMP, would be 

eliminated and closed to livestock grazing. These lands would no

longer be chiefly valuable for grazing.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-76

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

livestock grazing 

was a causal factor 

and site-specific 

analyses 

demonstrated that 

Standards for 

Rangeland Health 

could be achieved, 

grazing permits 

would be issued 

with specific 

grazing seasons 

and livestock 

numbers and other 

terms and 

conditions 

designed to make 

progress toward 

meeting the 

Standards for 

Rangeland Health.

(including Sagegrouse Habitat), and 

livestock grazing 

was a causal factor 

in the failure to meet 

these standards, 

would be eliminated 

and closed to 

livestock grazing 

(190,000 acres and 

39,113 AUMs).

Livestock 

Grazing

Authorization –

Locatable

Mining, Oil and 

Gas, and Coal

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

would continue to 

be allowed within 

areas with active 

locatable mining.

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

would be excluded 

in areas with active 

locatable mining for 

the life of the 

activity.

Action 10 – Livestock grazing would be suspended on affected 

acres within active locatable mining areas. Grazing would resume 

as areas were reclaimed and Standards for Rangeland Health were 

met.

Action 11 –

Livestock grazing

would continue to 

be allowed within 

areas with oil and 

gas development if 

Standards for 

Rangeland Health

were being met.

Action 11 – In 

grazing allotments 

with oil and gas

development,

AUMs would be 

suspended 

commensurate with 

the direct loss of 

AUMs.

Action 11 – Livestock grazing would continue to be allowed in oil

and gas development areas if Standards for Rangeland Health were 

being met. However, AUMs could be reduced commensurate with 

the direct loss of AUMs caused by oil and gas development.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-77

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Livestock Grazing 

Authorizaion –

Locatable Mining, 

Oil and Gas, and 

Coal

Action 12 –

Livestock grazing

would be cancelled 

during coal 

development for 

the life of the mine 

(BLM 1996).

Livestock grazing

would be allowed 

within areas with 

coal development 

(BLM 1985c).

Action 12 –

Livestock grazing

would be suspended 

during coal 

development for the 

life of the mine.

Action 12 – Livestock grazing would be suspended on affected 

areas during coal development. Grazing prior to bond release 

would be allowed if Standards for Rangeland Health were being 

met.

Livestock 

Grazing

Authorization –

Land 

Treatments

Action 13 –

Livestock grazing

would be deferred 

on a case-by-case 

basis with 

permittee or lessee 

cooperation to 

ensure adequate 

fuel is present to 

carry a prescribed 

fire.

Action 13 – Livestock grazing would be 

suspended until vegetative conditions 

allowed for adequate fuel for a prescribed 

fire.

Action 13 –

Livestock grazing

would be deferred 

on a case-by-case 

basis with permittee 

or lessee 

cooperation to 

ensure adequate fuel 

to carry a prescribed 

fire.

Action 13 –

Livestock grazing

would be deferred

or suspended in 

identified fuels 

treatment areas until 

vegetative 

conditions allowed

for adequate fuel for 

a prescribed fire.

Action 14 – BLMadministered lands 

would be 

temporarily closed 

for at least 1 

growing season 

after a prescribed 

or wildfire (BLM 

1996).

Grazing would be 

deferred or 

temporarily closed 

Action 14 – BLMadministered lands 

would be 

temporarily closed 

to grazing after 

wildfire, prescribed 

fire, or non-fire 

vegetative 

treatments for at 

least 2 growing 

seasons.

Action 14 – BLMadministered lands 

would be closed to 

livestock grazing

after wildfire, 

prescribed fire, or 

non-fire vegetative 

treatments until the 

area attained

identified vegetative 

objectives.

Action 14 – BLMadministered lands 

would be closed 

after wildfire, 

prescribed fire, or 

non-fire vegetative 

treatments until 

established seed set 

the next growing 

season.

Action 14 – BLMadministered lands 

would be closed to 

livestock grazing

after wildfire, 

prescribed fire, or 

non-fire vegetative 

treatments until the 

area attained

treatment or 

rehabilitation plan 

resource objectives.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-78

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

on a case-by-case 

basis (BLM 

1985c).

Livestock 

Grazing

Authorization –

Reserve 

Common 

Allotments 

(RCAs)

Action 15 – There 

would be no RCAs.

Action 15 – RCAs 

would be designated 

and managed 

according to the 

criteria listed in the 

Livestock Grazing

Appendix.

Action 15 – RCAs 

would be designated 

and managed to 

ensure grazing 

authorizations were

available only to 

those permittees 

who were legal 

residents of the 

county in which the 

RCA was located.

Action 15 – RCAs 

would not be 

designated in the 

planning area.

Action 15 – RCAs 

would be designated 

and managed 

according to the 

criteria listed in the 

Livestock Grazing

Appendix.

Livestock 

Grazing –

Allotment 

Prioritization

Action 16 – The 

BLM would 

monitor and 

evaluate the 

appropriate 

management 

actions (grazing 

systems and range 

improvements) for 

permit renewals to 

ensure range 

condition and 

objectives were 

met on I allotments 

and maintained on 

M and C

allotments.

Action 16 – Priority 

allotments for 

monitoring and land 

health evaluations 

would be allotments 

that:

1. did not meet 

Standards for 

Rangeland 

Health;

2. contain special 

status species

habitat; or

3. contained

nonfunctional or 

functional-atrisk with 

downward trend 

riparian areas.

Action 16 – Priority 

allotments for 

monitoring and land 

health evaluation 

would be allotments 

that did not meet 

Standards for 

Rangeland Health.

In addition, other 

priority allotments 

would be those 

allotments in which 

the BLM 

administers 51% or 

more of the lands in 

an allotment or 

pasture and also 

contained:

1. special status 

species habitat 

of high priority

Action 16 – Priority allotments for 

monitoring and land health evaluations 

would be allotments that did not meet 

Standards for Rangeland Health.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-79

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

(e.g., sagegrouse); or

2. nonfunctional

or functional-at 

risk with 

downward 

trend riparian

areas.

Livestock 

Grazing –

Permit/Lease 

Renewals and 

Transfers

Action 17 –

Permits or leases 

would be 

transferred or 

renewed on a caseby-case basis.

Action 17 – Grazing 

permits or leases 

would be transferred 

or renewed for C

category grazing 

allotments in which 

the new grazing 

permit or lease 

contained the same 

kind of livestock 

and the active use 

previously 

authorized was not 

exceeded. These 

allotments would be 

documented to be 

meeting Rangeland 

Health Standards

(see the Livestock 

Grazing Appendix

for a screening 

criteria checklist).

Action 17 –

Grazing permits or 

leases would be 

transferred or 

renewed for C and 

M category grazing 

allotments in which 

the new grazing 

permit or lease 

contained the same 

kind of livestock 

and the active use 

previously 

authorized was not 

exceeded. These 

allotments would be 

documented to be 

meeting Rangeland 

Health Standards

(see the Livestock 

Grazing Appendix

for a screening 

criteria checklist).

Action 17 –

Grazing permits or 

leases would be 

transferred or 

renewed for all 

grazing allotments 

in which the new 

grazing permit or 

lease contained the 

same kind of 

livestock and the 

active use 

previously 

authorized was not 

exceeded. These 

allotments would be 

documented to be 

meeting Rangeland 

Health Standards

(see the Livestock 

Grazing Appendix

for a screening 

criteria checklist). 

Action 17 –

Grazing permits or 

leases would be 

transferred or 

renewed for grazing 

allotments 

documented to meet 

Rangeland Health 

Standards when no 

additional impacts 

were present on 

adjacent allotments 

and when there 

were no proposed 

changes to 

permitted kind or 

number of 

livestock, 

authorized active 

use (AUMs), or 

season of use (as 

described in the 

screening criteria in 

the Livestock 

Grazing Appendix).

A documentation of 

NEPA adequacy 

would be prepared 

that would tier to 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-80

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

existing NEPA 

documentation.

Livestock 

Grazing –

Carrying 

Capacity

Action 18 –

Livestock grazing

carrying capacity

would be 

calculated 

according to the 

following:

 Cow or 

bull over 

6 months 

of age – 1 

AUM;

 Horse

over 6 

months of 

age – 1 

AUM;

 Five sheep 

or goats

over 6 

months of 

age – 1 

AUM; and

 Yearling 

cattle – 1 

AUM.

Action 18 – AUM conversions in types of livestock would be 

considered on a case-by-case basis through an environmental 

analysis. Such changes would be consistent with wildlife, 

watershed, riparian, special status species, and vegetation 

objectives.

Action 18 –

Livestock grazing

carrying capacity

would be calculated 

according to the 

following:

 Cow or 

bull over 6 

months of 

age – 1 

AUM;

 Horse over 

6 months 

of age – 1 

AUM;

 Five sheep 

or goats 

over 6 

months of 

age – 1 

AUM; and

 Yearling 

cattle – 1 

AUM.

Alternatives considering prohibiting range improvement projects in specific allotments are addressed in the Recreation and the Special 

Designations sections.

Alternatives considering closing specific allotments to livestock grazing or changing the season of use are addressed in the Recreation, 

Special Designations, Wildlife, and Fish and Wildlife, Aquatics sections.

MINERALS

Goal 1 – Provide opportunities for mineral use in the area.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-81

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Coal

Action 1 – Identify federal coal acceptable for further leasing consideration.

Action 2 – Manage the federal coal resource to provide for the development of federal coal in an orderly and 

timely manner and consistent with the federal coal management program and policies, environmental integrity, 

and national energy needs.

Action 3 – Areas identified in the Big Dry and Powder River RMPs (BLM 1996 and 1985c) as acceptable for 

further consideration for coal leasing would be carried forward:

 Powder River RMP: “Future development will come from current leases covering 39,391 acres 

(3.43 billion tons) those unleased areas determined acceptable for further consideration in the 

1979 MFP Update and 1982 Amendment covering 91,700 acres (7.83 billion tons) and unleased 

areas determined acceptable for further consideration from new planning covering 869,600 

acres (54.37 billion tons). The combined total is 1,000,691 acres (65.63 billion tons). 

Emergency leases will be issued to maintain production or avoid a bypass situation on a caseby-case basis. Exchanges will be considered for existing leases, by direction of legislation, and 

for leases located in alluvial valley floors. Other exchanges will be considered on a case-bycase basis” (BLM 1985c, p. 2).

 Big Dry RMP: “Pending application of the surface-owner consultation screen, coal will be 

acceptable for further consideration for leasing or exchange on 580,547 public mineral acres 

containing 6.18 billion tons of coal” (BLM 1996, p. 12).

Action 4 – All coal leasing and coal exchange proposals would be evaluated for their suitability for leasing 

through application or reapplication of the unsuitability criteria or coal screening process. Surface owner 

consultation would be initiated, if needed, during site-specific planning for a lease application.

Action 5 – Oil and gas leasing and development would be offered with an NSO stipulation within existing coal 

leases with approved mining plans.1

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Oil, Gas, and 

Geothermal

(Maps 22 through 

26)

Action 1 – COAs, BMPs, and other measures would be used when developing oil and gas resources (see the 

Best Management Practices Appendix, Fish and Wildlife Appendix, and Minerals Appendix under Oil and Gas

Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures and http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/bes

t_management_practices/technical_information.html.)

Action 2 – Approximately 8% of BLM-administered oil and gas mineral acres in the planning area would be 

unavailable for leasing in the Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge (except for two grandfathered oil wells), 

Fox Lake Game Management Area, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, and Fort Keogh Livestock 

Experiment Station (nondiscretionary closures). See the Minerals Appendix for more information about 

unavailable lands.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-82

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Oil, Gas, and 

Geothermal

Action 3 – To resolve drainage situations, lands closed to leasing would be leased with an NSO stipulation. See 

the Minerals Appendix for more information.

Action 4 – Oil and gas leasing in Makoshika State Park would be managed according to the Big Dry RMP, as 

amended (1999a). In summary, oil and gas development would be allowed with NSO stipulations on 9,900 

BLM- and Dawson County-administered mineral acres while oil and gas leasing would be allowed with lease 

terms on 1,200 BLM-administered mineral acres.1

Action 5 – Coal bed natural gas (CBNG) development in the Decker area (Maps 4, 7, 8, and 9) would be 

conducted in accordance with the BLM’s 2008 Record of Decision for the Final Supplement to the Montana 

Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Amendment of the Powder River and 

Billings RMPs. All other management, including leasing, is found in this table.

Action 6 – Geothermal leasing would be offered in compliance with the Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (BLM 2008h).

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Oil, Gas, and 

Geothermal

Action 7 – Leasing 

and development 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation on 

approximately 

304,000 BLMadministered 

mineral acres.

Action 7 – Leasing 

and development 

would be allowed 

with an NSO 

stipulation on 

2,025,000 BLMadministered 

mineral acres.

Action 7 – Leasing 

and development 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation on 

approximately 

150,000 BLMadministered 

mineral acres.

Action 7 – Leasing 

and development 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation on 

approximately 

1,119 BLMadministered 

mineral acres.

Action 7 – Leasing 

and development 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation on 

approximately 

1,373,000 BLMadministered 

mineral acres.

Action 8 – Leasing 

and development 

would be offered 

with a timing 

stipulation or a 

CSU stipulation on 

approximately 

4,019,000 BLMadministered 

mineral acres.

Action 8 – Leasing 

and development 

would be allowed 

with a CSU 

stipulation on 

approximately 

963,000 BLMadministered 

mineral acres.

Action 8 – Leasing 

and development 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation on 

approximately 

4,404,000 BLMadministered 

mineral acres.

Action 8 – Leasing 

and development 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation on 

approximately 

4,374,000 BLMadministered 

mineral acres.

Action 8 – Leasing 

and development 

would be offered 

with a CSU 

stipulation on 

approximately 

3,110,000 BLMadministered 

mineral acres.

Action 9 – Leasing 

and development 

would be offered 

with lease terms on 

approximately 

Action 9 – Leasing 

and development 

would be allowed 

with lease terms on 

approximately 

Action 9 – Leasing 

and development 

would be offered 

with lease terms on 

approximately 

Action 9 – Leasing 

and development 

would be offered 

with lease terms on 

approximately 

Action 9 – Leasing 

and development 

would be offered 

with lease terms on 

approximately 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-83

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

968,000 BLMadministered 

mineral acres.

185,000 BLMadministered 

mineral acres.

737,000 BLMadministered 

mineral acres.

916,000 BLMadministered 

mineral acres.

808,100 BLMadministered 

mineral acres.

Oil, Gas, and 

Geothermal

Action 10 – No 

additional BLMadministered 

mineral acres 

would be closed to 

leasing and 

development. 

Action 10 – Leasing 

and development 

would not be offered 

on approximately

2,119,000 BLMadministered 

mineral acres.

Action 10 – No additional BLM-administered mineral acres would 

be closed to leasing and development.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed on 

approximately 

370,000 BLMadministered 

surface acres and 

allowed in the 

remainder of the 

planning area.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed on 

approximately 

2,500,000 BLMadministered surface 

acres and allowed in 

the remainder of the 

planning area.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed on 

approximately 

780,000 BLMadministered 

surface acres and 

allowed in the 

remainder of the 

planning area.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed on 

approximately 

700,000 BLMadministered 

surface acres and 

allowed in the 

remainder of the 

planning area.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed on 

approximately 

12,000 BLMadministered 

surface acres and 

allowed in the 

remainder of the 

planning area.

Proposed 

Carter MLP 

Area (139,000 

surface; 282,500 oil 

and gas)

Action 12 – No 

areas in the 

planning area 

would be identified 

for an MLP.

Action 12 – The Carter MLP would be identified.

Action 13 – Oil

and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation within 

0.25 miles of sagegrouse leks(6,800

acres).1

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

Action 13 – The 

Sage-grouse Habitat 

– Protection Priority 

ACEC would not be 

offered for oil and 

gas leasing because 

of important sagegrouse values

(250,000 acres). Oil 

and gas leasing 

would be offered in 

Action 13 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with a 

CSU stipulation in 

the MLP area 

(282,500 acres). 

Action 13 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with a 

CSU stipulation in 

the MLP area

(282,500 acres).

Action 13 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be allowed with an 

NSO stipulation in 

the Sage-grouse 

Habitat – Protection 

Priority Area in the 

MLP area (250,000 

acres). Oil and gas

leasing would be 

offered with a CSU 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-84

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

with a timing 

stipulation from 

March 1 to June 15 

in sage-grouse 

nesting habitat 

within 2 miles of a 

lek (timing; 

190,000 acres).1

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with a timing 

restriction from 

December 1 to 

March 31 within 

crucial winter 

range for wildlife 

(150,000 acres).1

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with lease terms on 

180,000 acres.

the Sage-grouse 

Habitat –

Restoration Area 

and Sage-grouse

Habitat – General 

Habitat Areas with a 

CSU stipulation

(36,000 acres). The 

BMPs for sagegrouse found in the 

Best Management 

Practices Appendix

would be considered 

during project 

implementation. 

Upon their 

expiration, existing 

leases in the Sagegrouse Habitat –

Protection Priority 

ACEC would not be 

reoffered for 

leasing.

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with lease terms on 

5 acres.

stipulation in the 

Sage-grouse Habitat 

– Restoration Area 

(36,000 acres) and a 

CSU stipulation in 

the Sage-grouse

Habitat – General 

Habitat Areas (Map 

4) (1,400 acres). 

The general 

Mitigation 

Guidelines and 

BMPs for sagegrouse found in the 

Best Management 

Practices Appendix

would be 

considered during 

project 

implementation.

Oil and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with lease terms on 

5 acres.

Proposed Carter 

MLP Area

Action 14 – Oil and gas leasing would not 

be phased.

Action 14 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be phased beginning 

in the western 

portion of the MLP. 

If production were 

occurring, the BLM 

would wait to lease 

the remainder of the 

Action 14 – Oil and gas leasing would not 

be phased. The BMPs for sage-grouse 

found in the Best Management Practices 

Appendix would be considered during 

project implementation.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-85

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

MLP until 

production ceased 

and the area 

returned to sagegrouse habitat. The 

eastern portion of 

the MLP would 

then be offered for 

oil and gas leasing 

with a CSU 

stipulation. The 

general Mitigation 

Guidelines in the 

Best Management 

Practices Appendix

would be 

considered during 

project 

implementation.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Locatable

Minerals

Action 1 – Locatable mineral entry and mining would continue to be allowed on lands open to mineral location 

and would be administered through existing surface and mineral management regulations (43 CFR 3800 and 

3809).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Mineral 

Material Sales

Action 1 – Where disposals were considered to be in the public interest, the BLM would issue free use permits 

and sales contracts while providing for the reclamation of mined lands and preventing the unnecessary and 

undue degradation of non-mineral resources. Permits and contracts would be issued on a case-by-case basis at 

the discretion of the AO.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Action 2 –

Approximately 

2,500,000 acres 

would be available 

to mineral material

sales and permits.

Action 2 –

Approximately 

300,000 acres would 

be available to 

mineral material

sales and permits.

Action 2 –

Approximately 

1,100,000 acres 

would be available 

to mineral material

sales and permits.

Action 2 –

Approximately 

1,100,000 acres 

would be available 

to mineral material

sales and permits.

Action 2 –

Approximately

2,500,000 acres 

would be available 

to mineral material

sales and permits 

with restrictions
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-86

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Approximately 

32,000 acres would 

be closed to 

mineral material

sales and permits.

Approximately 

2,200,000 acres 

would be closed to 

mineral material

sales and permits.

Approximately 

1,500,000 acres 

would be closed to 

mineral material

sales and permits.

Approximately 

1,500,000 acres 

would be closed to 

mineral material

sales and permits.

applied.

Approximately 

36,000 acres would 

be closed to mineral 

material sales and 

permits.

RECREATION

Goal 1 – Provide a diverse array of quality resource-based recreation opportunities while protecting and interpreting the resource 

values, providing educational opportunities, minimizing use conflicts, and promoting public safety.

Goal 2 – Establish, manage, and maintain quality recreation sites and facilities to balance public demand and protection of public land 

resources.

Goal 3 – Issue special recreation permits in an equitable manner for specific recreational uses of public lands to minimize user 

conflicts, control visitor use, protect recreation resources, and provide for private and commercial recreation use.

Goal 4 – Recreation management area designations would be based on recreation demand and issues, recreation setting 

characteristics, resolving use and user conflicts, compatibility with other resource use, and resource protection needs.

Goal 5 – Promote Leave No Trace and Tread Lightly practices.

Goal 6 – Support events that emphasize collaborative outreach and public awareness.

Goal 7 – Support and utilize volunteers.

Special 

Recreation 

Permits

Objective 1 – Manage special recreation permits in accordance with federal regulation, special stipulations, and 

established terms and conditions.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Special Recreation 

Permits

Action 1 – Permit 

requests by 

outfitter and guides

would be 

considered on a 

case-by-case basis 

throughout the 

planning area, 

subject to 

environmental, 

social, and public 

health and safety 

concerns.

Action 1 – Guiding

and outfitting would 

not be allowed on 

publicly accessible, 

BLM-administered 

surfaces located 

within 5 miles of 

vehicular access.

Action 1 – Guiding

and outfitting would 

not be allowed on 

publicly accessible, 

BLM-administered 

surfaces located 

within 1 mile of 

vehicular access.

Action 1 – Permit 

requests by outfitter

and guides would 

be considered on a 

case-by-case basis 

throughout the 

planning area, 

subject to 

environmental, 

social, and public 

health and safety 

concerns.

Action 1 – The 

BLM would 

continue to issue 

special recreation 

use permits as 

appropriate for 

commercial, 

competitive, and 

special events on a 

first come basis 

subject to guidelines 

in the 2930 

Handbook, resource 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-87

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

capabilities, social 

conflict concerns, 

professional 

qualifications, 

public safety, and 

public needs. 

Preference for 

renewal would be 

given to a permittee 

seeking renewal 

when the permittee 

was in full 

compliance under 

the current permit

Special Recreation 

Permits

Action 2 –

Authorization of 

commercial 

camping activity 

would be 

considered 

throughout the 

planning area on a 

case-by-case basis, 

subject to resource 

constraints, 

management 

capabilities, social 

conflicts, and 

public health and 

safety concerns.

Action 2 – Commercial camping permits 

within developed recreation sites would not 

be allowed during the Memorial Day to 

Labor Day season to reduce user conflicts 

and resource impacts.

Action 2 – Authorization of commercial 

camping activity would be considered 

throughout the planning area on a case-bycase basis, subject to resource constraints, 

management capabilities, social conflicts, 

and public health and safety concerns.

SRMAs and 

Extensive 

Recreation 

Management 

Areas (ERMAs

Objective 1 – Establish SRMAs that would be given management priority to provide quality recreation 

opportunities and visitor experiences. Establish ERMAs that would require specific management consideration 

to address recreation use, demand or Recreation and Visitor Service program investments. All remaining lands 

would be managed as Public Lands not Designated as Recreation Management Areas, which would be managed 

to meet basic Recreation and Visitor Services and resource stewardship needs. See the Recreation Appendix for 

more information regarding recreation and visitor experiences.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-88

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Objective 2 – Use future recreation management actions to complement existing multiple-use plans and 

consider ways to reduce adverse impacts to users and adjacent private landowners.

Objective 3 – Prioritize acquisition of legal access to public lands through exchanges, easements, cooperative 

agreements, permits, donations, or long-term land use agreements.

Objective 4 – Continue to cooperate with MFWP, private landowners, and non-profit organizations to improve 

hunter access and the availability of public lands for hunting, in accordance with Executive Order 13443 (August 

20, 2007).

Objective 5 – Continue to provide a diverse range of quality recreation opportunities and experiences 

commensurate with public demands, resource considerations, management capabilities, and existing program 

guidance.

Objective 6 – Management in SRMAs would emphasize interpretive, educational opportunities, fishing access 

opportunities, historic interpretation, outdoor recreation opportunities, or safe OHV-riding opportunities.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

SRMAs and 

ERMAs

Action 1 – New sites would provide universal accessibility as appropriate to enhance visitor experiences and 

sites would be developed commensurate with public demand, resource constraints, and management capabilities. 

New sites with partnership funding strategies consistent with established recreation setting characteristics and 

SRMA and ERMA management guidelines would be prioritized (See Figure 1 in the Recreation Appendix). If an 

existing developed recreation site significantly contributed to the failure to meet Rangeland Health Standards, 

the impacts from the site would be minimized to the extent possible. All new recreation sites would be designed, 

constructed, and managed to meet, or move toward meeting, Rangeland Health Standards. 

Action 2 – Comparable, cost effective, and value-based fee systems would be established for services and 

facilities provided to public users. A business plan would be developed and updated every 5 years to ensure site 

fees were appropriate over time using fair market values and cost recovery assessments.

Action 3 – Recreational target shooting is allowed on lands managed by the BLM unless otherwise posted and 

as long as such activity is permitted by federal, state, and local laws. All federal, state, and county regulations 

apply to public lands.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

SRMAs and 

ERMAs

Action 4 –

Recreation 

emphasis would be 

to develop and 

maintain 

opportunities for 

dispersed 

recreational 

activities such as 

hunting, driving for 

Action 4 – Recreation sites and facilities would be managed to promote protection of 

resource values, public safety and health, quality facilities, visitor experiences, 

management efficiency, and value-based returns.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-89

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

pleasure, and 

scenic and wildlife

viewing. 

Powder River 

Depot SRMA

(162 acres)

The Powder River Depot SRMA is located within the Powder River Depot ACEC. For management of the 

ACEC, please see the alternative table under Special Designations for the Powder River Depot ACEC.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Powder River 

Depot SRMA (162 

acres) 

Action 1 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on an ACEC and an NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination. 

Action 2 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.

Action 3 – Geothermal leasing would be offered in compliance with the Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (BLM 2008h).

Action 4 – Powder River Depot would be managed to provide educational and interpretive information on this 

cultural complex rich in early history. In addition, river access and fishing, camping, wildlife viewing, hunting,

and photography would be focal resources and activities to be managed.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Powder River 

Depot SRMA (162 

acres)

Action 5 – Powder 

River Depot would 

continue to be 

designated a 

SRMA.

Action 5 – Powder River Depot SRMA

would remain and be managed for local and 

regional public demand.

Action 5 – Powder 

River Depot would 

be managed as an 

ERMA.

Action 5 – Powder 

River Depot SRMA

would remain and 

be managed for 

local and regional 

public demand.

Action 6 – A 

portion of the 

Conns Coulee

AMP Allotment 

(#01327), 

consisting of 171 

acres and 51 

AUMs (T. 11 N., 

R. 50 E., sec. 4 and 

T. 12 N., R. 50 E., 

sec. 27 and 34), 

would be closed to 

Action 6 – A 

portion of the Conns 

Coulee AMP

Allotment (#01327), 

consisting of 162

acres and 51 AUMs 

(T. 11 N., R. 50 E., 

sec. 4 and T. 12 N., 

R. 50 E., sec. 27 and 

34), would be closed 

to livestock grazing, 

except for a grazing 

Action 6 – A 

portion of the 

Conns Coulee AMP

Allotment (#01327), 

consisting of 19 

acres and 5 AUMs 

(T. 11 N., R. 50 E., 

sec. 4), would be 

closed to livestock 

grazing, except for a 

grazing 

authorization for 

Action 6 – A 

portion of the 

Conns Coulee AMP

Allotment (#01327), 

consisting of 162

acres and 51 AUMs 

(T. 11 N., R. 50 E., 

sec. 4 and T. 12 N., 

R. 50 E., sec. 27 

and 34), would be 

closed to livestock 

grazing (BLM 

Action 6 – A 

portion of the 

Conns Coulee AMP

Allotment (#01327), 

consisting of 19 

acres and 5 AUMs 

(T. 11 N., R. 50 E., 

sec. 4), would be 

closed to livestock 

grazing, except for a 

grazing 

authorization for 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-90

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

livestock grazing

(BLM 1996).

authorization for 

vegetation 

management (e.g., 

invasive species

control or hazardous 

fuels reductions).

vegetation 

management (e.g., 

invasive species

control or hazardous 

fuels reductions).

1996). vegetation 

management (e.g., 

invasive species

control or hazardous 

fuels reductions).

Powder River 

Depot SRMA (162 

acres)

Action 7 – Range 

improvements

would be allowed. 

Action 7 – Range improvements that provided for the enhancement or maintenance of 

ecosystem functionality without long-term effects to visitor experiences and beneficial 

outcomes would be allowed.

Action 8 – Mineral material permits and 

sales would not be allowed.

Action 8 – Limited 

approvals for 

mineral material

development would 

be allowed for 

purposes of 

constructing and 

maintaining public 

roads or projects, 

only if it could be 

demonstrated that it 

would not be 

economically or 

technologically 

feasible to obtain 

the materials 

elsewhere and only 

the removal and 

reclamation would 

not impair the 

special qualities of 

the resources being 

managed.

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits and

sales would be 

allowed.

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits and 

sales would not be 

allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be excluded.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be avoided.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be avoided.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-91

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Powder River 

Depot SRMA (162 

acres)

Action 10 – Oil

and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation (45 oil 

and gas acres).1

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

not be offered (45 

oil and gas acres).

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation (45 

oil and gas acres).1

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with a 

CSU stipulation (45 

oil and gas acres).1

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation (45 

oil and gas acres).1

Action 11 – Geophysical exploration

would not be allowed.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed on 

existing roads and 

trails.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed.

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II

objectives (162

acres).

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(162 acres).

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II

(140 acres) and 

VRM Class III (22

acres).

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class III 

(140 acres) and 

VRM Class IV (22

acres).

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(162 acres).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Calypso SRMA

(71 acres) (no 

federal mineral 

ownership)

Action 1 – Calypso Trail’s viewshed emphasizing the ruggedness and remoteness of the area is a main focus of 

management for BLM. The Calypso Trail would be managed to emphasize interpretive and educational 

opportunities and maintain or improve the quality of river-related recreational experience along the Powder 

River to continue to provide quality recreational experiences and benefits to local residents and visitors to the 

area.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Calypso SRMA (71 

acres) (no federal 

mineral ownership)

Action 2 – Calypso

would continue to 

be designated a 

SRMA.

Action 2 – Calypso SRMA would remain 

and be managed for local and regional 

public demand.

Action 2 – Calypso

would be managed 

as an ERMA.

Action 2 – Calypso

SRMA would 

remain and be 

managed for local 

and regional public 

demand.

Action 3 – A portion of the Hines 

Allotment (#01669), consisting of 71 acres 

and 11 AUMs (T. 12 N., R. 50 E., sec. 22), 

Action 3 – A 

portion of the Hines 

Allotment (#01669), 

Action 3 – A 

portion of the Hines 

Allotment (#01669), 

Action 3 – A 

portion of the Hines 

Allotment (#01669), 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-92

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

would be closed to livestock grazing. consisting of 71

acres and 11 AUMs 

(T. 12 N., R. 50 E., 

sec. 22), would be 

closed to livestock 

grazing except for a 

grazing 

authorization for 

vegetation 

management (e.g., 

invasive species

control or hazardous 

fuels reductions).

consisting of 71

acres and 11 AUMs 

(T. 12 N., R. 50 E., 

sec. 22), would be 

open to livestock 

grazing.

consisting of 71

acres and 11 AUMs 

(T. 12 N., R. 50 E., 

sec. 22), in the 

undeveloped SRMA

would be open to 

livestock grazing. If 

developed, livestock 

grazing may not be 

allowed except for a 

grazing 

authorization for 

vegetation 

management (e.g., 

invasive species

control or hazardous 

fuels reductions). 

Calypso SRMA (71 

acres) (no federal 

mineral ownership)

Action 4 – Range 

improvements

would be excluded 

on 69 acres.

Action 4 – Range improvements that provided for the enhancement or maintenance of

ecosystem functionality without long-term effects to visitor experiences and beneficial 

outcomes would be allowed.

Action 5 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be allowed.

Action 5 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be excluded.

Action 5 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be avoided.

Action 5 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be allowed.

Action 5 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be avoided.

Action 6 – Geophysical exploration would 

not be allowed.

Action 6 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed on 

existing roads and 

trails.

Action 6 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed.

Action 6 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed.

Action 7 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II

(71 acres) 

objectives.

Action 7 – The area 

would be managed 

according to VRM

Class II (71 acres).

Action 7 – The area 

would be managed

according to VRM

Class II (71 acres).

Action 7 – The area 

would be managed

according to VRM

Class III (71 acres).

Action 7 – The area 

would be managed

according to VRM

Class II (71 acres).
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-93

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Lewis and 

Clark Trail

SRMA

Action 1 – Lewis and Clark Trail would be managed to complement its status as part of a national scenic and 

historical trail emphasizing natural and historical interpretation as a National Trail Management Corridor. It 

would also be managed to maintain or improve the quality of river-related recreational experience along the 

Yellowstone River and to continue to provide quality recreational experiences and benefits to local residents and 

visitors to the area.

Action 2 – Livestock grazing would be permitted, except in areas otherwise designated (Powder River Depot, 

Calypso, and Matthews). 

Action 3 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on an ACEC and a NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination.

Action 4 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Lewis and Clark 

Trail SRMA

Action 5 – Lewis 

and Clark Trail

would continue to 

be designated a 

SRMA. 

Action 5 – Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA

would remain and be managed for local and 

regional public demand.

Action 5 – Lewis 

and Clark Trail

would be managed 

as an ERMA.

Action 5 – Lewis 

and Clark Trail

SRMA would 

remain and be 

managed for local 

and regional public 

demand.

Action 6 – The 

Lewis and Clark 

Trail SRMA

boundary would be 

at 16,350 acres 

(BLM 1996).

Action 6 – The Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA boundary would be modified to include 

14,499 acres. 

Action 7 – Range 

improvements

would be allowed.

Action 7 – Range improvements that provided for the enhancement or maintenance of 

ecosystem functionality without long-term effects to visitor experiences and beneficial 

outcomes would be allowed.

Action 8 – Mineral material permits and 

sales would not be allowed.

Action 8 – Limited 

approvals for 

mineral material

development would 

be allowed for 

purposes of 

constructing and 

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits and 

sales would be 

allowed.

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits and 

sales would not be 

allowed where 

BLM administers 

both the surface and 

mineral material 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-94

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

maintaining public 

roads or projects 

only if it could be 

demonstrated that it 

would not be 

economically or 

technologically 

feasible to obtain 

the materials 

elsewhere and only 

if the removal and 

reclamation would 

not impair the 

special qualities of 

the resources being 

managed.

estates. Approvals 

for mineral material

development would 

be allowed on split 

estate only if it 

could be 

demonstrated that it 

would not be 

economically or 

technologically 

feasible to obtain 

the materials 

elsewhere and only 

if the removal and 

reclamation would 

not impair the 

special qualities of 

the resources being 

managed.

Lewis and Clark 

Trail SRMA

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be excluded.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be avoided.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be avoided.

Action 10 – Oil

and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with an NSO 

stipulation (23,284 

oil and gas acres).

1

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

not be offered 

(23,484 oil and gas

acres).

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation 

(23,484 oil and gas

acres).1

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with a 

CSU stipulation 

(23,484 oil and gas

acres).1

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation 

(23,484 oil and gas

acres).

1

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed on 

existing roads and 

trails.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-95

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Lewis and Clark 

Trail SRMA

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class I

(1,144 acres, 

overlap with 

WSAs) and VRM

Class II (15,206 

acres) objectives.

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class I

(1,095 acres, 

overlap with WSAs)

and VRM Class II 

(13,217 acres).

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class I

(1,095 acres, 

overlap with 

WSAs), VRM Class 

II (7,954 acres), and 

VRM Class III 

(4,820 acres).

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class I

(1,095 acres, 

overlap with 

WSAs), VRM Class 

III (7,954 acres), 

and VRM Class IV 

(4,820 acres).

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(14,499 acres).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Howrey Island

ACEC (592 acres) 

(no federal mineral 

ownership)

Action 1 – Howrey Island would be managed to ensure the continued availability of outdoor recreation 

opportunities and river-related activities and benefits to local residents and visitors to the Howrey Island

Recreation Area. 

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Howrey Island

ACEC (592 acres) 

(no federal mineral 

ownership) 

Action 2 – Howrey 

Island would 

continue to be 

designated an 

ACEC.

Action 2 – Howrey Island would be 

designated a SRMA and managed for local 

and regional public demand.

Howrey Island would be removed from 

ACEC designation.

Action 2 – Howrey 

Island would be 

managed as an 

ERMA.

Howrey Island

would be removed 

from ACEC 

designation. 

Action 2 – Howrey 

Island would be 

designated a SRMA

and managed for 

local and regional 

public demand.

Howrey Island

would be removed 

from ACEC 

designation.

Action 3 – The 

Howrey Island

Allotment 

(#10111), 

consisting of 592 

acres and 200 

AUMs, would be 

available for 

livestock grazing

Action 3 – The 

Howrey Island

Allotment (#10111), 

consisting of 592 

acres and 200 

AUMs, would be 

closed to livestock 

grazing, except for a 

grazing 

Action 3 – A 

portion of the 

Howrey Island

Allotment (#10111), 

consisting of 117 

acres and 37 AUMs 

(T. 6 N., R. 35 E., 

sec. 21 and 22), 

would be closed to 

Action 3 – The 

Howrey Island

Allotment (#10111), 

consisting of 592 

acres and 200 

AUMs, would be 

available for 

livestock grazing

from December 1 to 

Action 3 – A 

portion of the 

Howrey Island

Allotment (#10111), 

consisting of 117 

acres (T. 6 N., R. 35 

E., sec. 21 and 22), 

would be closed to 

livestock grazing, 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-96

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

from May 15 to 

September 12.

authorization for 

vegetation 

management (e.g., 

invasive species

control or hazardous 

fuels reductions).

livestock grazing, 

except for a grazing 

authorization for 

vegetation 

management (e.g., 

invasive species

control or hazardous 

fuels reductions).

March 1. except for a grazing

authorization for 

vegetation 

management (e.g., 

invasive species

control or hazardous 

fuels reductions). A 

total of 475 acres 

and 200 AUMs 

would be open for 

livestock grazing.

Howrey Island

ACEC (592 acres) 

(no federal mineral 

ownership)

Action 4 – Range 

improvements

would be allowed 

when they would 

not degrade the 

values of the 

ACEC.

Action 4 – Range 

improvements

would not be 

allowed. 

Action 4 – Range improvements that provided for the 

enhancement or maintenance of ecosystem functionality without 

long-term effects to visitor experiences and beneficial outcomes 

would be allowed.

Action 5 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would not be 

allowed.

Action 5 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be excluded.

Action 5 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be avoided.

Action 5 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be allowed.

Action 5 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be avoided.

Action 6 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed.

Action 6 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed.

Action 6 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed on 

existing roads and 

trails.

Action 6 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed.

Action 6 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed except 

in designated, 

developed area.

Action 7 – OHV

use on the existing 

road would be 

allowed yearlong 

from Highway 311 

to the Myers 

Bridge fishing

access site. OHV 

Action 7 – OHV use 

on the existing road

would be allowed 

yearlong from 

Highway 311 to the 

Myers Bridge 

fishing access site. 

Any OHV use past 

Action 7 – OHV use would be limited to 

existing roads and trails. 

Action 7 – OHV

use would be 

limited to 

designated roads in 

the camping and 

boat ramp area and 

closed on the east 

side of the walking 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-97

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

use past this point 

would be closed

from February 15 

to June 1.

this point would be 

closed. 

trail through the 

island. 

Howrey Island

ACEC (592 acres) 

(no federal mineral 

ownership)

Action 8 – Firearm

use would be 

closed from 

December 16 

through August 31 

except for shotgun

discharge during 

the State of 

Montana's spring 

turkey season. 

Action 8 – Firearm

use would be closed.

Action 8 – Firearm

use would be 

allowed without 

restriction.

Action 8 – Firearm

use would be 

restricted and 

allowed only during 

the State of 

Montana's hunting

seasons.

Action 8 – Firearm

use would be 

restricted and 

allowed only during 

the State of 

Montana's hunting

seasons with 

shotgun and archery

equipment. 

Action 9 - Wood 

product sales 

would be allowed 

with restrictions.

Action 9 - Wood 

product sales would 

not be allowed

Action 9 - Wood 

product sales would 

be allowed.

Action 9 - Wood 

product sales would 

be allowed.

Action 9 – Wood 

product sales would 

not be allowed.

Action 10 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II

objectives.

Action 10 – The area would be managed 

according to VRM Class II.

Action 10 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class III.

Action 10 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Matthews

Recreation 

Area (91 acres) 

Action 1 – Matthews Recreation Area would be managed to ensure the continued availability of outdoor 

recreation opportunities and benefits to local residents and visitors. In addition, management would restore or 

enhance the area for water-related recreation activities, fisheries, other recreation activities (such as wildlife 

viewing, hiking, camping, and hunting), and existing multiple uses for local residents and visitors to the area.

Action 2 – Matthews Recreation Area would be closed to discharge or use of all firearms and archery equipment 

with the exception of shotgun use and hunting with archery equipment during the State of Montana's legal 

upland game bird and waterfowl hunting seasons. Shooting would not be allowed at any time in the picnic or 

developed area.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Matthews

Recreation Area 

(91 acres)

Action 3 –

Matthews

Recreation Area 

would be managed 

Action 3 – Matthews Recreation Area 

would be designated a SRMA and managed 

for local and regional public demand.

Action 3 –

Matthews

Recreation Area 

would be managed 

Action 3 –

Matthews

Recreation Area 

would be designated 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-98

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

as an ERMA. as an ERMA. a SRMA and 

managed for local 

and regional public 

demand.

Matthews

Recreation Area 

(91 acres)

Action 4 – Matthews Recreation Area 

would be closed to livestock grazing.

Action 4 – Matthews Recreation Area would be closed to 

livestock grazing, except for a grazing authorization for vegetation 

management (e.g., invasive species control or hazardous fuels 

reductions). 

Action 5 – Range 

improvements

would not be 

allowed.

Action 5 – Range improvements that provided for the enhancement or maintenance of 

ecosystem functionality without long-term effects to visitor experiences and beneficial 

outcomes would be allowed.

Action 6 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be allowed.

Action 6 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be excluded.

Action 6 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be avoided.

Action 6 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be allowed.

Action 6 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be avoided.

Action 7 – Geophysical exploration would 

not be allowed.

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed on 

existing roads and 

trails.

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed.

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed.

Action 8 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II

(78 acres) 

objectives.

Action 8 – The area 

would be managed

according to VRM

Class II (78 acres).

Action 8 – The area 

would be managed

according to VRM

Class II (78 acres).

Action 8 – The area 

would be managed

according to VRM

Class III (78 acres).

Action 8 – The area 

would be managed

according to VRM

Class II (78 acres).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Dean S. 

Reservoir (162 

acres)

Action 1 – Dean S. Reservoir would be managed to maintain, restore, or enhance the area for public benefits, 

focusing on activities that include water-related outdoor activities, fisheries, wildlife values, recreation activities 

(such as camping, ice skating, and sledding), and existing multiple uses.

Action 2 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on an SRMA and a NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination.

Action 3 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-99

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Action 4 – Geothermal leasing would be offered in compliance with the Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (BLM 2008h).

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Dean S. Reservoir

(162 acres)

Action 5 – Dean S.

Reservoir would be 

managed as an 

ERMA.

Action 5 – Dean S. Reservoir would be 

designated a SRMA and managed for local 

and regional public demand.

Action 5 – Dean S.

Reservoir would be 

managed as an 

ERMA.

Action 5 – Dean S.

Reservoir would be 

designated a SRMA

and managed for 

local and regional 

public demand.

Action 6 –

Livestock grazing

would be allowed.

Action 6 – Livestock grazing would be 

closed.

Action 6 – Livestock grazing would be 

allowed.

Action 7 – Range 

improvements

would be allowed.

Action 7 – Range improvements that provided for the enhancement or maintenance of 

ecosystem functionality without long-term effects to visitor experiences and beneficial 

outcomes would be allowed.

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits 

and sales would be 

allowed.

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits and 

sales would not be 

allowed.

Action 8 – Limited 

approvals for 

mineral material

development would 

be allowed for 

purposes of 

constructing and 

maintaining public 

roads or projects 

only if it could be 

demonstrated that it 

would not be 

economically or 

technologically 

feasible to obtain 

the materials 

elsewhere and only 

if the removal and 

reclamation would 

not impair the 

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits and 

sales would be 

allowed.

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits and 

sales would not be 

allowed.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-100

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

special qualities of 

the resources being 

managed.

Dean S. Reservoir

(162 acres)

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be excluded.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be avoided.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be avoided.

Action 10 – Oil

and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with lease terms

(162 oil and gas

acres).

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

not be offered (162 

oil and gas acres).

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation 

(162 oil and gas

acres).1

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with a 

CSU stipulation 

(162 oil and gas

acres).1

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation 

(162 oil and gas

acres).1

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed on 

existing roads and 

trails.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed.

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

objectives.

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II.

Action 12 – The area would be managed

according to VRM Class IV.

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II.

Pumpkin Creek

Ranch and 

Recreation 

Area

Objective 1 – Convert nonnative vegetation (i.e., hay bottoms) to native habitat.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Pumpkin Creek 

Ranch and 

Recreation Area

Action 1 – Pumpkin Creek is an important local recreational area and will be managed to ensure the continued 

availability of outdoor recreation opportunities and benefits to local residents and visitors to the Pumpkin Creek 

Ranch and Recreation Area.

Action 2 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on a SRMA and a NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-101

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Action 3 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.

Action 4 – Geothermal leasing would be offered in compliance with the Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (BLM 2008h).

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Pumpkin Creek

Ranch and 

Recreation Area 

Action 5 –

Pumpkin Creek

Ranch and 

Recreation Area 

would be managed 

as an ERMA.

Action 5 – Pumpkin Creek Ranch and 

Recreation Area would be designated a 

SRMA and managed for local and regional 

public demand (21,206 acres).

Action 5 – Pumpkin 

Creek Ranch and 

Recreation Area 

would be managed 

as an ERMA

(21,206 acres).

Action 5 – Pumpkin 

Creek Ranch and 

Recreation Area 

would be designated 

a SRMA and 

managed for local 

and regional public 

demand (19,435 

acres).

Action 6 – The 

Rogers Allotment 

(#00509), 

contained within 

the Pumpkin Creek

Ranch and 

Recreation Area, 

consists of 19,487 

acres of public 

lands. These lands 

would be available 

for livestock 

grazing. 

Action 6 – The 

Rogers Allotment 

(#00509), contained 

within the Pumpkin 

Creek Ranch and 

Recreation Area 

(19,487 acres), 

would be closed to 

livestock grazing

except for a grazing 

authorization for 

vegetation 

management (e.g., 

invasive species

control or hazardous 

fuels reductions). 

Action 6 – The 

Rogers Allotment 

(#00509), contained 

within the Pumpkin 

Creek Ranch and 

Recreation Area (on 

the Pumpkin Creek 

Side, north and east 

of Highway 59; 

approximately 

2,200 acres), and a 

limited OHV area 

(up to 640 acres) 

would be closed to 

livestock grazing

except for a grazing 

authorization for 

vegetation 

management (e.g., 

the control of 

invasive species or 

a hazardous fuels 

reduction). A siteAction 6 – The 

Rogers Allotment 

(#00509), contained 

within the Pumpkin 

Creek Ranch and 

Recreation Area 

(19,487 acres), 

would be available 

for livestock 

grazing. A 

management plan 

would be developed 

to describe the 

grazing activities. 

Action 6 – The 

Rogers Allotment 

(#00509), contained 

within the Pumpkin 

Creek Ranch and 

Recreation Area (on 

the Pumpkin Creek 

side, north and east 

of Highway 59 

(approximately 

2,200 acres) and a 

Limited OHV area 

would be closed to 

livestock grazing

except for a grazing 

authorization for 

vegetation 

management (e.g., 

the control of 

invasive species or 

a hazardous fuels 

reduction). A sitespecific 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-102

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

specific 

management plan 

would further 

designate the 

specific area.

management plan 

would further 

designate the 

specific area. 

Pumpkin Creek 

Ranch and 

Recreation Area

Action 7 – Range 

improvements

would be allowed.

Action 7 – Range 

improvements

would not be 

allowed.

Action 7 – Range improvements that provided for the 

enhancement or maintenance of ecosystem functionality without 

long-term effects to visitor experiences and beneficial outcomes

would be allowed.

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits 

and sales would be 

allowed.

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits and 

sales would not be 

allowed.

Action 8 – Limited 

approvals for 

mineral material

development would 

be allowed for 

purposes of 

constructing and 

maintaining public 

roads or projects 

only if it could be 

demonstrated that it 

would not be 

economically or 

technologically 

feasible to obtain 

the materials 

elsewhere and only 

if the removal and 

reclamation would 

not impair the 

special qualities of 

the resources being 

managed.

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits and 

sales would be 

allowed.

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits and 

sales would not be 

allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be excluded.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be avoided.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be avoided.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-103

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Pumpkin Creek 

Ranch and 

Recreation Area

Action 10 – Oil

and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with lease terms.

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

not be offered 

(7,237 oil and gas

acres).

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation 

(7,237 oil and gas

acres).1

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with a 

CSU stipulation 

(7,237 oil and gas

acres).1

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation 

(6,258 oil and gas

acres).1

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed on 

existing roads and 

trails.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed south 

and west of 

Highway 59 and not 

allowed north and 

east of Highway 59.

Action 12 – OHV

use would be 

limited to 

approximately 28 

miles of existing 

roads and trails.

Action 12 – OHV

use would be limited 

to designated roads 

in the planning area. 

Action 12 – OHV

use would be 

limited to existing

roads and trails, 

except in the 

general area of T. 5 

N., R. 49 E., sec. 17 

and 18, where up to 

640 acres would be 

designated a 

Limited OHV use 

area by creating 

specific OHV trails. 

A site-specific 

management plan 

would further 

designate this area.

Action 12 – OHV

use would be 

limited to 

approximately 28 

miles of existing

roads and trails. 

Action 12 – OHV

use would be 

designated by travel 

management 

planning except in 

the general area of 

T. 5 N., R. 49 E., 

sec. 17 and 18, 

where up to 640 

acres would be 

designated a 

Limited OHV use 

area by creating 

specific OHV trails. 

Action 13 –

Developed 

camping areas 

would be 

authorized. 

Action 13 –

Developed camping

areas would not be 

allowed in the 

planning area. 

Action 13 –

Developed camping

areas would be 

allowed on the 

northeast side of 

Highway 59 on 

Action 13 –

Developed camping

areas would be 

authorized. 

Action 13 –

Developed camping

areas would be 

authorized. 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-104

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

2,000 acres. A sitespecific 

management plan 

would be 

implemented for 

any developed 

camping areas. 

Pumpkin Creek 

Ranch and 

Recreation Area

Action 14 –

Requests for 

special recreation

permits by 

outfitters and 

guides would be 

considered on a 

case-by-case basis 

throughout the 

planning area, 

subject to 

environmental, 

social, and public 

health and safety 

concerns.

Action 14 –

Requests for special 

recreation permits

by outfitters and 

guides would not be 

allowed. 

Action 14 – Requests for special recreation

permits by outfitters and guides would be 

considered on a case-by-case basis 

throughout the planning area, subject to 

environmental, social, and public health 

and safety concerns. 

Action 14 – The 

BLM would 

continue to issue 

special recreation 

use permits as 

appropriate for 

commercial, 

competitive, and

special events on a 

first come basis 

subject to guidelines 

in the 2930 

Handbook, resource 

capabilities, social 

conflict concerns, 

professional 

qualifications, 

public safety, and 

public needs. New 

permits that directly 

conflict with 

permitted uses 

would not be 

authorized. Existing 

permittees would be 

given preference. 

Action 15 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

Action 15 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

Action 15 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

Action 15 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class III 

Action 15 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-105

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

(5,417 acres), 

VRM Class III 

(1,165 acres), and 

VRM Class IV 

(14,585 acres) 

objectives.

(18,733 acres). (325 acres), VRM

Class III (15,945 

acres), and VRM

Class IV (2,463

acres).

(325 acres) and 

VRM Class IV 

(18,407 acres).

(19,421 acres).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Glendive Short 

Pine OHV

(Map 27)

Action 1 – Glendive OHV Area would be managed to emphasize OHV use, hunting, camping, and 

snowmobiling along with some dispersed use such as occasional rock collection and hiking.

Action 2 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on an ACEC and a NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination.

Action 3 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.

Action 4 – Geothermal leasing would be offered in compliance with the Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (BLM 2008h).

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Glendive Short 

Pine OHV

Action 5 – The 

Glendive Short 

Pine OHV area 

would be managed 

as an ERMA

(3,092 acres).

Action 5 – The Glendive Short Pine OHV

Area would be designated a SRMA and 

managed for local and regional public 

demand (2,753 acres).

Action 5 – The 

Glendive Short Pine

OHV area would be 

managed as an 

ERMA (2,753 

acres).

Action 5 – The 

Glendive Short Pine

OHV Area would 

be designated a 

SRMA and 

managed for local 

and regional public 

demand (2,272 

acres).

Action 6 – The 

Nemitz Individual 

L Allotment

(#01415), 

consisting of 2,143 

acres and 341 

AUMs, would be 

available for 

livestock grazing

from May 1 to 

January 1. 

Action 6 – A 

portion of the 

Nemitz Individual L 

Allotment (#01415), 

consisting of 2,269 

acres and 354 

AUMs (T. 14 N., R. 

55 E., sec 3; sec. 9, 

E1⁄2; sec. 10; and 

sec. 15), would be 

closed to livestock 

Action 6 – A 

portion of the 

Nemitz Individual L 

Allotment (#01415), 

consisting of 330 

acres and 52 AUMs 

(T. 14 N., R. 55 E., 

sec. 3, W1⁄2), would 

be closed to 

livestock grazing

except for a grazing 

Action 6 – The 

Nemitz Individual L 

Allotment (#01415), 

consisting of 2,143 

acres and 341 

AUMs, would be 

available for 

livestock grazing

from November 1 to 

March 1.

Action 6 – A 

portion of the 

Nemitz Individual L 

Allotment (#01415), 

consisting of 2,269 

acres and 354 

AUMs (T. 14 N., R. 

55 E., sec 3; sec. 9, 

E1⁄2; sec. 10; and 

sec. 15) would be 

available for 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-106

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

grazing, except for a 

grazing 

authorization for 

vegetation 

management (e.g., 

invasive species

control or hazardous 

fuels reductions).

authorization for 

vegetation 

management (e.g., 

invasive species

control or hazardous 

fuels reductions).

grazing from 

November 1 to 

March 1 except for 

a grazing 

authorization for 

vegetation 

management (e.g., 

invasive species

control or hazardous 

fuels reductions). 

Sec. 21 E1⁄2 would 

be open for 

livestock grazing.

Glendive Short 

Pine OHV

Action 7 – Range 

improvements

would be allowed.

Action 7 – Range improvements that provided for the enhancement or maintenance of 

ecosystem functionality without long-term effects to visitor experiences and beneficial 

outcomes would be allowed.

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits 

and sales would be 

allowed.

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits and 

sales would not be 

allowed.

Action 8 – Limited 

approvals for 

mineral material

development would 

be allowed for 

purposes of 

constructing and 

maintaining public 

roads or projects 

only if it could be 

demonstrated that it 

would not be 

economically or 

technologically 

feasible to obtain 

the materials 

elsewhere and only 

if the removal and

reclamation would 

not impair the 

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits and 

sales would be 

allowed.

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits and 

sales would not be 

allowed.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-107

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

special qualities of 

the resources being 

managed.

Glendive Short 

Pine OHV

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be excluded.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be avoided.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be avoided.

Action 10 – Oil

and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with lease terms

(3,082 oil and gas

acres).

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

not be offered 

(2,744 oil and gas

acres).

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation 

(2,744 oil and gas

acres).1

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with a 

CSU stipulation 

(2,744 oil and gas

acres).1

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation 

(2,272 oil and gas

acres).1

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed.

Action 11 – Geophysical exploration would be allowed.

Action 12 – OHV

boundary would be 

T. 14 N., R. 55 E., 

sec. 3; sec. 9. E1⁄2; 

sec. 10; sec. 14, 

N1⁄2 and SE/SE; 

sec. 15; and sec. 

21, E1⁄2. 

Action 12 – Modify the OHV boundary to T. 14 N., R. 55 E., sec. 

3; sec. 9, E1⁄2; sec. 10; sec. 14, N1⁄2 and SE/SE; and sec. 15 (drop 

sec. 21, E1⁄2.

Action 12 –

Glendive Short Pine

would be sec. 3, 10, 

15, and 9; and

OHV use would be 

Open in sec. 3, 10, 

and 15 and Limited 

in section 9 (drop 

half section, sec. 21, 

E1⁄2).

Action 13 – Open 

OHV use would be 

allowed on 2,300 

acres in accordance 

with the guidelines 

found in the Best 

Management 

Practices 

Appendix.

Action 13 – OHV

use restricted to 

existing roads and 

trails on 2,753 acres

(drop sec. 21, E1⁄2). 

Action 13 – Open 

OHV use on sec. 3 

(640 acres) and 

OHV use restricted 

to existing roads 

and trails on 2,100 

acres (drop sec. 21, 

E1⁄2). 

Action 13 – Open 

OHV use on 1,900 

acres and OHV use 

restricted to existing 

roads and trails on 

810 acres (drop sec. 

21, E1⁄2. 

Action 13 – OHV

use would be Open 

in sec. 3, 10, and 15 

(approximately 

1,920 acres) and 

Limited on sec. 9 

(approximately 320 

acres) (drop sec. 21, 

E1⁄2).
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-108

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Glendive Short 

Pine OHV

Action 14 – The 

shooting area 

would be open.

Action 14 – The 

shooting area would 

be closed.

Action 14 – The shooting area would be 

open.

Action 14 –

Firearm use would 

be restricted and 

allowed only during 

the State of 

Montana hunting

seasons. The 

designated shooting 

area would be 

removed. Firearm 

use would not be 

allowed at any time 

in the parking/ramp 

area. 

Action 15 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II

(2,632 acres) 

objectives.

Action 15 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(2,753 acres).

Action 15 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(165 acres) and

VRM Class III 

(2,588 acres).

Action 15 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class III 

(165 acres) and 

VRM Class IV 

(2,588 acres).

Action 15 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class III 

(2,272 acres).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Terry OHV

Area (Map 28)

Action 1 – The main focus and management of the Terry OHV Area is to promote OHV practice and skill 

development.

Action 2 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on an ACEC and a NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination.

Action 3 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.

Action 4 – Geothermal leasing would be offered in compliance with the Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (BLM 2008h).

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Terry OHV Area

Action 5 – The 

Terry OHV area 

would be managed 

as an ERMA (72 

acres).

Action 5 – The 

Terry OHV Area 

would be designated 

a SRMA and 

managed for local 

Action 5 – The 

Terry OHV Area 

would be designated 

a SRMA and 

managed for local 

Action 5 – The 

Terry OHV area 

would be managed 

as an ERMA (110 

acres).

Action 5 – The 

Terry OHV Area 

would be designated 

a SRMA and 

managed for local 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-109

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

and regional public 

demand (72 acres).

and regional public 

demand (110 acres).

and regional public 

demand (110 acres).

Terry OHV Area

Action 6 – A 

portion of the 

Bragg Allotment

(#01369), 

consisting of 72 

acres and 10 

AUMs (T. 12 N., 

R. 51 E., sec. 10), 

would be open to 

livestock grazing

from May 15 to 

October 31.

Action 6 – A 

portion of the Bragg 

Allotment (#01369), 

consisting of 72 

acres and 10 AUMs 

(T. 12 N., R. 51 E., 

sec. 10), would be 

closed to livestock 

grazing, except for a 

grazing 

authorization for 

vegetation 

management (e.g., 

invasive species

control or hazardous 

fuels reductions).

Action 6 – A portion of the Bragg 

Allotment (#01369), consisting of 72 acres 

and 10 AUMs (T. 12 N., R. 51 E., sec. 10), 

would be open to livestock grazing from 

May 15 to October 31.

Action 6 – A 

portion of the Bragg 

Allotment (#01369), 

consisting of 110 

acres and 19 AUMs 

(T. 12 N., R. 51 E., 

sec. 3 and 10), 

would be open to 

livestock grazing. 

Action 7 – Range 

improvements

would be allowed.

Action 7 – Range improvements that provided for the enhancement or maintenance of 

ecosystem functionality without long-term effects to visitor experiences and beneficial 

outcomes would be allowed.

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits 

and sales would be 

allowed.

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits and 

sales would not be 

allowed.

Action 8 – Limited 

approvals for 

mineral material

development would 

be allowed for 

purposes of 

constructing and 

maintaining public 

roads or projects 

only if it could be 

demonstrated that it 

would not be 

economically or 

technologically 

feasible to obtain 

the materials 

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits and 

sales would be 

allowed.

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits and 

sales would not be 

allowed.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-110

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

elsewhere and only 

if the removal and

reclamation would 

not impair the 

special qualities of 

the resources being 

managed.

Terry OHV Area

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be excluded.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be avoided.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be avoided.

Action 10 – Oil

and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with lease terms

(72 oil and gas

acres).

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

not be offered (72 

oil and gas acres).

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation (72 

oil and gas acres).1

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with a 

CSU stipulation (72 

oil and gas acres).1

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation (72 

oil and gas acres).1

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed.

Action 11 – Geophysical exploration would be allowed.

Action 12 –

Current OHV

boundary would 

remain at T. 12 N., 

R. 51 E., sec. 10 

(72 acres).

Action 12 – Current 

OHV boundary 

remains at T. 12 N., 

R. 51 E., sec. 10 (72 

acres).

Action 12 – Modify the OHV boundary to T. 12 N., R. 51 E., sec. 

10 (72 acres), and add sec. 3 SW/SW (38 acres), totaling 110 

acres. 

Action 13 – Open 

OHV use on 72 

acres (sec. 10). 

Action 13 – OHV

use restricted to 

existing roads and 

trails on 72 acres 

(Section 10). 

Action 13 – OHV

use restricted to 

existing roads and 

trails on sec. 3 and 

10 (110 acres, 

added sec. 3, 

SW/SW). 

Action 13 – Open 

OHV use on sec. 10 

(72 acres) and OHV 

use restricted to 

existing roads and 

trails on sec. 3 (38 

acres, added SE sec. 

3, SW/SW). 

Action 13 – OHV

use would be Open 

on 72 acres (sec. 

10) and Limited on 

sec. 3.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-111

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Terry OHV Area

Action 14 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(101 acres) and

VRM Class III (9

acres) objectives.

Action 14 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II (72

acres).

Action 14 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II (83

acres) and VRM

Class III (27 acres).

Action 14 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class III 

(83 acres) and VRM

Class IV (27 acres).

Action 14 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class III 

(110 acres).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Strawberry Hill

Recreation

Area (4,248 acres

Action 1 – Strawberry Hill Recreation Area would be managed to maintain, restore, or enhance recreation 

opportunities to accommodate existing and future uses, including hiking, hunting, camping, wildlife viewing, 

OHV use, and other uses as appropriate for back to middle country settings.

Action 2 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on an ACEC and a NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination.

Action 3 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.

Action 4 – Geothermal leasing would be offered in compliance with the Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (BLM 2008h).

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Strawberry Hill

Recreation Area 

(4,248 acres) 

Action 5 –

Strawberry Hill

Recreation Area 

would be managed 

as an ERMA.

Action 5 – Strawberry Hill Recreation Area 

would be designated a SRMA and managed 

for local and regional public demand.

Action 5 –

Strawberry Hill

Recreation Area 

would be managed 

as an ERMA.

Action 5 –

Strawberry Hill

Recreation Area 

would be designated 

a SRMA and 

managed for local 

and regional public 

demand.

Action 6 – The 

Hay Creek 

Allotment

(#10330), 

consisting of 3,616 

acres and 292 

Action 6 – The Hay 

Creek Allotment

(#10330), consisting 

of 3,616 acres and 

292 AUMs, would 

be closed to 

Action 6 – The Hay 

Creek Allotment

(#10330), consisting 

of 3,616 acres and 

292 AUMs, would 

be open to livestock 

Action 6 – The Hay 

Creek Allotment

(#10330), consisting 

of 3,616 acres and 

292 AUMs, would 

be open to livestock 

Action 6 – The Hay 

Creek Allotment

(#10330), consisting 

of 3,616 acres and 

292 AUMs, would 

be open to livestock 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-112

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

AUMs, would be 

open to livestock 

grazing from May 

15 to October 15.

livestock grazing, 

except for a grazing 

authorization for 

vegetation 

management (e.g., 

invasive species

control or hazardous 

fuels reductions). 

grazing from 

December 1 to May 

1. 

grazing from May 

15 to October 15.

grazing.

Strawberry Hill

Recreation Area 

(4,248 acres)

Action 7 – Range 

improvements

would be allowed.

Action 7 – Range improvements that provided for the enhancement or maintenance of 

ecosystem functionality without long-term effects to visitor experiences and beneficial 

outcomes would be allowed.

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits 

and sales would be 

allowed.

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits and 

sales would not be 

allowed.

Action 8 – Limited 

approvals for 

mineral material

development would 

be allowed for 

purposes of 

constructing and 

maintaining public 

roads or projects 

only if it could be 

demonstrated that it 

would not be 

economically or 

technologically 

feasible to obtain 

the materials 

elsewhere and only 

if the removal and 

reclamation would 

not impair the 

special qualities of 

the resources being 

managed.

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits and 

sales would be 

allowed.

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits and 

sales would not be 

allowed.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-113

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Strawberry Hill

Recreation Area 

(4,248 acres)

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be excluded.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be avoided.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be avoided.

Action 10 – Oil

and gas leasing 

would be offered 

with lease terms

(2,319 oil and gas

acres).

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

not be offered 

(2,319 oil and gas

acres).

Action 10 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation 

(2,319 oil and gas

acres).1

Action 10 – Oil and gas leasing would be 

offered with a CSU stipulation (2,319 oil 

and gas acres).1

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed on 

existing roads and 

trails.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed.

Action 11 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed.

Action 12 – OHV

use would be 

limited to existing 

roads and trails.

Action 12 – OHV

use would be closed

beyond the 

established parking 

area.

Action 12 – OHV use would be limited to existing roads and trails 

except in areas otherwise designated by a site-specific 

management plan.

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(1,348 acres) and 

VRM Class IV 

(2,902 acres) 

objectives.

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(4,248 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(339 acres), VRM

Class III (216

acres), and VRM

Class IV (3,693

acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class III 

(339 acres) and 

VRM Class IV 

(3,909 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(4,248 acres).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Moorhead

Recreation

Area (13 acres)

Action 1 – Moorhead Recreation Area would be managed to emphasize camping, picnicking, and hiking. The 

campground receives heavy use during hunting season.

Action 2 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on an ACEC and a NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-114

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Action 3 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.

Action 4 – Geothermal leasing would be offered in compliance with the Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (BLM 2008h).

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Moorhead

Recreation Area 

(13 acres) 

Action 5 –

Moorhead

Recreation Area 

would be managed 

as an ERMA.

Action 5 – Moorhead Recreation Area 

would be designated a SRMA and managed 

for local and regional public demand.

Action 5 –

Moorhead

Recreation Area 

would be managed 

as an ERMA.

Action 5 –

Moorhead

Recreation Area 

would be designated 

a SRMA and 

managed for local 

and regional public 

demand.

Action 6 – A 

portion of the Sams 

Allotment

(#10526), 

consisting of 10 

acres and 3 AUMs 

(T. 9 S., R. 48 E., 

sec. 17 and 18), 

would be open to 

livestock grazing. 

Grazing occurs in 

accordance with 

the Sams AMP. 

Action 6 – A portion of the Sams 

Allotment (#10526), consisting of 10 acres 

and 3 AUMs (T. 9 S., 48 E., sec. 17 and 

18), would be closed to livestock grazing

except for a grazing authorization for 

vegetation management (e.g., invasive 

species control or hazardous fuels 

reductions). 

Action 6 – A 

portion of the Sams 

Allotment (#10526), 

consisting of 10 

acres and 3 AUMs 

(T. 9 S., R. 48 E., 

sec. 17 and 18), 

would be open to 

livestock grazing

from December 1 to 

March 1.

Action 6 – A 

portion of the Sams 

Allotment (#10526), 

consisting of 10 

acres and 3 AUMs 

(T. 9 S., 48 E., sec. 

17 and 18), would 

be closed to 

livestock grazing

except for a grazing 

authorization for 

vegetation 

management (e.g., 

invasive species

control or hazardous 

fuels reductions). 

Action 7 – Range 

improvements

would be allowed.

Action 7 – Range improvements that provided for the enhancement or maintenance of 

ecosystem functionality without long-term effects to visitor experiences and beneficial 

outcomes would be allowed.

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits 

and sales would be 

allowed.

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits and 

sales would not be 

allowed.

Action 8 – Limited 

approvals for 

mineral material

development would 

be allowed for 

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits and 

sales would be 

allowed.

Action 8 – Mineral 

material permits and 

sales would not be 

allowed.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-115

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

purposes of 

constructing and 

maintaining public 

roads or projects 

only if it could be 

demonstrated that it 

would not be 

economically or 

technologically 

feasible to obtain 

the materials 

elsewhere and only 

if the removal and 

reclamation would 

not impair the 

special qualities of 

the resources being 

managed.

Moorhead

Recreation Area 

(13 acres)

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be excluded.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be avoided.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be avoided.

Action 10 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed.

Action 10 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed.

Action 10 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed on 

existing roads and 

trails.

Action 10 –

Geophysical 

exploration would

be allowed.

Action 10 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed.

Action 11 –

Firearm use would 

be allowed.

Action 11 – Firearm 

use would not be 

allowed.

Action 11 –

Firearm use would 

be allowed.

Action 11 –

Firearm use would 

be allowed.

Action 11 –

Firearm use would 

be restricted and 

allowed only during 

the State of 

Montana's hunting

seasons. Firearm 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-116

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

use would not be 

allowed at any time 

in the fenced area.

Moorhead

Recreation Area 

(13 acres)

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(13 acres) 

objectives.

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II (12

acres).

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II (12

acres).

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class III 

(12 acres).

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II (12

acres).

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Goal 1 – Provide opportunities for the development of renewable energy resources (from sources such as wind and solar) while 

minimizing adverse impacts to other resource values.

Objective 1 – Provide opportunities for renewable energy development to the extent consistent with other goals, 

objectives, and requirements of this plan.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Renewable Energy

Action 1 – The potential for renewable energy in the planning area is based on environmental, physical, and 

economic criteria in conjunction with policy directives. The BLM would analyze proposals for renewable energy

development on a case-by-case basis and authorize those that were consistent with resource management goals. 

The United States Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) maps and 

information would be used when considering and evaluating wind and solar project proposals and applications. 

The NREL web site is available at http://www.nrel.gov/.

Action 2 – Wind and solar energy exploration and development authorization would be subject to the same laws, 

regulations, and guidelines as other commercial ROWs. (See Map 29. See the Minerals section for geothermal

leasing and the Forestry and Woodland Products section for biomass.)

Action 3 – The BLM would not issue ROWs for wind energy or solar development on lands on which wind 

energy or solar development would be incompatible with specific resource values. 

Action 4 – Adopt 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). See the

Lands and Realty-Renewable Energy Appendix for wind energy policies and the Best Management Practices

Appendix for wind BMPs, and see the BLM website http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/renewable_energ

y.html for additional information on renewable energy).

Action 5 – Wind and solar projects would be excluded from lands that were part of the National Landscape 

Conservation System (e.g., wilderness areas, WSAs, national monuments, national conservation areas, and 

national historic and scenic trails).
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-117

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Renewable Energy

Action 6 –

Renewable energy

ROWs would be 

avoided on 

approximately 300

BLM-administered 

surface acres (less 

than 1%); excluded 

on approximately 

55,000 surface 

acres (2%); and 

allowed on the 

remaining 

2,700,000 open 

surface acres

(98%) in the 

planning area. 

Renewable energy

ROWs would be 

excluded on 

approximately 

11,000 Wind 

Power Class 4 and 

above surface acres

(2%), and allowed 

on the remaining 

540,000 open

Wind Class 4 and 

above surface acres 

(98%) in the 

planning area. See 

Map 30 for 

Potential Wind 

Development 

Areas.

Action 6 –

Renewable energy

ROWs would be 

excluded on 

approximately 

2,400,000 acres

(86%), and allowed 

on the remaining

400,000 open 

surface acres (14%) 

in the planning area. 

Renewable energy

ROWs would be 

excluded on 

approximately 

484,000 Wind

Power Class 4 and 

above surface acres

(88%) and allowed 

on the remaining 

64,000 open Wind 

Class 4 and above 

surface acres (12%) 

in the planning area. 

See Map 31 for 

Potential Wind 

Development Areas.

Action 6 –

Renewable energy

ROWs would be 

avoided on 

approximately 

620,000 BLMadministered 

surface acres (22%);

excluded on 

approximately 

860,000 surface 

acres (31%); and 

allowed on the 

remaining

1,300,000 open 

surface acres (47%) 

in the planning area. 

Renewable energy

ROWs would be 

avoided on 

approximately 

170,000 Wind 

Power Class 4 and 

above BLMadministered 

surface acres (31%); 

excluded on 

approximately 

140,000 Wind 

Power Class 4 and 

above surface acres

(25%); and allowed 

on the remaining 

240,000 open Wind 

Class 4 and above 

acres (44%) in the 

Action 6 –

Renewable energy

ROWs would be 

avoided on 

approximately

490,000 BLMadministered 

surface acres (18%);

excluded on 

approximately 

560,000 surface 

acres (20%); and 

allowed on the 

remaining 

1,700,000 open 

surface acres (62%) 

in the planning area. 

Renewable energy

ROWs would be 

avoided on 

approximately 

140,000 Wind 

Power Class 4 and 

above BLMadministered 

surface acres (26%);

excluded on 

approximately 

86,000 Wind Power 

Class 4 and above 

surface acres (16%);

and allowed on the 

remaining 320,000 

open Wind Class 4 

and above acres 

(58%) in the 

Action 6 –

Renewable energy

ROWs would be 

avoided on 

approximately 

1,300,000 BLMadministered 

surface acres (45%);

excluded on 

approximately 

15,000 surface acres

(less than 1%); and 

allowed on the 

remaining 

1,500,000 open 

surface acres (55%) 

in the planning area. 

Renewable energy

ROWs would be 

avoided on 

approximately 

290,000 Wind 

Power Class 4 and 

above BLMadministered 

surface acres (54%);

excluded on 

approximately 150

Wind Power Class 4 

and above surface 

acres (less than 

1%); and allowed 

on the remaining 

250,000 open Wind 

Class 4 and above 

acres (46%) in the 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-118

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

planning area. See 

Map 32 for 

Potential Wind 

Development Areas.

planning area. See

Map 33 for 

Potential Wind 

Development Areas.

planning area. See 

Map 34 for 

Potential Wind 

Development Areas.

TRANSPORTATION (Road Design and Maintenance) 

Goal 1 – Design and maintain roads, including bridges, culverts, and primitive roads and trails, for public access or administrative 

needs and safety while maintaining or protecting resource values.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Transportation 

Action 1 – Roads, primitive roads, and trails would be maintained in accordance with the following: 1) BLM 

policy, 2) the assigned maintenance intensity (see Table 1 in the Travel and Maintenance Appendix), 3) 

consideration of resource issues, and 4) available resources. Mutually beneficial maintenance agreements with 

state or local governments would be considered on a case-by-case basis. As part of the travel management 

planning process, the designation will change from limited to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails to limited 

to designated roads, primitive roads, and trails upon the completion of a travel management plan.

Action 2 – Comprehensive condition assessments would be conducted for all maintained roads and trails in the 

Facilities Asset Management System on an established schedule in accordance with BLM policy. 

Action 3 –Roads, primitive roads, and trails would be constructed at a minimum, subject to approved 

engineering standards, BLM Manual 9113, 9114, and associated handbooks. Consideration would be given to 

use demands, location, safety, and resource constraints when determining the type of road necessary.

Action 4 – If an existing road or primitive road or trail were substantially contributing to resource impacts, the 

road would be considered for redesign, rerouting, closure, or decommissioning to minimize the adverse impacts.

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT AND OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE USE

Goal 1 – Provide a balanced approach to travel management that offers a sustained flow of local economic benefits and minimizes or 

mitigates user conflict, safety concerns, and resource impacts while taking into consideration the unique attributes and values of the 

various travel management planning areas.

Goal 2 – Manage motorized travel to provide recreational experiences while maintaining or protecting resource values in coordination 

with other federal agencies, state and local governments, and private landowners.

Travel 

Management and 

OHV

Objective 1 – Designate areas as Open, Closed, or Limited for motorized travel to minimize resource impacts 

and conflicts of use.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Travel 

Management and 

OHV

Action 1 – In areas designated Limited to OHV use, implementation planning would designate which roads, 

primitive roads, or trails would allow motorized use.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-119

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Travel 

Management and 

OHV

Action 2 – One-time, motorized off-road 

big game retrieval would not be allowed.

Action 2 – Big 

game retrieval 

would be allowed, 

in the current 

hunting districts 

between 10:00 a.m. 

and 2:00 p.m. if the 

hunter has a 

Montana permit to 

hunt from the 

vehicle (PTHV), on 

publicly accessible

BLM-administered 

lands during the big 

game hunting 

season.

Game retrieval 

would occur in a 

minimum 

timeframe, using 

the shortest route, 

and minimizing 

resource damage. 

Action 2 – Big 

game retrieval 

would be allowed, 

in the current 

hunting districts 

between 10:00 a.m. 

and 2:00 p.m., on 

publicly accessible

BLM-administered 

lands during the big 

game hunting 

season.

Game retrieval 

would occur in a 

minimum 

timeframe, using 

the shortest route, 

and minimizing 

resource damage. 

Action 2 – Onetime, motorized offroad big game

retrieval would not 

be allowed.

OPEN OHV Action 3 – There 

would be 2,400 

BLM-administered 

acres Open to 

OHV use.

Action 3 – There 

would be 2,900 

BLM-administered 

acres Open to OHV

use. 

Action 3 – There 

would be 660 BLMadministered acres 

Open to OHV use. 

Action 3 – There 

would be 2,000 

BLM-administered 

acres Open to OHV

use. 

Action 3 – There 

would be 2,000 

BLM-administered 

acres Open to OHV

use.

LIMITED OHV Action 4 – OHV

use would be 

Limited on 

2,800,000 BLMadministered acres.

Action 4 – OHV use 

would be Limited on 

2,800,000 BLMadministered acres. 

Action 4 – OHV

use would be 

Limited on 

2,800,000 BLMadministered acres.

Action 4 – OHV

use would be 

Limited on 

2,800,000 BLMadministered acres.

Action 4 – OHV

use would be 

Limited on 

2,800,000 BLMadministered acres.

CLOSED OHV Action 5 – OHV

use would be 

Action 5 – OHV use 

would be closed on 

Action 5 – OHV

use would be closed 

Action 5 – OHV

use would be closed 

Action 5 – OHV

use would be closed 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-120

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

closed on 80 BLMadministered acres 

See Special 

Designation Areas:

Smoky Butte

ACEC.

35,000 BLMadministered acres. 

See Special 

Designation Areas:

Smoky Butte, Cedar 

Creek Battlefield, 

Flat Creek, 

Powderville

Paleontological 

Area, Long 

Medicine Wheel, 

Walstein, and

Yonkee ACECs and 

Recreation: 

Strawberry Hill and 

portions of Howrey 

Island.

on 550 BLMadministered acres. 

See Special 

Designation Areas:

Flat Creek ACEC.

on 0 BLMadministered acres. on 2,800 BLMadministered acres. 

See Special 

Designation Areas:

Smoky Butte, Long 

Medicine Wheel, 

Walstein, and

Yonkee ACECs and 

Recreation: portions 

of Howrey Island.

Travel 

Management

Objective 1 – Delineate travel management areas (TMAs) (polygons) for completion of travel management 

planning to address comprehensive motorized travel and associated impacts and motorized and non-motorized 

recreational opportunities. A planning strategy that prioritizes and sets timeframes for the completion of TMAs

will be developed.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Travel 

Management 

Action 1 – Travel management would be conducted in a manner that would meet, or move toward meeting, 

Rangeland Health Standards.

Action 2 – Except for site-specific TMAs, 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 in the interim and for all lands not under proposed future travel management plans.

Action 3 – The BLM objective for route-specific travel planning within individual TMAs would be to use a 

systematic process that considered the unique resource issues and social environments of each TMA. 

Action 4 – The BLM would emphasize management of the transportation system to reduce impacts to natural 

resources from designated roads, primitive roads, and trails. The BLM would also stress closing and restoring 

unauthorized user-created roads and trails to prevent resource damage. Ecologically sensitive areas within 300 

feet of roads and trails would be closed to dispersed camping if resource damage was occurring in these areas.

Action 5 – The following areas would be evaluated and given the highest priority for travel management 

planning: Pumpkin Creek Ranch and Recreation Area TMA, Strawberry Hill TMA, Glendive Short Pine OHV
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-121

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

TMA, Fort Peck-Jordan TMA, Powder River-Carter County TMA, Prairie County-North Custer TMA, and 

remaining lands in the planning area in which resource damage or user conflicts needed to be addressed. An 

implementation plan for six TMAs would be initiated.

Travel 

Management 

Action 6 – The BLM would strive to complete travel management planning using a developed strategy that sets 

timeframes and prioritizes TMAs. TMAs within the priority sage-grouse habitat area would strive to be 

prioritized and completed within 5 years of the ROD.

Action 7 – The BLM would create a developed strategy based on information found in the BLM Handbook H8342, Travel and Transportation. Areas receiving focus and a higher priority would be based on priority sagegrouse habitat areas, heavily used areas, social conflict concerns, resource concerns, and development for 

administrative or public access.

Action 8 – The BLM would use an interdisciplinary and collaborative approach during travel management 

planning. Planning would be outcome based.

LANDS AND REALTY

Goal 1 – Provide public lands, interests in land, and authorizations for public and private uses while maintaining and improving 

resource values.

Goal 2 – Reduce the impacts of potential climate change by sequestering carbon dioxide.

Goal 3 – Adjust public land and mineral ownership to acquire significant resources and consolidate surface or mineral estates to 

improve management efficiency and accessibility, obtain special designation area inholdings, and enhance significant recreational 

values.

Goal 4 – Use withdrawal actions with the least restrictive measures and minimum size necessary to accomplish the required purposes of 

the withdrawal.

Goal 5 – Strive to increase and diversify the nation’s sources of both traditional and alternative energy resources, improve the energy 

transportation network, and ensure sound environmental management in accordance with the national energy policy directives.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Land Use 

Authorizations

Action 1 – Applicants for communication site uses would be encouraged to locate their facilities within existing 

compatible communication sites.

Action 2 – Nine sites within the planning area have approved communication site management plans (see Table 

3-35). Of these nine sites, all would be designated as communication sites except Fort Peck, which is limited in 

space and adjacent to a larger communication site nearby on private land. These plans would be updated as 

needed if additional uses were authorized. Any new sites would also be required to have a developed 

communication site management plan. Environmentally sensitive areas identified during the grant application 

examination would be avoided.

Action 3 – In areas in which ROWs were allowed, stipulations from the BLM Handbook 2801-1 would be used 

to protect resource values (Map 35).
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-122

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Land Use 

Authorizations

Action 4 – Requests for solar and wind energy projects, including testing and monitoring sites, in suitable and 

acceptable areas would be considered under a Title V Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) (43 

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) ROW. 

Action 5 – No corridors are identified or designated because of a fragmented federal land ownership pattern. 

Whenever possible, major ROWs would be constructed in or next to compatible existing ROWs, such as 

highways and railroads.

Action 6 – Applications for Section 302 FLPMA leases, permits, and easements for the use, occupancy, and 

development of public lands would be considered on a case-by-case basis, as would applications for Recreation 

and Public Purpose Act (R&PP) Leases, after classification, for recreational or public purposes by state and local 

government and qualified non-profit organizations.

Action 7 – Unauthorized uses of public land would be resolved in an expeditious manner and would follow 

requirements of BLM manuals and handbooks 2800, 2900, and 9232. 

Action 8 – Identify opportunities for geophysical carbon sequestration on federal lands, as outlined in national 

guidance. 

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Rights-of-Way, 

Section 302 

FLPMA Leases 

and Permits 

and R&PP 

Leases

Action 9 – ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations 

would be avoided 

on approximately 

300 BLMadministered 

surface acres(less 

than 1%); excluded 

on approximately 

57,000 BLMadministered 

surface acres (2%);

and allowed on the 

remaining 

2,700,000 surface 

acres (98%) in the 

planning area. See 

Map 36 for ROW

Exclude and Avoid 

areas under this 

alternative. 

Action 9 – ROWs

and other realtyrelated land use 

authorizations 

(including testing 

for pilot projects for 

carbon geosequestration, see 

the Lands and 

Realty-Renewable 

Energy Appendix) 

would be excluded 

on approximately 

2,400,000 BLMadministered surface 

acres (88%) and 

allowed on the 

remaining 327,000 

(12%) BLMadministered surface 

acres in the planning 

area. See Map 37 for 

Action 9 – ROWs

and other realtyrelated land use 

authorizations 

(including testing 

for pilot projects for 

carbon geosequestration, see 

the Lands and 

Realty-Renewable 

Energy Appendix)

would be avoided 

on approximately 

621,000 BLMadministered 

surface acres (22%);

excluded on 

approximately 

888,000 BLMadministered 

surface acres(32%);

and allowed on the 

Action 9 – ROWs

and other realtyrelated land use 

authorizations 

(including testing 

for pilot projects for 

carbon geosequestration, see 

the Lands and 

Realty-Renewable 

Energy Appendix) 

would be avoided 

on approximately

490,000 BLMadministered 

surface acres (18%);

excluded on 

approximately 

570,000 BLMadministered 

surface acres (21%);

and allowed on the 

Action 9 – ROWs

and other realtyrelated land use 

authorizations 

(including testing 

for pilot projects for 

carbon geosequestration, see 

the Lands and 

Realty-Renewable 

Energy Appendix)

would be avoided 

on approximately 

1,300,000 BLMadministered 

surface acres (45%);

excluded on 

approximately 

16,000 BLMadministered 

surface acres (less 

than 1%); and 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-123

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

ROW Exclude and 

Avoid areas under 

this alternative. 

remaining 

1,300,000 (46%) 

BLM-administered 

surface acres in the 

planning area. See 

Map 38 for ROW

Exclude and Avoid 

areas under this 

alternative. 

remaining 

1,700,000 (61%) 

BLM-administered 

surface acres in the 

planning area. See 

Map 39 for ROW

Exclude and Avoid 

areas under this 

alternative. 

allowed on the 

remaining 

1,500,000 (55%) 

BLM-administered 

surface acres in the 

planning area. See 

Map 40 for ROW

Exclude and Avoid 

areas under this 

alternative.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Land Tenure 

(Ownership) 

Adjustment

Action 1 – Lands or interests in lands would be acquired by purchase, exchange, revocation of another agency’s 

withdrawal, administrative transfer from another agency, cooperative agreement, or donation where they 

complemented existing resource values. Exchange would be the preferred method of land tenure adjustment. 

Proposals would be considered to obtain inholdings in existing or future SRMAs, ACECs, back country byways, 

national trails, WSAs, and other designated areas or to obtain adjoining lands that expanded the areas. All 

exchange lands must be within Montana. All land or mineral ownership adjustments would be based on a willing 

buyer and willing seller basis unless law, regulation, court order, or Congressional action required otherwise.

Action 2 – Before acquiring land or interest through purchase, exchange, donation, or withdrawal 

relinquishment, the area would be inventoried for hazardous substances or hazardous contamination in 

accordance with United States Department of Interior (USDI) policy. The BLM would not acquire contaminated 

real estate except at the direction of Congress, or for good cause with the approval of the Secretary.

Action 3 – Newly acquired lands would be managed according to the goals and objectives for the acquisition. 

Lands acquired within administratively designated special designation areas, such as ACECs and SRMAs, would 

be managed the same as the special designation area. Other lands acquired without special values or 

management goals would be managed in the same manner as the comparable surrounding public lands.

Action 4 – Parcels of BLM-administered land discovered through land status updates and corrections would be 

managed in the same manner as federal parcels adjacent to or in the same vicinity as the discovered parcel; this 

would include consideration for retention and disposal. 

Action 5 – Land tenure adjustments would be considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with applicable 

laws and regulations based on retention, acquisition, and disposal criteria that can be found in the Lands and 

Realty-Renewable Energy Appendix. The retention and disposal lands identified in the Big Dry RMP and 

Powder River RMPs, as amended, are carried forward into this plan as shown on Map 41. The land base is 

categorized for management into three categories: 

 Category 1 retention lands manage 97,000 acres in Category I for retention with no disposal 

(these include the WSAs);
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-124

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

 Category 2 retention lands with limited disposal – manage 2,200,000 acres for retention but 

allow limited adjustment such as through land exchange, R&PP grant, and other disposal 

methods, but no Section 203(a) FLPMA sales (unless the plan is amended);

 Category 3 disposal lands – 450,000 acres are available for potential disposal by any means 

including Section 203 of FLPMA sales, exchange, R&PP grants, and other disposal methods. 

These lands meet the FLPMA 203(a) criteria:

o such tracts that because of their location or other characteristic are difficult and 

uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands, and are not suitable for management by 

another federal department or agency; or

o such tracts were acquired for a specific purpose and the tracts are no longer required for 

that or any other federal purpose; or

o disposal of such tracts will serve important public objectives, including but not limited to, 

expansion of communities and economic development, which cannot be achieved 

prudently or feasibly on land other than public land and which outweigh other public 

objectives and values, including, but not limited to, recreation and scenic values, which 

would be served by maintaining such tracts in federal ownership.

Land identified for disposal under Sections 203 and 206 of FLPMA and identified as such in this plan would be 

classified for disposal under Section 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, as amended; under Executive Order 

6910 (November 26, 1934); and under 43 CFR 2400. Mineral patents are not considered a land tenure 

adjustment for the purposes of this plan.

Land Tenure 

Adjustment

Action 6 – All lands identified for disposal that were identified for disposal in a land use plan prior to July 25, 

2000, and therefore, would qualify for consideration for disposal under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation 

Act of 2000 (43 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.) if reauthorized. Lands acquired with Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(16 U.S.C. 460 et seq.) appropriations would not be available for disposal by any means.

Action 7 – Federal minerals underlying nonfederal surface would generally be retained in federal ownership. 

However, an exchange of this type of mineral estate would be considered on a case-by-case basis if found to be 

in the public interest.

Action 8 – The BLM would acquire conservation easements to protect open space and important resources or as 

needed to meet management objectives. 

Action 9 – Applications for R&PP Patents, jurisdictional transfer through withdrawal, Color-of-Title (43 CFR 

2540), Desert-Land Entry (43 CFR 2520), Indian Allotment (43 CFR 2530), Carey Act Grant (43 CFR 2610), 

State Grants (43 CFR 2620), Railroad Grants (43 CFR 2630), and Airport Grants (43 CFR 2640) would be 

considered on a case-by-case basis. Conveyance of the reversionary clauses in R&PP patents would be 

considered on a case-by-case basis if it were determined to be in the public’s interest. No lands within the 

planning area are currently classified for entry, selection, or location by the above-mentioned methods.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-125

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Action 10 – Applications for conveyance of federally owned mineral interests would be considered under 

Section 209 of FLPMA (see the Lands and Realty-Renewable Energy Appendix).

Access

Action 11 – Legal public or administrative access over nonfederal lands would be obtained from willing 

landowners or state or other federal agencies, as appropriate, on a case-by-case basis as the need or opportunity 

arose and using criteria and direction contained in the Lands and Realty-Renewable Energy Appendix. Methods 

used to acquire access would include easements acquired through purchase, exchange, or donation; reciprocal 

ROWs; land exchanges; fee title purchase; cooperative agreements; reservations; permits; donation of fee land; 

covenant language in patents or deeds; or long-term land-use agreements. 

Action 12 – Easement acquisition would be the predominant method of obtaining legal access; condemnation 

would be a last resort. Easements may also be acquired for such purposes as utility ROWs, range improvements, 

sign locations, and resource conservation on nonfederal lands.

Action 13 – Upon project completion, roads used for commercial access on public lands would remain open 

unless they were closed on a case-by-case basis.

Action 14 – The BLM would be committed to providing a reasonable level of access to its facilities, programs, 

services, and activities on BLM-administered lands for persons with disabilities consistent with the 

Montana/Dakotas Equal Access Program. This level of access must be consistent with BLM’s mandate of 

multiple-use management and dispersed recreational use of BLM-administered lands.

Withdrawals

Action 15 – The BLM would review existing withdrawals on a case-by-case basis before the end of the 

withdrawal period, or as otherwise required, to determine whether the withdrawals should be extended, revoked, 

or modified. Approximately 430,000 acres of land in the MCFO planning area are currently withdrawn under 

existing withdrawals; of these lands, 370,000 acres have previously been recommended for continued 

withdrawal and would be subject to review.

Action 16 – Of the approximately 430,000 acres of land within the MCFO area that are currently withdrawn 

under existing withdrawals, approximately 56,000 acres (which don’t include the United States Army Corps of 

Engineers Fort Peck withdrawal because the approximately 3,756 acres to remain withdrawn have not been 

specifically identified) have previously been recommended for withdrawal revocation; these withdrawals can be 

revoked. Lands on which withdrawals were revoked would be managed in the same manner as the comparable 

surrounding public lands. (See Table 3-35 for more information on withdrawals in the planning area.)

Action 17 – The BLM would consider other agency requests for withdrawal relinquishments, extensions, or 

modifications on a case-by-case basis.

Action 18 – New withdrawal proposals would be considered on a case-by-case basis where resource values or 

agency investments were best protected by withdrawal.

SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS, ACECs

(See the Special Designations Appendix for more information about proposed and current ACECs.)

Goal 1 – Identify and manage ACECs to protect life and safety from natural hazards or to protect and prevent irreparable damage to 

important historic, cultural, paleontological, or scenic values; fish and wildlife resources; and other natural systems or processes.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-126

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Ash Creek 

Divide ACEC

(7,921 acres), Bug 

Creek ACEC

(3,837 acres), Hell 

Creek ACEC

(19,373 acres), and 

Sand Arroyo

ACEC (9,052

acres)

Action 1 – The Ash Creek Divide, Bug Creek, Hell Creek, and Sand Arroyo sites would continue to be 

designated ACECs. The BLM would protect relevant and important resource values with special management 

and ACEC designation. 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.

Action 2 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on an ACEC and a NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination. 

Action 3 – Mineral material sales and permits would be closed.

Action 4 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.

Action 5 – Oil and gas leasing would be offered with an NSO stipulation on the ACEC and surrounding lands 

(see Maps 42 through 45).1

Action 6 – OHV use would be limited to the existing road and trails.

Action 7 – ROWs would be allowed.

Action 8 – Geothermal leasing would not be offered.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Ash Creek Divide

ACEC (7,921 

acres), Bug Creek

ACEC (3,837 

acres), Hell Creek

ACEC (19,373 

acres), and Sand 

Arroyo ACEC

(9,052 acres) 

Action 9 – Geophysical exploration would 

not be allowed.

Action 9 –

Geophysical 

exploration for oil

and gas would be 

allowed on existing 

roads and trails 

(approximately 135 

miles).

Action 9 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be prohibited in and 

within 300 feet of 

paleontological 

localities or 

localities that meet 

the criteria for 

designation within 

the boundaries of 

the ACEC (CSU).

Action 9 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed.

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

would be allowed 

(BLM 1996).

Action 10 – Livestock grazing would be allowed. Range improvements that provided for 

the improvement or maintenance of ecosystem functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or impact the values of the ACEC.

Action 11 – Fire 

would be managed 

by employing 

Action 11 – Fire would be managed by employing MIST. Values would be protected by 

limiting surface-disturbing activities (e.g., earth-moving equipment, blading of roads, or 

increasing road areas). 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-127

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

minimum impact 

suppression tactics 

(MIST). Fossil 

values would be 

protected by not 

allowing earthmoving equipment, 

blading of roads, or 

increasing road 

areas. A 

management 

decision would be 

coordinated with 

the resource 

advisor for fire 

management 

activities. Heavy 

equipment use 

would be limited to 

improve the 

condition of 

existing two-track 

roads for use as fire 

control lines (BLM 

2004g) (see 

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

Fire management (e.g., wildfire and prescribed fire) that provided for the improvement or 

maintenance of ecosystem functionality would be allowed as long as the improvements 

would not damage or impact the values of the ACEC.

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous 

Action 12 – Management of forest

products, biomass materials, and hazardous 

fuels would be allowed (see Forestry and 

Woodland Products and Wildland Fire 

Management and Ecology for details).

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-128

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

fuels would be 

allowed (see 

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

Forestry management that provided for the 

improvement or maintenance of ecosystem 

functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or 

impact the values of the ACEC.

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

Forestry 

management that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Ash Creek Divide

ACEC (7,921 

acres), Bug Creek

ACEC (3,837 

acres), Hell Creek

ACEC (19,373 

acres), and Sand 

Arroyo ACEC

(9,052 acres)

Action 13 – The 

areas would be 

managed according 

to:

Ash Creek Divide

– VRM Class III 

(84 acres) and 

VRM Class IV 

(7,837 acres);

Bug Creek – VRM

Class II (149 

acres), VRM Class 

III (2,005 acres), 

and VRM Class IV

(1,683 acres);

Action 13 – The 

areas would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(40,183 acres).

Action 13 – VRM

would be managed 

according to: 

Ash Creek Divide –

VRM Class III 

(7,454 acres) and 

VRM Class IV (467

acres);

Bug Creek – VRM

Class II (42 acres) 

and VRM Class III 

(3,795 acres);

Hell Creek – VRM

Class II (5,180 

Action 13 – VRM

would be managed

according to: 

Ash Creek Divide –

Class IV (7,921 

acres);

Bug Creek – VRM

Class III (42 acres)

and VRM Class IV 

(3,795 acres);

Hell Creek – VRM

Class III (5,180

acres) and VRM

Class IV (14,193 

Action 13 – VRM

would be managed

according to: 

Ash Creek Divide –

VRM Class III 

(7,454 acres) and 

VRM Class IV (467

acres);

Bug Creek – VRM

Class II (42 acres) 

and VRM Class III 

(3,795 acres);

Hell Creek – VRM

Class II (5,180 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-129

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Hell Creek – VRM

Class II (12,213 

acres) and VRM

Class IV (7,160 

acres); and

Sand Arroyo –

VRM Class II (510 

acres) and VRM

Class III (3,112

acres), and VRM

Class IV (5,430 

acres) objectives.

acres), VRM Class 

III (5,512 acres), 

and VRM Class IV

(8,681 acres); and

Sand Arroyo –

VRM Class II (852 

acres) and VRM

Class III (7,469

acres), and VRM

Class IV (731 

acres).

acres); and

Sand Arroyo –

VRM Class III (852

acres) and VRM

Class IV (8,200 

acres).

acres), VRM Class 

III (5,512 acres), 

and VRM Class IV

(8,681 acres); and

Sand Arroyo –

VRM Class II (852 

acres) and VRM

Class III (7,469

acres), and VRM

Class IV (731 

acres).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Big Sheep 

Mountain 

ACEC (363 acres)

Action 1 – The Big Sheep Mountain site would continue to be designated an ACEC. The BLM would protect 

relevant and important resource values with special management and ACEC designation. 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.

Action 2 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on an ACEC and a NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination.

Action 3 – Mineral material sales and permits would be closed.

Action 4 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.

Action 5 – Oil and gas leasing would be offered with an NSO stipulation.1

Action 6 – Geophysical exploration would not be allowed.

Action 7 – OHV use would be limited to the existing roads and trails.

Action 8 – ROWs would be avoided.

Action 9 – Geothermal leasing would not be offered.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Big Sheep 

Mountain ACEC

(363 acres)

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

would be allowed 

within the Pasture 

8 Common East 

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

would not be 

allowed (closed) in 

363 acres (96 

Action 10 – A 

portion of the 

ACEC, consisting 

of 194 acres (51 

AUMs), would be 

Action 10 – A 

portion of the 

ACEC, consisting 

of 66 acres (17 

AUMs), would be 

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

would be allowed.

Range 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-130

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Allotment 

(#00926) and the 

Norris AMP

Allotment 

(#01269), 

consisting of 363

acres and 98 

AUMs (T. 15 N., 

R. 47 E., sec. 28 

through 29 and 32 

through 33 (BLM 

1996).

AUMs). This would 

include the 

following grazing 

allotments:

 The Pasture 8 

Common East 

Allotment 

(#00926) for 

162 acres and 

39 AUMs (T. 

15 N., R. 48 E., 

sec. 20); 

 the Frank Ban 

Individual 

Allotment 

(#01225) for 

121 acres and 

34 AUMs (T. 

15 N., R. 48 E., 

sec. 28 and 33); 

and 

 the Norris AMP

Allotment 

(#01269) for 80 

acres and 25 

AUMs (T. 15 

N., R. 48 E., 

sec. 32). 

Range 

improvements that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

closed to livestock 

grazing. This would 

include the 

following grazing 

allotments:

 The Pasture 8 

Common East 

Allotment 

(#00926) for 87 

acres and 22 

AUMS (T. 15 

N., R. 48 E., 

sec. 29);

 the Frank Ban 

Individual 

Allotment 

(#01225) for 78 

acres and 21 

AUMs (T. 15 

N., R. 48 E., 

sec. 28 and 33); 

and

 the Norris 

AMP

Allotment 

(#01269) for 29 

acres and 9 

AUMs (T. 15 

N., R. 48 E., 

sec. 32). 

Range 

improvements that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

closed to livestock 

grazing. This would 

include the 

following grazing 

allotments:

 The Pasture 8 

Common East 

(#00926) for 

36 acres and 9 

AUMs (T. 15 

N., R. 48 E., 

sec. 29); 

 the Frank Ban 

Individual 

(#01225) for 

29 acres and 7

AUMs (T. 15 

N., R. 48 E., 

sec. 28 and 

33); and 

 the Norris 

AMP

Allotment 

(#01269) for 1 

acre and 1 

AUM (T. 15 

N., R. 48 E., 

sec. 32). 

Range 

improvements that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

improvements that

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-131

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

be allowed as long 

as the improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Big Sheep 

Mountain ACEC

(363 acres)

Action 11 – Fire 

would be managed 

by employing 

MIST. Fossil 

values would be 

protected by not 

allowing earthmoving equipment, 

blading of roads, or 

increasing road 

areas. A 

management 

decision would be 

coordinated with 

the resource 

advisor for fire 

management 

activities. Heavy 

equipment use 

would be limited to 

improve the 

condition of 

existing two-track 

roads for use as fire 

control lines (BLM 

2004g) (see 

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Action 11 – Fire would be managed by employing MIST. Values would be protected by 

limiting surface-disturbing activities (e.g., earth-moving equipment, blading of roads, or 

increasing road areas). 

Fire management (e.g., wildfire and prescribed fire) that provided for the improvement or 

maintenance of ecosystem functionality would be allowed as long as the improvements 

would not damage or impact the values of the ACEC.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-132

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

Big Sheep 

Mountain ACEC

(363 acres)

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous 

fuels would be 

allowed (see 

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

Action 12 – Management of forest

products, biomass materials, and hazardous 

fuels would be allowed (see Forestry and 

Woodland Products and Wildland Fire 

Management and Ecology for details).

Forestry management that provided for the 

improvement or maintenance of ecosystem 

functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or 

impact the values of the ACEC.

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

Forestry 

management that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(268 acres), VRM

Class III (15 acres), 

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(363 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class III 

(363 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class IV 

(363 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(363 acres).
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-133

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

and VRM Class IV 

(80 acres) 

objectives.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Hoe ACEC (147

acres)

Action 1 – The Hoe site would continue to be designated an ACEC. The BLM would protect relevant and 

important resource values with special management and ACEC designation. 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.

Action 2 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on an ACEC and a NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination.

Action 3 – Mineral material sales and permits would be closed.

Action 4 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.

Action 5 – Oil and gas leasing would be offered with an NSO stipulation.1

Action 6 – Geophysical exploration would not be allowed.

Action 7 – OHV use would be limited to the existing roads and trails.

Action 8 – ROWs would be avoided.

Action 9 – Geothermal leasing would not be offered.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Hoe ACEC (147 

acres) 

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

would continue to 

be allowed within 

the Hoe site ACEC 

within the Tenmile 

Creek Allotment

(#01312) on 147

acres and 31

AUMs of the Hoe 

site ACEC (T. 10 

N., R. 51 E., sec. 

3).

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

would not be 

allowed (closed) in 

147 acres (31 

AUMs). Range 

improvements that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Action 10 – A 

portion of the 

ACEC would be 

closed to livestock 

grazing in 19 acres 

(4 AUMs). Range 

improvements that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

Action 10 – A 

portion of the 

ACEC would be 

closed to livestock 

grazing in a portion 

of the Hoe site 

ACEC consisting of 

8 acres and 2 

AUMs. Range 

improvements that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

Action 10 – A 

portion of the 

ACEC would be 

closed to livestock 

grazing in 19 acres 

(4 AUMs). 

Range 

improvements that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-134

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

of the ACEC. improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Hoe ACEC (147 

acres)

Action 11 – Fire 

would be managed 

by employing 

MIST. Fossil 

values would be 

protected by not 

allowing earthmoving equipment, 

blading of roads, or 

increasing road 

areas. A 

management 

decision would be 

coordinated with 

the resource 

advisor for fire 

management 

activities. Heavy 

equipment use 

would be limited to 

improve the 

condition of 

existing two-track 

roads for use as fire 

control lines (BLM 

2004g) (see 

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

Action 11 – Fire would be managed by employing MIST. Values would be protected by 

limiting surface-disturbing activities (e.g., earth-moving equipment, blading of roads, or 

increasing road areas). 

Fire management (e.g., wildfire and prescribed fire) that provided for the improvement or 

maintenance of ecosystem functionality would be allowed as long as the improvements 

would not damage or impact the values of the ACEC.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-135

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Hoe ACEC (147 

acres)

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous 

fuels would be 

allowed (see 

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

Action 12 – Management of forest

products, biomass materials, and hazardous 

fuels would be allowed (see Forestry and 

Woodland Products and Wildland Fire 

Management and Ecology for details).

Forestry management that provided for the 

improvement or maintenance of ecosystem 

functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or 

impact the values of the ACEC.

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

Forestry 

management that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II

(147 acres) 

objectives.

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(147 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class IV 

(147 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class IV 

(147 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(147 acres).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Jordan Bison 

Kill ACEC (160 

acres)

Action 1 – Jordan Bison Kill site would continue to be designated an ACEC. The BLM would protect relevant 

and important resource values with special management and ACEC designation. The agency would apply special 

management where standard or routine management would be inadequate to protect public safety when faced 

with natural hazards or protect the resource values from risks and threats of damage or degradation.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-136

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Jordan Bison Kill

ACEC (160 acres)

Action 2 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on an ACEC and a NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination.

Action 3 – Mineral material sales and permits would be closed.

Action 4 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.

Action 5 – Oil and gas leasing would be offered with an NSO stipulation.1

Action 6 – Geophysical exploration would not be allowed.

Action 7 – OHV use would be limited to the existing roads and trails.

Action 8 – ROWs would be avoided.

Action 9 – Geothermal leasing would not be offered.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Jordan Bison Kill

ACEC (160 acres)

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

would be allowed 

(BLM 1996).

Action 10 – Livestock grazing would be allowed. Range improvements that provided for 

the improvement or maintenance of ecosystem functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or impact the values of the ACEC.

Action 11 – Fire 

would be managed 

by employing 

MIST. Fossil 

values would be 

protected by not 

allowing earthmoving equipment, 

blading of roads, or 

increasing road 

areas. A 

management 

decision would be 

coordinated with 

the resource 

advisor for fire 

management 

activities. Heavy 

equipment use 

would be limited to 

improve the 

Action 11 – Fire would be managed by employing MIST. Values would be protected by 

limiting surface-disturbing activities (e.g., earth-moving equipment, blading of roads, or 

increasing road areas). 

Fire management (e.g., wildfire and prescribed fire) that provided for the improvement or 

maintenance of ecosystem functionality would be allowed as long as the improvements 

would not damage or impact the values of the ACEC.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-137

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

condition of 

existing two-track 

roads for use as fire 

control lines (BLM 

2004g) (see 

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

Jordan Bison Kill

ACEC (160 acres)

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous 

fuels would be 

allowed (see 

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

Action 12 – Management of forest

products, biomass materials, and hazardous 

fuels would be allowed (see Forestry and 

Woodland Products and Wildland Fire 

Management and Ecology for details).

Forestry management that provided for the 

improvement or maintenance of ecosystem 

functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or 

impact the values of the ACEC.

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

Forestry 

management that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-138

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Jordan Bison Kill

ACEC (160 acres)

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class IV

(160 acres) 

objectives.

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II

(160 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class III 

(13 acres) and VRM

Class IV (147

acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class IV 

(160 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(160 acres).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Powder River 

Depot ACEC

(1,401 acres)

Action 1 – Powder River Depot would continue to be designated an ACEC. The BLM would protect relevant 

and important resource values with special management and ACEC designation. 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.

Action 2 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on an ACEC and a NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination.

Action 3 – Mineral material sales and permits would be closed.

Action 4 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.

Action 5 – Oil and gas leasing would be offered with an NSO stipulation.1

Action 6 – Geophysical exploration would not be allowed.

Action 7 – OHV use would be limited to the existing roads and trails.

Action 8 – ROWs would be avoided.

Action 9 – Geothermal leasing would not be offered.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Powder River 

Depot ACEC

(1,401 acres) 

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

would be allowed 

except on 171 

acres (BLM 1996). 

Action 10 – A 

portion of the ACEC 

consisting of 171 

acres and 51 AUMs 

(T. 11 N., R. 50 E., 

sec. 4; and T. 12 N., 

R. 50 E.; sec. 27 and 

33), would be closed 

to livestock grazing, 

except for a grazing 

authorization for 

vegetation 

management (e.g., 

Action 10 – A 

portion of the 

ACEC consisting of 

19 acres and 5 

AUMs (T. 11 N., R. 

50 E., sec. 4) would 

be closed to 

livestock grazing, 

except for a grazing 

authorization for 

vegetation 

management (e.g., 

invasive species

Action 10 – The 

entire ACEC would 

be open to livestock 

grazing.

Range 

improvements that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

Action 10 – A 

portion of the 

ACEC consisting of 

19 acres and 5 

AUMs (T. 11 N., R. 

50 E., sec. 4) would 

be closed to 

livestock grazing, 

except for a grazing 

authorization for 

vegetation 

management (e.g., 

invasive species
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-139

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

invasive species

control or hazardous 

fuels reductions).

Range 

improvements that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC. 

control or hazardous 

fuels reductions).

Range 

improvements that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC. 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

control or hazardous 

fuels reductions).

Range 

improvements that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Powder River 

Depot ACEC

(1,401 acres)

Action 11 – Fire 

would be managed 

by employing 

MIST. Fossil 

values would be 

protected by not 

allowing earthmoving equipment, 

blading of roads, or 

increasing road 

areas. A

management 

decision would be 

coordinated with 

the resource 

advisor for fire 

management 

activities. Heavy 

equipment use 

would be limited to 

improve the 

Action 11 – Fire would be managed by employing MIST. Values would be protected by 

limiting surface-disturbing activities (e.g., earth-moving equipment, blading of roads, or 

increasing road areas). 

Fire management (e.g., wildfire and prescribed fire) that provided for the improvement or 

maintenance of ecosystem functionality would be allowed as long as the improvements 

would not damage or impact the values of the ACEC.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-140

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

condition of 

existing two-track 

roads for use as fire 

control lines (BLM 

2004g) (see 

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

Powder River 

Depot ACEC

(1,401 acres)

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous 

fuels would be 

allowed (see 

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

Action 12 – Management of forest

products, biomass materials, and hazardous 

fuels would be allowed (see Forestry and 

Woodland Products and Wildland Fire 

Management and Ecology for details).

Forestry management that provided for the 

improvement or maintenance of ecosystem 

functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or 

impact the values of the ACEC.

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products,

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

Forestry 

management that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-141

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Powder River 

Depot ACEC

(1,401 acres)

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class I

(overlap with 

WSA, 532 acres)

and VRM Class II 

(869 acres) 

objectives.

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class I

(overlap with WSA, 

522 acres) and VRM

Class II (879 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class I

(overlap with WSA, 

522 acres), VRM

Class II (661 acres), 

and VRM Class III 

(218 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class I

(overlap with WSA, 

522 acres), VRM

Class III (661

acres), and VRM

Class IV (218

acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class I 

(overlap with WSA, 

522 acres) and 

VRM Class II (879

acres).

See Recreation, SRMAs and ERMAs, Powder River Depot SRMA for management of the Powder River Depot SRMA located within the 

Powder River Depot ACEC (BLM 1996).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Seline ACEC (80 

acres) 

Action 1 – The Seline site would continue to be designated an ACEC. The BLM would protect relevant and 

important resource values with special management and ACEC designation. 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.

Action 2 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on an ACEC and a NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination.

Action 3 – Mineral material sales and permits would be closed.

Action 4 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.

Action 5 – Oil and gas leasing would be offered with an NSO stipulation.1

Action 6 – Geophysical exploration would not be allowed.

Action 7 – OHV use would be limited to the existing roads and trails.

Action 8 – ROWs would be avoided.

Action 9 – Geothermal leasing would not be offered.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Seline ACEC (80 

acres)

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

would be allowed 

(BLM 1996).

Action 10 – Livestock grazing would be allowed. Range improvements that provided for 

the improvement or maintenance of ecosystem functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or impact the values of the ACEC.

Action 11 – Fire 

would be managed 

by employing 

Action 11 – Fire would be managed by employing MIST. Values would be protected by 

limiting surface-disturbing activities (e.g., earth-moving equipment, blading of roads, or 

increasing road areas).
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-142

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

MIST. Fossil 

values would be 

protected by not 

allowing earthmoving equipment, 

blading of roads, or 

increasing road 

areas. A 

management 

decision would be 

coordinated with 

the resource 

advisor for fire 

management 

activities. Heavy 

equipment use 

would be limited to 

improve the 

condition of 

existing two-track 

roads for use as fire 

control lines

(BLM 2004g) (see 

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

Fire management (e.g., wildfire and prescribed fire) that provided for the improvement or 

maintenance of ecosystem functionality would be allowed as long as the improvements 

would not damage or impact the values of the ACEC.

Seline ACEC (80 

acres)

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous 

fuels would be 

allowed (see 

Action 12 – Management of forest

products, biomass materials, and hazardous 

fuels would be allowed (see Forestry and 

Woodland Products and Wildland Fire 

Management and Ecology for details).

Forestry management that provided for the 

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-143

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

improvement or maintenance of ecosystem 

functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or 

impact the values of the ACEC.

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

Forestry 

management that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Seline ACEC (80 

acres)

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(50 acres) and 

VRM Class IV (30

acres) objectives.

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II (80

acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class IV 

(80 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class IV 

(80 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II (80 

acres).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Battle Butte

Battlefield 

ACEC

Action 1 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on an ACEC and a NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination.

Action 2 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.

Action 3 – OHV use would be limited to the existing roads and trails (BLM 1985c). 

Action 4 – Geothermal leasing would not be offered.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Battle Butte

Battlefield ACEC 

Action 5 – 121 

acres of the Battle 

Butte Battlefield 

Action 5 – An additional 116 acres of proposed ACEC, plus the 

existing 121 acres (for a total of 237 acres) of the Battle Butte

Battlefield, would be designated an ACEC and managed as a 

Action 5 – An 

additional 199 acres 

of proposed ACEC, 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-144

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

would continue to 

be designated an 

ACEC. The BLM 

would protect 

relevant and 

important resource 

values with special 

management and 

ACEC designation. 

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.

cultural resource. plus the existing 

121 acres (for a 

total of 320 acres) 

of the Battle Butte

Battlefield, would 

be designated an 

ACEC and managed 

as a cultural 

resource.

Battle Butte

Battlefield ACEC

Action 6 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

closed on the 121-

acre ACEC (BLM 

1985c).

Action 6 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

closed in and within 

0.5 miles of the 

NHL site boundary. 

Action 6 – Limited 

approvals for 

mineral material

development would 

be open (allowed) 

in 237 acres of this 

special use lands 

area only for the 

purpose of 

constructing and 

maintaining public 

roads or projects, 

only if it could be 

Action 6 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

open.

Action 6 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

closed on the 320-

acre ACEC.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-145

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

demonstrated that it 

would not be 

economically or 

technologically 

feasible to obtain 

the materials 

elsewhere, and only 

if the removal and 

reclamation would 

not impair the 

special qualities of 

the resource for 

which the subject 

lands were 

managed.

Battle Butte

Battlefield ACEC

Action 7 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation on 

121 acres currently 

designated NSO 

(BLM 1999a).1

Action 7 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

not be offered in and 

within 0.5 miles of 

the NHL site 

boundary (3,176 oil 

and gas acres). 

Action 7 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation in 

and within 0.5 miles 

of the boundary of 

the ACEC (831 oil 

and gas acres).1

Action 7 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with a 

CSU stipulation. 

Prior to surface 

disturbance, a 

SUPO and an 

archeological site 

mitigation plan 

must be approved 

by the AO for all 

surface-disturbing 

activities in and 

within 300 feet of 

the ACEC (267 oil 

and gas acres).1

Action 7 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation

(320 oil and gas 

acres).1

Action 8 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed on 

Action 8 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed in or 

Action 8 –

Geophysical 

exploration for oil

and gas would be 

Action 8 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed in or 

Action 8 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be offered on 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-146

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

121 acres (BLM 

1999a).1

within 0.5 miles of 

the NHL site 

boundary.

allowed on existing 

roads and trails.

within 300 feet of 

the ACEC.

320 acres.

Battle Butte

Battlefield ACEC

Action 9 – ROWs

would be excluded 

(BLM 1999a).

Action 9 – ROWs

would be excluded 

in and within 0.5 

miles of the NHL

site boundary.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be avoided.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be excluded.

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

and range 

improvements 

would be allowed 

(BLM 1999a). 

Action 10 – Livestock grazing would be allowed. Range improvements that provided for 

the improvement or maintenance of ecosystem functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or impact the values of the ACEC.

Action 11 – Fire 

would be managed 

by employing 

MIST. Fossil 

values would be 

protected by not 

allowing earthmoving equipment, 

blading of roads, or 

increasing road 

areas. A 

management 

decision would be 

coordinated with 

the resource 

advisor for fire 

management 

activities. Heavy 

equipment use 

would be limited to 

improve the 

condition of 

existing two-track 

Action 11 – Fire would be managed by employing MIST. Values would be protected by 

limiting surface-disturbing activities (e.g., earth-moving equipment, blading of roads, or 

increasing road areas). 

Fire management (e.g., wildfire and prescribed fire) that provided for the improvement or 

maintenance of ecosystem functionality would be allowed as long as the improvements 

would not damage or impact the values of the ACEC.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-147

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

roads for use as fire 

control lines (BLM 

2004g) (see 

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

Battle Butte

Battlefield ACEC

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous 

fuels would be 

allowed (see 

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

Action 12 – Management of forest

products, biomass materials, and hazardous 

fuels would be allowed (see Forestry and 

Woodland Products and Wildland Fire 

Management and Ecology for details).

Forestry management that provided for the 

improvement or maintenance of ecosystem 

functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or 

impact the values of the ACEC.

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

Forestry 

management that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-148

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Battle Butte

Battlefield ACEC

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II

(121 acres) 

objectives.

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(237 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(237 acres).

Action 13 – The

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class III 

(237 acres).

Action 13 – The

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(320 acres).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Reynolds 

Battlefield

ACEC 

Action 1 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on an ACEC and a NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination.

Action 2 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.

Action 3 – OHV use would be limited to the existing roads and trails (BLM 1999a).

Action 4 – Geothermal leasing would not be offered.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Reynolds 

Battlefield ACEC 

Action 5 – The 

Reynolds 

Battlefield would 

continue to be 

designated an 

ACEC (324 surface 

acres). BLM would 

protect relevant 

and important 

resource values 

with special 

management and 

ACEC designation. 

The agency would 

apply special 

management where 

standard or routine 

management would 

be inadequate to 

protect the resource 

values from risks 

and threats of 

Action 5 – An additional 598 acres plus the 324 acres of the existing ACEC (for a total of 

922 acres) would be designated an ACEC and managed as a cultural resource.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-149

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

damage or 

degradation, or to 

protect public 

safety when faced 

with natural 

hazards.

Reynolds 

Battlefield ACEC

Action 6 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

closed on the 324 

acres in existing 

ACEC (BLM 

1985c).

Action 6 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

closed in the NRHPnominated site and 

within 0.5 miles of 

the NRHPnominated site 

boundary.

Action 6 – Limited 

approvals for 

mineral material

development would 

be open (allowed) 

in 922 acres of this 

special use lands 

area (only for the 

purpose of 

constructing and 

maintaining public 

roads or projects) 

only if it could be 

demonstrated that it 

would not be 

economically or 

technologically 

feasible to obtain 

the materials 

elsewhere and only

if the removal and 

reclamation would 

not impair the 

special qualities of 

the resource for 

which the subject 

lands were 

managed.

Action 6 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

open on 922 acres.

Action 6 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

closed on the 922-

acre ACEC.

Action 7 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

Action 7 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

not be offered in or 

Action 7 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

Action 7 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered. Prior to 

Action 7 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-150

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

NSO stipulation

(BLM 1999a) (288 

oil and gas acres).1

within 0.5 miles of 

the NRHPnominated site 

boundary (2,709 oil 

and gas acres). 

NSO stipulation in 

and within 0.5 miles 

of the boundary of 

the 922-acre ACEC 

(2,419 oil and gas

acres).1

surface disturbance, 

a SUPO and an 

archeological site 

mitigation plan 

must be approved 

by the AO for all

surface-disturbing 

activities in and 

within 300 feet of 

the ACEC boundary 

(CSU) (994 oil and 

gas acres).1

NSO stipulation on 

869 oil and gas 

acres.1

Reynolds 

Battlefield ACEC

Action 8 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed on 

324 acres currently 

designated NSO 

(BLM 1985c). 

Action 8 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed in or 

within 0.5 miles of 

the NRHPnominated site 

boundary. 

Action 8 –

Geophysical 

exploration for oil

and gas would be 

allowed on existing 

roads and trails.

Action 8 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed in or 

within 300 feet of 

the boundaries of 

the ACEC.

Action 8 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed on 

922 acres.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be avoided 

(BLM 1985c).

Action 9 – ROWs

would be excluded 

in and within 0.5 

miles of the NRHPnominated site 

boundary.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be avoided.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be avoided.

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

and range 

improvements 

would be allowed 

(BLM 1985c). 

Action 10 – Livestock grazing would be allowed. Range improvements that provided for 

the improvement or maintenance of ecosystem functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or impact the values of the ACEC.

Action 11 – Fire 

would be managed 

by employing 

Action 11 – Fire would be managed by employing MIST. Values would be protected by 

limiting surface-disturbing activities (e.g., earth-moving equipment, blading of roads, or 

increasing road areas). 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-151

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

MIST. Fossil 

values would be 

protected by not 

allowing earthmoving equipment, 

blading of roads, or 

increasing road 

areas. A 

management 

decision would be 

coordinated with 

the resource 

advisor for fire 

management 

activities. Heavy 

equipment use 

would be limited to 

improve the 

condition of 

existing two-track 

roads for use as fire 

control lines (BLM 

2004g) (see 

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

Fire management (e.g., wildfire and prescribed fire) that provided for the improvement or 

maintenance of ecosystem functionality would be allowed as long as the improvements 

would not damage or impact the values of the ACEC.

Reynolds 

Battlefield ACEC

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous 

fuels would be 

allowed (see 

Action 12 – Management of forest

products, biomass materials, and hazardous 

fuels would be allowed (see Forestry and 

Woodland Products and Wildland Fire 

Management and Ecology for details).

Forestry management that provided for the 

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-152

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

improvement or maintenance of ecosystem 

functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or 

impact the values of the ACEC.

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

Forestry 

management that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Reynolds 

Battlefield ACEC

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II

(324 acres) 

objectives.

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(922 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(922 acres)

Action 13 – The 

area would be

managed according 

to VRM Class III 

(922 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(922 acres).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Finger Buttes

ACEC 

Action 1 – Finger Buttes would continue to be designated an ACEC. The BLM would protect relevant and 

important resource values with special management and ACEC designation. 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.

Action 2 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on an ACEC and a NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination.

Action 3 – Mineral material sales and permits would be closed.

Action 4 – Oil and gas leasing would be offered with an NSO stipulation.1
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-153

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Finger Buttes 

ACEC (1,520 

acres) 

Action 5 – OHV use would be limited to the existing roads and trails.

Action 6 – ROWs would be avoided.

Action 7 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.

Action 8 – Geothermal leasing would not be offered.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Finger Buttes 

ACEC (1,520 

acres) 

Action 9 –

Livestock grazing

and range 

improvements 

would be allowed 

(BLM 1985c).

Action 9 – Livestock grazing would be allowed. Range improvements that provided for 

the improvement or maintenance of ecosystem functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or impact the values of the ACEC.

Action 10 – Fire 

would be managed 

by employing 

MIST. Fossil 

values would be 

protected by not 

allowing earthmoving equipment, 

blading of roads, or 

increasing road 

areas. A 

management 

decision would be 

coordinated with 

the resource 

advisor for fire 

management 

activities. Heavy 

equipment use 

would be limited to 

improve the 

condition of 

existing two-track 

roads for use as fire 

control lines (BLM 

Action 10 – Fire would be managed by employing MIST. Values would be protected by 

limiting surface-disturbing activities (e.g., earth-moving equipment, blading of roads, or 

increasing road areas). 

Fire management (e.g., wildfire and prescribed fire) that provided for the improvement or 

maintenance of ecosystem functionality would be allowed as long as the improvements 

would not damage or impact the values of the ACEC.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-154

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

2004g) (see 

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

Finger Buttes 

ACEC (1,520 

acres)

Action 11 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous 

fuels would be 

allowed (see 

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

Action 11 – Management of forest

products, biomass materials, and hazardous 

fuels would be allowed (see Forestry and 

Woodland Products and Wildland Fire 

Management and Ecology for details).

Forestry management that provided for the 

improvement or maintenance of ecosystem 

functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or 

impact the values of the ACEC.

Action 11 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

Action 11 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

Forestry 

management that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Action 12 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed on 

Action 12 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be offered.

Action 12 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed on 

Action 12 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be offered.

Action 12 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be offered.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-155

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

designated roads 

and trails with 

restrictions.

existing roads and 

trails.

Finger Buttes 

ACEC (1,520 

acres)

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(1,520 acres)

objectives.

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(1,520 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(1,520 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class III 

(1,520 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(1,520 acres).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Piping Plover 

ACEC (15 

acres) 

Action 1 – The Piping Plover area would continue to be designated an ACEC. The BLM would protect relevant 

and important resource values with special management and ACEC designation. 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.

Action 2 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on an ACEC and a NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination.

Action 3 – Mineral material sales and permits would be closed.

Action 4 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.

Action 5 – Oil and gas leasing would be offered with an NSO stipulation.1

Action 6 – Geophysical exploration for oil and gas would not be allowed.

Action 7 – OHV use would be limited to the existing roads and trails.

Action 8 – ROWs would be avoided.

Action 9 – Geothermal leasing would not be offered.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Piping Plover

ACEC (15 acres)

Action 10 – Livestock grazing would not be allowed from May 1 

through July 15 (BLM 1996).

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

would be allowed. 

Range 

improvements that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

would not be 

allowed from May 1 

through July 15 

(BLM 1996). Range 

improvements that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-156

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Piping Plover

ACEC (15 acres)

Action 11 – Fire 

would be managed 

by employing 

MIST. Fossil 

values would be 

protected by not 

allowing earthmoving equipment, 

blading of roads, or 

increasing road 

areas. A 

management 

decision would be 

coordinated with 

the resource 

advisor for fire 

management 

activities. Heavy 

equipment use 

would be limited to 

improve the 

condition of 

existing two-track 

roads for use as fire 

control lines (BLM 

2004g) (see 

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Action 11 – Fire would be managed by employing MIST. Values would be protected by 

limiting surface-disturbing activities (e.g., earth-moving equipment, blading of roads, or 

increasing road areas). 

Fire management (e.g., wildfire and prescribed fire) that provided for the improvement or 

maintenance of ecosystem functionality would be allowed as long as the improvements 

would not damage or impact the values of the ACEC.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-157

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

Piping Plover

ACEC (15 acres)

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class IV 

(15 acres) 

objectives.

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II (15

acres).

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class IV 

(15 acres).

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class IV 

(15 acres).

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II (15

acres).

Howrey Island

ACEC (592 acres)

See the Recreation section, under SRMAs and ERMAs, and Howrey Island

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Smoky Butte

ACEC (80 

acres) 

Action 1 – Smoky Butte would continue to be designated an ACEC. The BLM would protect relevant and 

important resource values with special management and ACEC designation. 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.

Action 2 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on an ACEC and a NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination.

Action 3 – Mineral material sales and permits would be closed on the ACEC and surrounding acres.

Action 4 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.

Action 5 – Oil and gas leasing would be offered on the ACEC and surrounding 680 acres with an NSO 

stipulation.1

Action 6 – Geothermal leasing would not be offered.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Smoky Butte

ACEC (80 acres)

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed on 80 

acres (BLM 1996).

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed. 

Action 7 – Geophysical exploration for oil

and gas would be allowed on existing roads 

and trails (approximately 2 miles).

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed.

Action 8 – OHV use would be closed

(BLM 1996).

Action 8 – OHV use would be limited to 

existing roads and trails.

Action 8 – OHV

use would be 

closed.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-158

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Smoky Butte

ACEC (80 acres)

Action 9 – ROWs would be excluded 

subject to prior existing authorization 

(BLM 1996).

Action 9 – ROWs

would be avoided.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be avoided.

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

and range 

improvements 

would be allowed.

Action 10 – Livestock grazing would be allowed. Range improvements that provide for 

the improvement or maintenance of ecosystem functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or impact the values of the ACEC.

Action 11 – Fire 

would be managed 

by employing 

MIST. Fossil 

values would be 

protected by not 

allowing earthmoving equipment, 

blading of roads, or 

increasing road 

areas. A 

management 

decision would be 

coordinated with 

the resource 

advisor for fire 

management 

activities. Heavy 

equipment use 

would be limited to 

improve the 

condition of 

existing two-track 

roads for use as fire 

control lines (BLM 

2004g) (see 

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Action 11 – Fire would be managed by employing MIST. Values would be protected by 

limiting surface-disturbing activities (e.g., earth-moving equipment, blading of roads, or 

increasing road areas). 

Fire management (e.g., wildfire and prescribed fire) that provided for the improvement or 

maintenance of ecosystem functionality would be allowed as long as the improvements 

would not damage or impact the values of the ACEC.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-159

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

Smoky Butte

ACEC (80 acres)

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class IV

objectives (80

acres).

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II (80

acres).

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class III 

(80 acres).

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class IV 

(80 acres).

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class III 

(80 acres).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Black-footed 

Ferret 

Reintroduction 

ACEC (11,221 

acres)

Action 1 – The Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction Area would continue to be designated an ACEC. The BLM 

would protect relevant and important resource values with special management and ACEC designation. 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.

Action 2 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on an ACEC and a NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination.

Action 3 – Mineral material sales and permits would be closed.

Action 4 – Oil and gas leasing would be offered on the ACEC and on the potential black-footed ferret habitat 

with a CSU stipulation.1

Action 5 – OHV use would be limited to the existing roads and trails.

Action 6 – ROWs would be avoided.

Action 7 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.

Action 8 – Geothermal leasing would not be offered.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Black-footed 

Ferret 

Reintroduction 

ACEC (11,221 

acres)

Action 9 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed. 

Action 9 -

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed.

Action 9 – Geophysical exploration would be allowed.

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

would be allowed 

(BLM 1996).

Action 10 – Livestock grazing would be allowed. Range improvements that provided for 

the improvement or maintenance of ecosystem functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or impact the values of the ACEC.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-160

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Black-footed 

Ferret 

Reintroduction 

ACEC (11,221 

acres)

Action 11 – Fire 

would be managed 

by employing 

MIST. Fossil 

values would be 

protected by not 

allowing earthmoving equipment, 

blading of roads, or 

increasing road 

areas. A 

management 

decision would be 

coordinated with 

the resource 

advisor for fire 

management 

activities. Heavy 

equipment use 

would be limited to 

improve the 

condition of 

existing two-track 

roads for use as fire 

control lines (BLM 

2004g) (see 

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

Action 11 – Fire would be managed by employing MIST. Values would be protected by 

limiting surface-disturbing activities (e.g., earth-moving equipment, blading of roads, or 

increasing road areas). 

Fire management (e.g., wildfire and prescribed fire) that provided for the improvement or 

maintenance of ecosystem functionality would be allowed as long as the improvements 

would not damage or impact the values of the ACEC.

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

Action 12 – Management of forest

products, biomass materials, and hazardous 

fuels would be allowed (see Forestry and 

Woodland Products and Wildland Fire 

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-161

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

and hazardous 

fuels would be 

allowed (see 

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

Management and Ecology for details).

Forestry management that provided for the 

improvement or maintenance of ecosystem 

functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or 

impact the values of the ACEC.

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

Forestry 

management that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Black-footed 

Ferret 

Reintroduction 

ACEC (11,221 

acres)

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class I

(overlap with 

WSA, 6,953 acres), 

VRM Class II 

(2,389 acres), and 

VRM Class IV 

(1,879 acres) 

objectives.

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class I

(overlap with WSA, 

6,976 acres) and 

VRM Class II 

(4,245 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class I

(overlap with WSA, 

6,976 acres), VRM

Class II (722 acres), 

VRM Class III 

(3,502 acres), and 

VRM Class IV (21

acres). 

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class I

(overlap with WSA, 

6,976 acres), VRM

Class III (722

acres), and VRM

Class IV (3,523

acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class I

(overlap with WSA,

6,976 acres), VRM

Class II (722 acres), 

VRM Class III 

(3,502 acres), and 

VRM Class IV (21

acres).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Cedar Creek

Battlefield Area 

(1,022 acres)

Action 1 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on an ACEC and a NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination.

Action 2 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-162

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Action 3 – Geothermal leasing would not be offered.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Cedar Creek

Battlefield Area 

(1,022 acres) 

Action 4 – Cedar 

Creek Battlefield

would not be 

designated an 

ACEC and would 

be managed as part 

of the planning 

area.

Action 4 – Cedar Creek Battlefield area would be designated an ACEC (1,022 acres).

Action 5 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

allowed. 

Action 5 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

closed in and within 

1.5 miles of the 

NRHP-nominated 

site boundary.

Action 5 – Limited 

approvals for 

mineral material

development would 

be open in 1,022

acres of this special 

use lands area (only 

for the purpose of 

constructing and 

maintaining public 

roads or projects) 

only if it could be 

demonstrated that it 

would not be 

economically or 

technologically 

feasible to obtain 

the materials 

elsewhere and only 

if the removal and 

reclamation would 

not impair the 

special qualities of 

the resource for 

which the subject 

lands were 

managed.

Action 5 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

open.

Action 5 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

closed in the ACEC 

(1,022 acres).
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-163

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Cedar Creek

Battlefield Area 

(1,022 acres)

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with 

lease terms (1,022 

oil and gas acres).

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

not be offered in or 

within 1.5 miles of 

the NRHPnominated site 

boundary (2,260 oil 

and gas acres). 

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation in 

and within 0.5 miles 

of the 1,022-acre 

ACEC boundary 

(1,884 oil and gas

acres).1

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered. Prior to 

surface disturbance, 

a SUPO and an 

archeological site 

mitigation plan 

must be approved 

by the AO for all 

surface-disturbing 

activities in and 

within 300 feet of 

the ACEC boundary 

(CSU) (1,124 oil 

and gas acres).1

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation in 

the 1,022-acre 

ACEC (1,022 oil 

and gas acres).1

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed on 

1,022 acres. 

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed in or 

within 1.5 miles of 

the NRHPnominated site 

boundary. 

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration for oil

and gas would be 

allowed on existing 

roads and trails 

(approximately 4 

miles).

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed in or 

within 300 feet of 

the boundaries of 

the ACEC.

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed in 

the ACEC (1,022

acres).

Action 8 – OHV

use would be 

limited to the 

existing roads and 

trails 

(approximately 4 

miles). 

Action 8 – OHV use 

would be closed.

Action 8 – OHV use would be limited to 

the existing roads and trails (approximately 

4 miles).

Action 8 – OHV

use would be 

limited to the 

existing roads and 

trails 

(approximately 4 

miles).

Action 9 – ROWs

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be excluded.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be avoided.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be avoided.

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

and range 

improvements 

would be allowed. 

Action 10 – Livestock grazing would be allowed. Range improvements that provided for 

the improvement or maintenance of ecosystem functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or impact the values of the ACEC.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-164

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Cedar Creek

Battlefield Area 

(1,022 acres)

Action 11 – All 

fires would be 

suppressed using 

the management 

response with the 

intent of 

minimizing the loss 

of natural resources 

and improvements, 

protecting cultural 

and historic 

resources, 

preventing fire 

spread onto private 

property, and 

minimizing 

suppression costs.

Action 11 – Fire would be managed by 

employing MIST. Values would be 

protected by limiting surface-disturbing 

activities (e.g., earth-moving equipment, 

blading of roads, or increasing road areas). 

Fire management (e.g., wildfire and 

prescribed fire) that provided for the 

improvement or maintenance of ecosystem 

functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or 

impact the values of the ACEC.

Action 11 – All 

fires would be 

suppressed using 

the management 

response with the 

intent of minimizing 

the loss of natural 

resources and 

improvements, 

protecting cultural 

and historic 

resources, 

preventing fire 

spread onto private 

property, and 

minimizing 

suppression costs.

Action 11 – Fire 

would be managed 

by employing 

MIST. Values 

would be protected 

by limiting surfacedisturbing activities 

(e.g., earth-moving 

equipment, blading 

of roads, or 

increasing road 

areas). 

Fire management 

(e.g., wildfire and 

prescribed fire) that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous 

fuels would be 

allowed (see 

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Action 12 – Management of forest

products, biomass materials, and hazardous 

fuels would be allowed (see Forestry and 

Woodland Products and Wildland Fire 

Management and Ecology for details).

Forestry management that provided for the 

improvement or maintenance of ecosystem 

functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or 

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-165

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

impact the values of the ACEC. Ecology for details). Ecology for details).

Forestry 

management that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Cedar Creek

Battlefield Area 

(1,022 acres)

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class IV

(1,022 acres) 

objectives.

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(1,022 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class III 

(1,022 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class IV 

(1,022 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(1,022 acres).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Flat Creek

Paleontological 

Area (547 acres) 

Action 1 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on an ACEC and a NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination.

Action 2 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.

Action 3 – Geothermal leasing would not be offered.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Flat Creek

Paleontological 

Area (547 acres) 

(Map 46) 

Action 4 – Flat 

Creek

Paleontological 

area (547 acres) 

area would not be 

designated an 

ACEC and would 

be managed as part 

Action 4 – Flat Creek Paleontological area (547 acres) would be designated an ACEC.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-166

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

of the planning 

area except for the 

50 acres designated 

no surfacedisturbing 

activities allowed.

Flat Creek

Paleontological 

Area (547 acres) 

(Map 46)

Action 5 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

allowed on the 547 

acres of the 

proposed ACEC. 

Action 5 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

closed on the 547 

acres of the 

proposed ACEC.

Action 5 – Limited 

approvals for 

mineral material

development would 

be open within 547 

acres of this special 

use lands area (only 

for the purpose of 

constructing and 

maintaining public 

roads or projects) 

only if it could be 

demonstrated that it 

would not be 

economically or 

technologically 

feasible to obtain 

the materials 

elsewhere and only 

if the removal and 

reclamation would 

not impair the 

special qualities of 

the resource for 

which the subject 

lands were 

managed.

Action 5 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

open except for the 

50 acres designated 

no surfacedisturbing activities 

allowed.

Action 5 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

closed on the 547 

acres of the 

proposed ACEC.

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with 

lease terms except 

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

not be offered on the 

547 acres of the 

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation in 

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with a 

CSU. Prior to 

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation in 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-167

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

on 50 acres 

designated NSO 

for oil and gas (497 

oil and gas acres).1

proposed ACEC

(547 oil and gas

acres). 

and within 0.5 miles 

of the ACEC 

boundary (2,138 oil 

and gas acres).1

surface disturbance, 

a SUPO and a 

paleontological 

localities mitigation 

plan must be 

approved by the AO 

for all surfacedisturbing activities 

in and within 300 

feet of 

paleontological 

localities within the 

boundaries of the 

ACEC except for 

the 50 acres 

designated no 

surface-disturbing 

activities allowed 

(254 oil and gas

acres).

the ACEC (547 oil 

and gas acres).1

Flat Creek

Paleontological 

Area (547 acres) 

(Map 46)

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed except 

on 50 acres 

designated NSO.1

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed.

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration for oil

and gas would be 

allowed on existing 

roads and trails 

(approximately 2 

miles) except on 50 

acres designated no 

surface-disturbing 

activities allowed.

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed in or

within 300 feet of 

paleontological 

localities within the 

boundaries of the 

ACEC except on 50 

acres designated no 

surface-disturbing 

activities allowed.

1

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed.

Action 8 – OHV

use would be 

limited to the 

Action 8 – OHV use would be closed. Action 8 – OHV

use would be 

limited to the 

Action 8 – OHV

use would be 

limited to the 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-168

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

existing roads and 

trails 

(approximately 2 

miles). 

existing roads and 

trails 

(approximately 2 

miles).

existing roads and 

trails 

(approximately 2 

miles).

Flat Creek

Paleontological 

Area (547 acres) 

(Map 46)

Action 9 – ROWs

would be allowed 

except on 50 acres 

designated no 

surface-disturbing 

activities allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be excluded.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be avoided 

except on 50 acres 

designated no 

surface-disturbing 

activities allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be allowed 

except on 50 acres 

designated no 

surface-disturbing 

activities allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be avoided.

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

and range 

improvements 

would be allowed.

Action 10– Livestock grazing would be allowed. Range improvements that provided for 

the improvement or maintenance of ecosystem functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or impact the values of the ACEC.

Action 11 – All 

fires would be 

suppressed using 

the management 

response with the 

intent of 

minimizing the loss 

of natural resources 

and improvements, 

protecting cultural 

and historic 

resources, 

preventing fire 

spread onto private 

property, and 

minimizing 

suppression costs.

Action 11 – Fire would be managed by 

employing MIST. Values would be 

protected by limiting surface-disturbing 

activities (e.g., earth-moving equipment, 

blading of roads, or increasing road areas). 

Fire management (e.g., wildfire and 

prescribed fire) that provided for the 

improvement or maintenance of ecosystem 

functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or 

impact the values of the ACEC.

Action 11 – All 

fires would be 

suppressed using 

the management 

response with the 

intent of minimizing 

the loss of natural

resources and 

improvements, 

protecting cultural 

and historic 

resources, 

preventing fire 

spread onto private 

property, and 

minimizing 

suppression costs.

Action 11 – Fire 

would be managed 

by employing 

MIST. Values 

would be protected 

by limiting surfacedisturbing activities 

(e.g., earth-moving 

equipment, blading 

of roads, or 

increasing road 

areas). 

Fire management 

(e.g., wildfire and 

prescribed fire) that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-169

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Flat Creek

Paleontological 

Area (547 acres) 

(Map 46)

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class IV

(547 acres) 

objectives.

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(547 acres).

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class III 

(497 acres) and 

VRM Class IV (50

acres).

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class IV 

(547 acres).

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class III 

(497 acres) and 

VRM Class IV (50 

acres).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Powderville

Paleontological 

Area 

Action 1 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on an ACEC and a NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination.

Action 2 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.

Action 3 – Geothermal leasing would not be offered.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Powderville

Paleontological 

Area

Action 4 –

Powderville

Paleontological 

Area would not be 

designated an 

ACEC and would 

be managed as part 

of the planning 

area (29,571 BLMadministered 

surface acres).

Action 4 – Powderville Paleontological Area would be designated 

an ACEC (27,151 BLM-administered surface acres).

Action 4 –

Powderville

Paleontological 

Area would be 

designated an 

ACEC (9,518 

acres).

Action 5 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

allowed. 

Action 5 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

closed.

Action 5 – Limited 

approvals for 

mineral material

development would 

be open within 

27,151 acres of this 

Action 5 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

open.

Action 5 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

closed.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-170

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

special use lands 

area (only for the 

purpose of 

constructing and 

maintaining public 

roads or projects) 

only if it could be 

demonstrated that it 

would not be 

economically or 

technologically 

feasible to obtain 

the materials 

elsewhere, and only 

if the removal and 

reclamation would 

not impair the 

special qualities of 

the resource for 

which the subject 

lands were 

managed.

Powderville

Paleontological 

Area

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with 

lease terms (29,571 

oil and gas acres). 

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

not be offered on the 

ACEC and 

surrounding lands 

(29,156 oil and gas

acres) (Map 47). 

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation on 

the ACEC and 

surrounding lands 

(29,156 oil and gas

acres) (Map 47).1

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered. Prior to 

surface disturbance, 

a SUPO and a 

paleontological 

localities mitigation 

plan must be 

approved by the AO 

for all surfacedisturbing activities 

in or within 300 feet 

of paleontological 

localities within the 

boundaries of the 

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation 

(9,310 oil and gas

acres).1
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-171

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

ACEC (CSU) (78 

oil and gas acres).1

Powderville

Paleontological 

Area

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed. 

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed. 

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration for oil

and gas would be 

allowed on existing 

roads and trails 

(approximately 86 

miles). 

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed in or

within 300 feet of 

paleontological 

localities within the 

boundaries of the 

ACEC.

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed.

Action 8 – OHV

use would be 

limited to the 

existing roads and 

trails 

(approximately 86 

miles). 

Action 8 – OHV use 

would be closed.

Action 8 – OHV use would be limited to 

the existing roads and trails (approximately 

86 miles).

Action 8 – OHV

use would be 

limited to existing 

roads and trails.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be excluded.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be avoided.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be avoided.

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

and range 

improvements 

would be allowed. 

Action 10 – Livestock grazing would be allowed. Range improvements that provided for 

the improvement or maintenance of ecosystem functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or impact the values of the ACEC.

Action 11 – All 

fires would be 

suppressed using 

the management 

response with the 

intent of 

minimizing the loss 

of natural resources 

and improvements, 

protecting cultural 

and historic 

resources, 

Action 11 – Fire would be managed by 

employing MIST. Values would be 

protected by limiting surface-disturbing 

activities (e.g., earth-moving equipment, 

blading of roads, or increasing road areas). 

Fire management (e.g., wildfire and 

prescribed fire) that provided for the 

improvement or maintenance of ecosystem 

functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or 

impact the values of the ACEC.

Action 11 – All 

fires would be 

suppressed using 

the management 

response with the 

intent of minimizing 

the loss of natural

resources and 

improvements, 

protecting cultural 

and historic 

resources, 

Action 11 – Fire 

would be managed 

by employing 

MIST. Values 

would be protected 

by limiting surfacedisturbing activities 

(e.g., earth-moving 

equipment, blading 

of roads, or 

increasing road 

areas). 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-172

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

preventing fire 

spread onto private 

property, and 

minimizing 

suppression costs.

preventing fire 

spread onto private 

property, and 

minimizing 

suppression costs.

Fire management 

(e.g., wildfire and 

prescribed fire) that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values

of the ACEC.

Powderville

Paleontological 

Area

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous 

fuels would be 

allowed (see 

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

Action 12 – Management of forest

products, biomass materials, and hazardous 

fuels would be allowed (see Forestry and 

Woodland Products and Wildland Fire 

Management and Ecology for details).

Forestry management that provided for the 

improvement or maintenance of ecosystem 

functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or 

impact the values of the ACEC.

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

Forestry 

management that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-173

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Powderville

Paleontological 

Area

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class III 

(7,075 acres) and 

VRM Class IV 

(20,076 acres) 

objectives.

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(27,151 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(24,308 acres) and 

VRM Class III 

(2,843 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class III 

(24,308 acres) and 

VRM Class IV 

(2,843 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(6,673 acres) and 

VRM Class III 

(2,845 acres).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Long Medicine 

Wheel Area

(179 acres)

Action 1 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on an ACEC and a NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination.

Action 2 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.

Action 3 – Geothermal leasing would not be offered.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Long Medicine 

Wheel Area (179 

acres)

Action 4 – Long 

Medicine Wheel

area (179 acres) 

would not be 

designated an 

ACEC and would 

be managed as part 

of the planning 

area.

Action 4 – 179 acres of the Long Medicine Wheel area would be designated an ACEC.

Action 5 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

allowed. 

Action 5 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

closed in the 179 

acres of proposed 

ACEC and within 

0.5 miles of the site 

boundary.

Action 5 – Limited 

approvals for 

mineral material

development would 

be open within 179 

acres of this special 

use lands area (only 

for the purpose of 

constructing and 

Action 5 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

open.

Action 5 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

closed on the 179 

acres of the 

proposed ACEC.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-174

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

maintaining public 

roads or projects) 

only if it could be 

demonstrated that it 

would not be 

economically or 

technologically 

feasible to obtain 

the materials 

elsewhere and only 

if the removal and 

reclamation would 

not impair the 

special qualities of 

the resource for 

which the subject 

lands were 

managed.

Long Medicine 

Wheel Area (179 

acres)

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with 

lease terms (179 oil 

and gas acres). 

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

not be offered in or 

within 0.5 miles of 

the ACEC boundary

(1,056 oil and gas

acres). 

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation in 

and within 0.5 miles 

of the boundary of 

the 179-acre ACEC 

(1,056 oil and gas

acres).1

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered. Prior to 

surface disturbance, 

a SUPO and an 

archeological site 

mitigation plan 

must be approved 

by the AO for all 

surface-disturbing 

activities in or 

within 300 feet of 

archeological sites 

and paleontological 

localities within the 

boundaries of the 

ACEC (CSU) (44 

oil and gas acres).1

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation in 

the ACEC (179 oil 

and gas acres).1
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-175

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed. 

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed in or 

within 0.5 miles of 

the site boundary. 

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration for oil

and gas would be 

allowed on existing 

roads and trails.

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed in or 

within 300 feet of 

archeological sites 

and paleontological 

localities within the 

boundaries of the 

ACEC.

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed in 

the 179 acres of the 

proposed ACEC.

Long Medicine 

Wheel Area (179 

acres)

Action 8 – OHV

use would be 

limited to the 

existing roads and 

trails.

Action 8 – OHV use 

would be closed.

Action 8 – OHV use would be limited to 

the existing roads and trails.

Action 8 – OHV

use would be 

closed.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be excluded.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be avoided.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be excluded.

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

in the Long 

Medicine Wheel

ACEC, consisting 

of 179 acres (34 

AUMs), within the 

Antelope Hill AMP 

Allotment

(#00279) (T. 25 N., 

R. 46 E., sec. 3 and 

4) would be 

allowed.

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

would be closed 

(would not be 

allowed) on 179 

acres (34 AUMs) of 

the Long Medicine 

Wheel ACEC. 

Range 

improvements that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

would be closed in a 

portion of the 

ACEC on 25 acres 

(5 AUMs). Range 

improvements that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

would be closed in a 

portion of the 

ACEC on 5 acres (1 

AUM). Range 

improvements that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing in 

the Long Medicine 

Wheel ACEC, 

consisting of 179 

acres (34 AUMs), 

within the Antelope 

Hill AMP

Allotment (#00279) 

(T. 25 N., R. 46 E., 

sec. 3 and 4) would 

be allowed.

Range 

improvements that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-176

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Long Medicine 

Wheel Area (179 

acres)

Action 11 – All 

fires would be 

suppressed using 

the management 

response with the 

intent of 

minimizing the loss 

of natural resources 

and improvements, 

protecting cultural 

and historic 

resources, 

preventing fire 

spread onto private 

property, and 

minimizing 

suppression costs.

Action 11 – Fire would be managed by 

employing MIST. Values would be 

protected by limiting surface-disturbing 

activities (e.g., earth-moving equipment, 

blading of roads, or increasing road areas). 

Fire management (e.g., wildfire and 

prescribed fire) that provided for the 

improvement or maintenance of ecosystem 

functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or 

impact the values of the ACEC.

Action 11 – All 

fires would be 

suppressed using 

the management 

response with the 

intent of minimizing 

the loss of natural

resources and 

improvements, 

protecting cultural 

and historic 

resources, 

preventing fire 

spread onto private 

property, and 

minimizing 

suppression costs.

Action 11 – Fire 

would be managed 

by employing 

MIST. Values 

would be protected 

by limiting surfacedisturbing activities 

(e.g., earth-moving 

equipment, blading 

of roads, or 

increasing road 

areas). 

Fire management 

(e.g., wildfire and 

prescribed fire) that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

Action 12 – The 

area would be 

managed according 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-177

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

to VRM Class IV 

(179 acres) 

objectives.

to VRM Class II 

(179 acres).

to VRM Class IV 

(179 acres).

to VRM Class IV 

(179 acres).

to VRM Class II 

(179 acres).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Walstein Area

(2,054 acres)

Action 1 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on an ACEC and a NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination.

Action 2 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.

Action 3 – Geothermal leasing would not be offered.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Walstein Area 

(2,054 acres) 

Action 4 –

Walstein Area 

would not be 

designated an 

ACEC and would 

be managed as part 

of the planning 

area.

Action 4 – Walstein Area would be designated an ACEC.

Action 5 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

allowed. 

Action 5 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

closed.

Action 5 – Limited 

approvals for 

mineral material

development would 

be open in 2,054

acres of this special 

use lands area (only 

for the purpose of 

constructing and 

maintaining public 

roads or projects) 

only if it could be 

demonstrated that it 

would not be 

economically or 

technologically 

feasible to obtain 

the materials 

Action 5 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

open.

Action 5 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

closed.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-178

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

elsewhere and only 

if the removal and 

reclamation would 

not impair the 

special qualities of 

the resource for 

which the subject 

lands were 

managed.

Walstein Area 

(2,054 acres)

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with 

lease terms (2,017 

oil and gas acres).

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

not be offered 

(2,017 oil and gas

acres). 

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation in 

and within 0.5 miles 

of the boundary of 

the ACEC (3,313 

oil and gas acres).1

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered. Prior to 

surface disturbance, 

a SUPO and an 

archeological site 

mitigation plan 

must be approved 

by the AO for all 

surface-disturbing 

activities in and 

within 300 feet of 

archeological sites 

and paleontological 

localities within the 

boundaries of the 

ACEC (CSU) (236 

oil and gas acres).1

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation in 

the ACEC (2,017 

oil and gas acres).

1

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed. 

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed. 

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed on 

existing roads and 

trails.

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed in or 

within 300 feet of 

archeological sites 

and paleontological 

localities within the 

boundaries of the 

ACEC.

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed except 

in archeological 

sites within the 

ACEC. 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-179

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Walstein Area 

(2,054 acres)

Action 8 – OHV

use would be 

limited to the 

existing roads and 

trails. 

Action 8 – OHV use 

would be closed.

Action 8 – OHV use would be limited to 

the existing roads and trails.

Action 8 – OHV

use would be 

closed.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be excluded.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be avoided.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be avoided.

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

in the Walstein

area within the 

Boggs Allotment

(#00353), 

consisting of 2,054

acres, would 

continue to be 

allowed. 

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

would not be 

allowed on 14 acres 

(2 AUMs). Range 

improvements that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

would not be 

allowed on 2 acres 

(1 AUM). Range 

improvements that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing in 

the Walstein area 

within the Boggs 

Allotment (#00353), 

consisting of 2,054

acres, would 

continue to be 

allowed. Range 

improvements that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing in 

the Walstein area 

within the Boggs 

Allotment (#00353), 

consisting of 2,053 

acres, would 

continue to be 

allowed. 

Range 

improvements that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Action 11 – All 

fires would be 

suppressed using 

the management 

response with the 

intent of 

minimizing the loss 

Action 11 – Fire would be managed by 

employing MIST. Values would be 

protected by limiting surface-disturbing 

activities (e.g., earth-moving equipment, 

blading of roads, or increasing road areas). 

Fire management (e.g., wildfire and 

Action 11 – All 

fires would be 

suppressed using 

the management 

response with the 

intent of minimizing 

the loss of natural 

Action 11 – Fire 

would be managed 

by employing 

MIST. Values 

would be protected 

by limiting surfacedisturbing activities 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-180

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

of natural resources 

and improvements, 

protecting cultural 

and historic 

resources, 

preventing fire 

spread onto private 

property, and 

minimizing 

suppression costs.

prescribed fire) that provided for the 

improvement or maintenance of ecosystem 

functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or 

impact the values of the ACEC.

resources and 

improvements, 

protecting cultural 

and historic 

resources, 

preventing fire 

spread onto private 

property, and 

minimizing 

suppression costs.

(e.g., earth-moving 

equipment, blading 

of roads, or 

increasing road 

areas). 

Fire management 

(e.g., wildfire and 

prescribed fire) that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Walstein Area 

(2,054 acres)

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous 

fuels would be 

allowed (see 

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

Action 12 – Management of forest

products, biomass materials, and hazardous 

fuels would be allowed (see (see Forestry 

and Woodland Products and Wildland Fire 

Management and Ecology for details).

Forestry management that provided for the 

improvement or maintenance of ecosystem 

functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or 

impact the values of the ACEC.

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 

(see Forestry and 

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

Forestry 

management that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-181

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Walstein Area 

(2,054 acres)

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class IV 

(2,054 acres) 

objectives.

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(2,054 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class III 

(602 acres) and 

VRM Class IV 

(1,452 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class IV 

(2,054 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II 

(2,054 acres).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Yonkee Area

(40 acres)

Action 1 – If mining claims were staked for locatable minerals on an ACEC and a NOI and POD submitted, the 

BLM would conduct an examination on the subject claims to determine the validity of the claims. A decision to 

withdraw the lands from mineral entry would be made based on the outcome of the validity examination.

Action 2 – All previous coal leasing decisions would be carried forward. The coal screening process would be 

applied in response to a leasing request.

Action 3 – Geothermal leasing would not be offered.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Yonkee Area (40 

acres)

Action 4 – Yonkee

Area would not be 

designated an 

ACEC and would 

be managed as part 

of the planning 

area.

Action 4 – The Yonkee Area would be designated an ACEC.

Action 5 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

allowed. 

Action 5 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

closed in the 40 

acres and within 0.5 

miles of the site 

boundary.

Action 5 – Limited 

approvals for 

mineral material

development would 

be open within 40 

acres of this special 

use lands area (only 

Action 5 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

allowed.

Action 5 – Mineral 

material sales and 

permits would be 

closed on the 40 

acres of proposed 

ACEC.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-182

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

for the purpose of 

constructing and 

maintaining public 

roads or projects) 

only if it could be 

demonstrated that it 

would not be 

economically or 

technologically 

feasible to obtain 

the materials 

elsewhere and only 

if the removal and 

reclamation would 

not impair the 

special qualities of 

the resource for 

which the subject 

lands were 

managed.

Yonkee Area (40 

acres)

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with 

lease terms (40 oil 

and gas acres).

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

not be offered in or 

within 0.5 miles of 

the boundary of the 

40-acre ACEC site 

boundary (774 oil 

and gas acres). 

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation in 

and within 0.5 miles 

of the boundary of 

the 40-acre ACEC 

(774 oil and gas

acres).1

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered. Prior to 

surface disturbance, 

a SUPO and an 

archeological site 

mitigation plan 

must be approved 

by the AO for all 

surface-disturbing 

activities in and 

within 300 feet of 

archeological sites 

within the 

boundaries of the 

ACEC (CSU) (18 

oil and gas acres).1

Action 6 – Oil and 

gas leasing would 

be offered with an 

NSO stipulation in 

the ACEC (40 oil 

and gas acres).1
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-183

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

be allowed. 

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed in 

the 40 acres or 

within 0.5 miles of 

the site boundary. 

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration for oil

and gas would be 

allowed on existing 

roads and trails.

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed in or 

within 300 feet of 

archeological sites 

within the 

boundaries of the 

ACEC.

Action 7 –

Geophysical 

exploration would 

not be allowed in 

the 40 acres of the 

proposed ACEC.

Yonkee Area (40 

acres)

Action 8 – OHV

use would be 

limited to the 

existing roads and 

trails. 

Action 8 – OHV use 

would be closed.

Action 8 – OHV use would be limited to 

the existing roads and trails.

Action 8 – OHV

use would be 

closed.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be excluded.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be avoided.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be allowed.

Action 9 – ROWs

would be excluded.

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

in the Yonkee site 

within the FTY 

Ranch Allotment

(#010297) 

consisting of 40 

acres and 5 AUMs 

(T. 8 S., R. 46 E., 

sec. 13) would be 

allowed.

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

would be closed 

(would not be 

allowed) on 40 acres 

(5 AUMs) of the 

entire Yonkee

ACEC.

Range 

improvements that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

would be closed in a 

portion of the 

ACEC consisting of 

22 acres (3 AUMs). 

Range 

improvements that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing

would be closed in a 

portion of the 

ACEC consisting of 

9 acres (1 AUM). 

Range 

improvements that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Action 10 –

Livestock grazing in 

the Yonkee site 

within the FTY 

Ranch Allotment

(#010297) 

consisting of 40 

acres and 5 AUMs 

(T. 8 S., R. 46 E., 

sec. 13) would be

allowed.

Range 

improvements that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-184

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Yonkee Area (40 

acres)

Action 11 – All 

fires would be 

suppressed using 

the management 

response with the 

intent of 

minimizing the loss 

of natural resources 

and improvements, 

protecting cultural 

and historic 

resources, 

preventing fire 

spread onto private 

property, and 

minimizing 

suppression costs.

Action 11 – Fire would be managed by 

employing MIST. Values would be 

protected by limiting surface-disturbing 

activities (e.g., earth-moving equipment, 

blading of roads, or increasing road areas). 

Fire management (e.g., wildfire and 

prescribed fire) that provided for the 

improvement or maintenance of ecosystem 

functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or 

impact the values of the ACEC.

Action 11 – All 

fires would be 

suppressed using 

the management 

response with the 

intent of minimizing 

the loss of natural 

resources and 

improvements, 

protecting cultural 

and historic 

resources, 

preventing fire 

spread onto private 

property, and 

minimizing 

suppression costs.

Action 11 – Fire 

would be managed 

by employing 

MIST. Values 

would be protected 

by limiting surfacedisturbing activities 

(e.g., earth-moving 

equipment, blading 

of roads, or 

increasing road 

areas). 

Fire management 

(e.g., wildfire and 

prescribed fire) that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous 

fuels would be 

Action 12 – Management of forest

products, biomass materials, and hazardous 

fuels would be allowed (see Forestry and 

Woodland Products and Wildland Fire 

Management and Ecology for details).

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 

Action 12 –

Management of 

forest products, 

biomass materials, 

and hazardous fuels 

would be allowed 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-185

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

allowed (see 

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products and 

Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for 

details).

Forestry management that provided for the 

improvement or maintenance of ecosystem 

functionality would be allowed as long as 

the improvements would not damage or 

impact the values of the ACEC.

(see Forestry and 

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

(see Forestry and 

Woodland Products

and Wildland Fire 

Management and 

Ecology for details).

Forestry 

management that 

provided for the 

improvement or 

maintenance of 

ecosystem 

functionality would 

be allowed as long 

as the 

improvements 

would not damage 

or impact the values 

of the ACEC.

Yonkee Area (40 

acres)

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class IV 

(40 acres) 

objectives.

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II (40 

acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II (40 

acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class III 

(40 acres).

Action 13 – The 

area would be 

managed according 

to VRM Class II (40 

acres).

GREATER 

SAGEGROUSE 

AREA

Objective 1 – Protect greater sage-grouse priority habitat.

MANAGEMENT BY ALTERNATIVE

Greater Sagegrouse Area

Action 1 – No 

areas would be 

designated an 

ACEC for sagegrouse. 

Action 1 – Sagegrouse Habitat –

Protection Priority 

Areas would be 

designated an 

ACEC (1,300,000 

Action 1 – Sagegrouse Habitat –

Protection Priority 

Areas would not be 

designated an 

ACEC. These areas 

Action 1 – Sagegrouse Habitat –

Protection Priority 

Areas would not be 

designated an 

ACEC. These areas 

Action 1 – Sagegrouse Habitat –

Protection Priority 

Areas would not be 

designated an 

ACEC. These areas 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-186

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

BLM-administered 

acres) to protect 

priority habitat for 

sage-grouse (Map 

7). See Sage-grouse

Habitat – Protection 

Priority Areas for 

specific 

management to 

protect habitat and 

minimize 

fragmentation in 

these areas.

would be managed 

according to actions 

described under 

Sage-grouse

Habitat –

Protection Priority 

Areas.

would be managed 

according to actions 

described under 

Sage-grouse

Habitat –

Protection Priority 

Areas.

would be managed 

according to actions 

described under 

Sage-grouse

Habitat –

Protection Priority 

Areas.

BACK COUNTRY BYWAYS

Goal 1 – Manage current and future back country byways in partnership with communities, interest groups, and state and federal 

agencies.

Back Country 

Byways

Objective 1 – Enhance back country byway visitor experiences through interpretation.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Back Country 

Byways

Action 1 – Continue to manage the Big Sky Back Country Byway to enhance visitor experiences while 

evaluating future roads for potential inclusion as back country byways (Map 48).

NATIONAL TRAILS

Goal 1 – Assist in cooperative efforts to manage current and future national trails to protect values for which they were designated.

Goal 2 – Safeguard the nature and purpose and conserve, protect, and restore the National Trail resources, qualities, values, associated 

settings and primary use or uses of national trails.

National Trails 

Objective 1 – Protect and enhance national trail values based on trail characteristics.

Objective 2 – Provide premier trail visitor experiences for public benefit.

Objective 3 – Maximize opportunities for shared national trail stewardship.

Objective 4 – Reduce the potential for uses that substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the 

national trail.

Objective 5 – Avoidance of activities that are incompatible with the purposes for which the national trail was 

established.

Objective 6 – Identify and manage high potential historic sites or high potential route segments, including the 

recommendation of additional federal protection components.

Objective 7 – Strive to restore altered landscapes to an identified trail-era condition.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-187

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

Objective 8 – Conserve, protect, and restore landscape elements that are evocative of the period of use to the 

extent allowed by law.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

National Trails

Action 1 – See the Lewis and Clark SRMA section for management of the Lewis and Clark National Historic 

Trail (Map 49).

Action 2 – Expand opportunities to interpret trail resources both on and offsite.

WILDERNESS

Goal 1 – Manage WSAs so as not to impair their suitability for preservation as wilderness until Congress either designates them as 

wilderness or releases them from further study.

Wilderness Objective 1 – Protect and preserve the wilderness characteristics of the existing WSAs (naturalness, solitude, 

and outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation).

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Wilderness 

Action 1 – Maintain the wilderness values of the seven WSAs (Billy Creek (3,409 acres), Bridge Coulee (6,024 

acres), Buffalo Creek (5,644 acres), Musselshell Breaks (8,547 acres), Seven Blackfoot (20,151 acres), Terry

Badlands (42,874 acres), and Zook Creek (8,451 acres) to preserve or enhance their primitive characteristics. 

WSAs would be managed in accordance with BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas, or 

until acted upon by Congress. In the future, should any WSA, in whole or in part, be released from wilderness 

consideration, such released lands will be managed in accordance with the goals, objectives, and management 

prescriptions established in this RMP.

Action 2 – Lands acquired within WSAs would be managed like adjacent lands.

Action 3 – Closed routes will be rehabilitated or converted into non-mechanized trails.

Action 4 – Provide public access to WSAs through voluntary public access easements across private land or 

roads.

Action 5 – MIST would be used for all suppression efforts. A resource advisor would be assigned to all fires that 

occurred within a WSA.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC

Goal 1 – Provide for a diverse array of activities or conditions that result in social benefits while minimizing negative effects.

Goal 2 – Provide for a diverse array of stable economic opportunities in an environmentally sound manner.

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Social and 

Economic

Action 1 – The BLM would assess impacts of project proposals on a case-by-case basis.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Goal 1 – Identify and correct or revise, to the extent possible, disproportionate negative effects to minority or low-income populations in 

accordance with Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations (February 11, 1994).
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-188

TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Resource or 

Resource Use

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

(Preferred)

MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Environmental 

Justice

Action 1 – The BLM would assess the impacts of project proposals on a case-by-case basis.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE

Goal 1 – Protect humans and the environment from exposure to hazardous materials.

Hazardous

Materials and 

Waste

Action 1 – The BLM would ensure compliance with all appropriate laws and regulations regarding hazardous 

materials and wastes.

Action 2 – The BLM would respond to hazardous material incidents and sites by applying standard operating

procedures.

Action 3 – The BLM would conduct cleanups and reclamation in accordance with the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300).

Action 4 – The BLM would ensure protection of public and environmental health and safety on BLMadministered facilities, compliance with applicable federal and state laws, and prevention of waste contamination 

resulting from any BLM-authorized actions.

Action 5 – The BLM would minimize future hazardous material contamination and its associated risks, costs, 

and liabilities on public lands in authorizing activities.

Action 6 – The BLM would protect the health and safety of public land users when authorizing actions.

Action 7 – Prior to the BLM acquiring land through purchase, exchange, or withdrawal relinquishment, the area 

shall be inventoried for hazardous substances or contamination in accordance with USDI policy.

Action 8 – The BLM would not acquire any contaminated real estate, except at the direction of Congress or for 

good cause in compliance with USDI policy.

Action 9 – Cleanup of any accidental or intentional spill or release of potentially hazardous substances on public 

land would be in cooperation with the MDEQ.

 

1

See the Minerals Appendix, Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations.

2

See the Best Management Practices Appendix.

3

Site productivity maintained or restored, surface runoff and sedimentation adequately controlled, on- and off-site areas protected from accelerated erosion by wind 

or water, and surface-disturbing activities prohibited during extended wet periods.

4 No other practicable alternative exists; the unique biological and hydrological features associated with floodplains would be protected or restored; natural and 

beneficial values of floodplains would be preserved or enhanced; human safety, health, and welfare (associated with the risk of flood loss) would not be adversely 

affected; floodplains, streambanks, and waterbodies would be protected from accelerated erosion (such as rilling, gullying, piping, and mass wasting) and 

sedimentation; impacts to water quality and quantity would be at acceptable levels and in conformance with state and federal laws; native woody riparian species 

would be protected or restored in areas in which they existed prior to disturbance; and surface-disturbing activities would be prohibited during extended wet periods.

5Waterbodies could not be avoided; the unique biological and hydrological features associated with waterbodies would be protected or restored; floodplains, 

streambanks, and waterbodies would be protected from accelerated erosion (such as downcutting, rilling, gullying, piping, and mass wasting) and sedimentation; 

channel morphology would not be adversely affected; impacts to water quality and quantity would be at acceptable levels and in conformance with state and federal 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-189

 

laws; native woody riparian species would be protected or restored in areas in which they existed prior to disturbance; and surface-disturbing activities would be 

prohibited during wet periods.

6The unique biological and hydrological features associated with riparian areas and wetlands would be protected or restored; surface-disturbing activities prohibited 

during extended wet periods; riparian areas, wetlands, streambanks, and waterbodies would be protected from accelerated erosion (such as rilling, gullying, piping, 

and mass wasting) and sedimentation; water quality and quantity would be in conformance with state and federal water quality laws; and woody species would be 

protected or restored in areas in which they existed prior to disturbance.

7Noise (measured at sport-fish reservoirs) from permanent facilities would not exceed a maximum of 49 decibels. Methods to accomplish this may include but are not 

limited to the following: mufflers on gas-powered pumpjacks; and electric-powered pumpjacks. Permanent facilities would apply mitigating measures to minimize the 

visual contrast within the landscape of the sport-fish reservoir. Methods to accomplish this may include, but are not limited to, using topographic or vegetative 

screening, matching color tones of facilities with the surrounding topographic features, orienting the well pad or facilities to minimize size and movement, and using 

only standard size production facilities. Impacts to water quality and quantity would be at acceptable levels and comply with state and federal laws, streambanks 

(tributaries to the reservoir, which includes ephemeral and intermittent channels) and reservoir banks would be protected from erosion and sedimentation; and native 

woody riparian species would be protected or restored in areas in which they existed prior to disturbance.

8

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would prevent or minimize disturbance to sage-grouse or their habitat. Except as identified above or during emergency 

situations, activities would not compromise the habitat. Water developments would be managed to reduce the spread of West Nile virus within sage-grouse habitat 

areas. Linear ROWs would be sited or minimized to reduce disturbance to sagebrush habitat. Placement of new utility developments (e.g., power lines, pipelines) and 

transportation routes would be encouraged in existing utility or transportation corridors. Power lines would be buried, eliminated, designed, or sited in a manner that 

did not impact sage-grouse. Placement of other high-profile structures, exceeding 10 feet in height, would be eliminated, designed, or sited in a manner that did not 

impact sage-grouse. Remote monitoring of production facilities must be utilized and all permit applications must contain a plan to reduce the frequency of vehicle use. 

The area of interim reclamation on long-term access roads and well pads (including reshaping, topsoiling, and revegetating cut and fill slopes) would be maximized. 

Disturbed areas would be restored at final reclamation to pre-disturbance conditions or a desired plant community. Permanent (those remaining longer than 2 months) 

structures that create movement must be designed or sited to minimize impacts to sage-grouse. Use of off-site mitigation (e.g., creation of sagebrush habitat), or the 

purchase of conservation easements (with proponent dollars to) would be considered to offset habitat losses. Creation of a Mitigation Trust Account would be considered 

when impacts could not be avoided, minimized, or effectively mitigated through other means. If approved by the BLM, the proponent may contribute funding to maintain 

habitat based on the estimated cost of habitat treatments or other mitigation needed to maintain affected habitats. The preferred approach is for the proponent to fund 

and arrange the implementation of successful mitigation after consultation with the appropriate state wildlife agency and BLM. The primary emphasis of offsite mitigation 

is to maintain habitat for the affected sage-grouse population as close to the impact site as possible. Off-site mitigation should only be considered when no feasible options 

are available to mitigate adequately (within and immediately adjacent to the affected site) or when the off-site location would provide more effective mitigation of the 

impact than could be achieved onsite.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-190

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE

Air Resources and 

Climate

Alternative A would 

allow new oil and 

gas development of 

up to 100% of the 

RFD and potentially 

result in the greatest 

criteria air pollutant 

and HAP emissions, 

as well as the 

greatest impacts to 

ambient air pollutant 

concentrations and 

AQRVs. However, 

impacts in specific 

areas of the planning 

area would depend 

on the location of 

fluid mineral 

activity.

Alternative A would 

potentially result in 

the greatest carbon 

dioxide and methane 

emissions.

Cumulative impacts 

under Alternative A 

would be larger than 

for each of the other 

Alternatives.

Alternative B would 

allow new oil and 

gas development of 

up to 5% of the 

RFD and would 

potentially result in 

the lowest criteria 

air pollutant and 

HAP emissions, as 

well as the smallest 

impacts to ambient 

air pollutant 

concentrations and 

AQRVs. However, 

impacts in specific 

areas of the 

planning area would 

depend on the 

location of fluid 

mineral activity. 

Alternative B would 

potentially result in 

the lowest carbon 

dioxide and 

methane emissions.

Cumulative impacts 

under Alternative B 

would be less than 

those for any other 

alternative.

Alternative C would 

allow new oil and 

gas development of 

up to 30% of RFD 

and would 

potentially result in 

relatively low 

criteria air pollutant 

and HAP emissions, 

as well as lower 

impacts to ambient 

air pollutant 

concentrations and 

AQRVs than for 

Alternatives A, D, 

and E. However, 

impacts in specific 

areas of the planning 

area would depend 

on the location of 

fluid mineral 

activity.

Under Alternative C, 

carbon dioxide 

equivalent emissions 

would be 

approximately 85%, 

94%, and 96% of 

Alternatives A, E, 

and D, respectively. 

Alternative C carbon 

dioxide equivalent 

emissions would be 

Alternative D 

would allow new 

oil and gas

development of up 

to 54% of the RFD 

and would 

potentially result in 

greater criteria air 

pollutant and HAP 

emissions than 

under all other 

alternatives, except 

for Alternative A. 

Impacts to ambient 

air pollutant 

concentrations and 

AQRVs would 

generally be less 

than Alternative A.

Under 

Alternative D, 

carbon dioxide 

equivalent 

emissions would be 

approximately 

115%, 106%, and 

102% of 

Alternatives B, C, 

and E, respectively. 

Alternative D 

carbon dioxide 

equivalent 

emissions would be 

Alternative E would 

allow new oil and 

gas development of 

up to 47% of the 

RFD and would 

potentially result in 

greater criteria air 

pollutant and HAP 

emissions than 

under Alternatives 

B and C, and less 

than for Alternatives 

A and D. Impacts to 

ambient air 

pollutant 

concentrations and 

AQRVs would be 

slightly less than 

those for Alternative 

D. However, 

impacts in specific 

areas of the 

planning area would 

depend on the 

location of fluid 

mineral activity.

Under 

Alternative E, 

carbon dioxide 

equivalent 

emissions would be 

approximately 

113% and 104% of 

Alternatives B and 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-191

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

approximately 108%

of Alternative A 

emissions.

Cumulative impacts 

under Alternative C 

would be less than 

under Alternatives 

A, D, and E, but 

more than under 

Alternative B.

approximately 90%

of Alternative A 

emissions. 

Alternative D 

cumulative impacts 

would be greater 

than those under 

each alternative, 

except for 

Alternative A.

C, respectively. 

Alternative E 

carbon dioxide 

equivalent 

emissions would be 

approximately 88%

and 98% of 

Alternative A and 

Alternative D 

emissions, 

respectively.

Alternative E 

cumulative impacts 

would be greater 

than those under 

Alternatives B and 

C, and less than 

those under 

Alternatives A and 

D.

SOILS

Soils

Alternative A would 

not contribute to a 

predicted cumulative 

increase in soil 

resource health and 

conservation in the 

planning area. This 

alternative would 

maintain 17,000 

acres of sensitive 

soils and 470 acres 

of slopes 25% or 

greater under 

surface-disturbing 

actions and require 

Alternative B would 

contribute to a 

cumulative increase 

in soil resource 

health and 

conservation 

because surfacedisturbing actions 

would not be 

allowed on 

1,600,000 acres of 

sensitive soils and 

150,000 acres of 

slopes 25% or 

greater. 

Alternative C would 

contribute to the 

continuing increase 

in soil resource 

health and 

conservation 

because many 

actions under this 

alternative would 

require controlled 

management of 

surface uses and 

ground-disturbing 

actions (including 

those aimed toward 

Alternative D 

would contribute to 

the continuing 

increase in soil 

resource health and 

conservation 

because many 

actions under this 

alternative would 

require controlled 

management of 

surface uses and 

ground-disturbing 

actions (including 

those aimed toward 

Alternative E would 

contribute to the 

continuing increase 

in soil resource 

health and 

conservation 

because many 

actions under this 

alternative would 

require controlled 

management of 

surface uses and 

ground-disturbing 

actions (including 

those aimed toward 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-192

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

mitigation on 6,800 

acres of sensitive 

soils and 590 acres 

of slopes greater than 

25%.

Historically, 

management actions 

proposed under 

Alternative A have 

led to allotments that 

failed to meet 

Rangeland Health 

Standards or that 

contained downward 

trend riparian or 

wetland areas, 

ecosystems with 

moderate to high 

departures from 

natural fire regimes, 

and disturbed lands 

with insufficient 

reclamation.

Compared to all 

alternatives, 

Alternative B would 

better maintain soil 

resources.

ecological 

improvement). 

This alternative 

would maintain 

520,000 acres of 

sensitive soils and 

34,000 acres of 

slopes 25% or 

greater under 

surface-disturbing 

actions and require 

mitigation on 

1,100,000 acres of 

sensitive soils and 

20,000 acres of 

slopes greater than 

25%. 

Compared to all 

other alternatives 

(except B), 

Alternative C would 

better maintain soil 

resources and 

provide for soil 

conservation. 

ecological 

improvement). 

This alternative 

would maintain 

320,000 acres of 

sensitive soils and 

17,000 acres of 

slopes 25% or 

greater under 

surface-disturbing 

actions and require 

mitigation on 

1,300,000 acres of 

sensitive soils and 

130,000 acres of 

slopes greater than 

25%. 

Alternative D 

would conserve 

soil resources. 

Compared to 

Alternative D, 

Alternatives B and 

C would better 

maintain soil 

resources.

ecological 

improvement). 

Alternative E would 

also provide for 

required mitigation 

in areas that 

buffered 

waterbodies and 

riparian areas. This 

alternative would 

maintain 

approximately 480 

acres of sensitive 

soils and 170 acres 

of slopes 25% or 

greater under 

surface-disturbing 

actions and require 

mitigation on 

1,600,000 acres of 

sensitive soils and 

150,000 acres of 

slopes greater than 

25%.

Compared to all 

other alternatives, 

Alternative E would 

better conserve soil 

resources. All other 

alternatives would 

better maintain soils 

resources.

WATER RESOURCES

Water

Although water 

quality, water 

quantity, and overall 

Water quality, 

water quantity, and 

watershed health 

Water quality, water 

quantity, and overall 

watershed health 

Water quality, 

water quantity, and 

overall watershed 

Water quality, water 

quantity, and 

watershed 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-193

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

watershed health 

would decline under 

this alternative, 

beneficial uses 

would be supported.

The absence of 

buffers; minimal 

restrictions on water 

developments; and 

surface disturbance 

in waterbodies, 

floodplains, and 

wetlands, riparian

areas and on 

sensitive soils, soils 

with poor 

reclamation 

potential, and highly 

erodible soils under 

this alternative 

would reduce water 

quality and result in 

long-term to 

permanent increases 

in sedimentation.

Grazing in 

allotments that did 

not meet Standards 

for Rangeland 

Health would 

contribute to a 

decline in water 

quality and 

watershed health.

would be 

maintained or 

improved under this 

alternative.

Establishing buffers 

and prohibiting 

surface disturbance 

in waterbodies, 

wetlands, riparian

areas, and 

floodplains would 

maintain water 

quality.

Water

developments 

would maintain 

watershed and 

riparian

functionality or they 

would not be 

allowed.

Closing allotments 

that did not meet 

Standards for 

Rangeland Health

would increase 

water quality and 

watershed health.

Closures and NSO 

stipulations under 

this alternative 

would maintain all 

waterbodies and 

would decline under 

this alternative.

The absence of 

buffers; minimal 

restrictions on water 

developments; and 

surface disturbance 

(if not avoided) in 

waterbodies, 

wetlands, riparian

areas, and 

floodplains would 

reduce water quality.

Closing allotments 

within 5 years that 

did not meet 

Standards for 

Rangeland Health

would increase 

water quality and 

watershed health in 

the long term but 

decrease water 

quality in the short 

term.

Closures and NSO 

stipulations would 

maintain

approximately 2,000 

miles of waterbodies 

and 18,000 acres of 

floodplains.

Compared to 

health would 

decline under this 

alternative.

The absence of 

buffers; minimal 

restrictions on 

water 

developments; and 

surface disturbance 

in waterbodies, 

floodplains, 

wetlands, and 

riparian areas 

would reduce water 

quality and result 

in long-term to 

permanent 

increases in 

sedimentation.

Closing allotments 

within 5 years that 

did not meet 

Standards for 

Rangeland Health

would increase 

water quality and 

watershed health 

but decrease water 

quality in the short 

term.

Closures and NSO 

stipulations under 

this alternative 

would not maintain

functionality would 

be maintained under 

this alternative.

Limiting surface 

disturbance within 

300-foot buffers of 

all miles of streams 

would help to 

reduce nonpoint 

source pollution.

Non-oil and gas

surface disturbance 

(if not avoided) in 

waterbodies, 

wetlands, riparian

areas, and 

floodplains would 

reduce water 

quality.

Water developments 

would maintain 

watershed and 

riparian

functionality.

Closing allotments 

within 5 years that 

did not meet 

Standards for 

Rangeland Health

would increase 

water quality and 

watershed health but 

decrease water 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-194

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

Closures and NSO 

stipulations would 

maintain

approximately 2,000 

miles of waterbodies 

and 260,000 acres of 

floodplains.

Compared to 

Alternative A, 

Alternatives B, C, 

and E would better 

maintain water 

resources.

floodplains.

Compared to all 

other alternatives, 

Alternative B would 

better maintain 

water resources.

Alternatives A and 

D, Alternative C 

would better 

maintain water 

resources. 

Compared to 

Alternative C, 

Alternatives B and E 

would better 

maintain water 

resources. 

waterbodies and 

floodplains.

Compared to 

Alternative D, all 

other alternatives 

would better 

maintain water 

resources

quality in the short 

term.

Closures and NSO 

stipulations would 

maintain

approximately all 

waterbodies and 

floodplains.

Compared to 

Alternatives A, C, 

and D, Alternative E 

would better 

maintain water 

resources.

VEGETATION

Vegetation

Equipment 

movement, sheep

grazing restrictions, 

and case-by-case 

treatment of invasive 

weed species under 

this alternative 

would threaten the 

ecological status of 

vegetation through 

the spread of 

invasive species. 

OHV use in the short 

and long term would 

cause physical 

damage to 

vegetation.

Sheep grazing 

restrictions under 

this alternative 

would threaten the 

ecological status of 

vegetation through 

the spread of 

invasive species. 

OHV use in the 

short and long term 

would cause 

physical damage to 

vegetation.

Surface-disturbing 

activities under this 

alternative would 

threaten the 

ecological status of 

vegetation through 

the spread of 

invasive species. 

OHV use in the 

short and long term 

would cause 

physical damage to 

vegetation.

Surface-disturbing 

activities under this 

alternative would 

threaten the 

ecological status of 

vegetation through 

the spread of 

invasive species. 

Invasive species 

would continue to 

spread.

OHV use in the 

short and long term 

would cause 

physical damage to 

vegetation.

Surface-disturbing 

activities under this 

alternative would 

threaten the 

ecological status of 

vegetation through 

the spread of 

invasive species. 

OHV use in the 

short and long term 

would cause 

physical damage to 

vegetation.

Early Detection 

Rapid Response

would be the most 

cost-efficient, 

effective method for 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-195

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

recovering 

vegetation to its 

native state.

RIPARIAN AND 

WETLAND 

AREAS

Surface-disturbing 

activities (other than 

oil and gas activities 

with NSO 

stipulations) would 

increase erosion and 

sedimentation to 

vegetative buffers. 

Changes in 

vegetation 

composition would 

increase runoff, alter 

stream bank and 

channel structure, 

cause nutrient losses, 

and increase 

sedimentation. NSO 

stipulations would 

protect vegetative 

buffers and prevent 

soil compaction and 

vegetation removal, 

which would 

subsequently protect 

riparian and wetland

areas from erosion 

and sedimentation 

and maintain overall 

watershed health.

Prohibiting surfacedisturbing or 

disruptive activities 

or mineral 

development would 

decrease stream 

bank erosion, 

sedimentation, and 

vegetation removal 

and protect riparian

and wetland areas. 

Offering leasing 

and development 

with an NSO 

stipulation would 

protect 59,000 acres 

of riparian and 

wetland areas from 

erosion and 

sedimentation.

Avoiding surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities 

in riparian and 

wetland areas would 

decrease erosion and 

sedimentation with 

specialized design 

features to improve 

or maintain PFC. A 

CSU stipulation for 

oil and gas leasing 

and development 

would prevent 

vegetation removal 

and soil compaction, 

protect vegetative 

buffers important to 

some species, and 

maintain overall 

watershed health. 

Unless mitigation 

ensured the activity 

maintained or 

improved riparian

and wetland

conditions, allowing 

mineral exploration 

and development 

would cause 

opposite impacts.

Avoiding surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities 

in riparian and 

wetland areas 

would decrease 

erosion and 

sedimentation with 

specialized design 

features to improve 

or maintain PFC. A 

CSU stipulation for 

oil and gas leasing 

and development

would prevent 

vegetation removal 

and soil 

compaction, 

protect vegetative 

buffers important 

to some species, 

and maintain 

overall watershed 

health. Unless 

mitigation ensured 

the activity 

maintained or 

improved riparian

and wetland

conditions, 

allowing mineral 

exploration and 

development would 

cause opposite 

Avoiding surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities 

in riparian and 

wetland areas would 

decrease erosion 

and sedimentation 

with specialized 

design features to 

maintain 

functionality. NSO 

stipulations would 

protect vegetative 

buffers and prevent 

soil compaction and 

vegetation removal, 

which would 

subsequently protect 

riparian and wetland 

areas from erosion 

and sedimentation 

and maintain overall 

watershed health.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-196

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

impacts.

Riparian and Wetland 

Areas

Limiting diversions 

from springs would 

reduce soil moisture 

in overflow areas 

and increase flows 

from the source to 

the natural drainage, 

enhancing the vigor 

and type of riparian

vegetation. Fencing 

springs would 

protect the 

vegetative buffer at 

the source and 

increase species 

vigor and 

composition. 

Prohibiting surfacedisturbing or 

disruptive activities 

or mineral 

development would 

decrease stream 

bank erosion, 

sedimentation, and 

vegetation removal 

and protect riparian

and wetland areas. 

Offering leasing 

and development 

with an NSO 

stipulation would 

protect 59,000 acres 

of riparian and 

wetland areas from 

erosion and 

sedimentation.

Not authorizing 

spring developments 

would ensure the 

riparian and wetland

areas around springs 

continued to 

maintain species 

vigor and 

composition without 

disturbance.

Designing spring

developments to 

ensure riparian

communities 

maintained or 

improved the 

integrity and 

functionality of 

riparian and 

wetland areas 

would benefit 

overall watershed 

health.

Designing spring 

developments to 

ensure riparian

communities 

maintained or 

improved the 

integrity and 

functionality of 

riparian and wetland

areas would benefit 

overall watershed 

health.

Avoiding placement 

of troughs and tanks 

in areas containing 

important riparian

and wetland

vegetation would 

increase species 

vigor and 

composition.

Locating new 

livestock water 

developments at 

least 0.25 miles 

from riparian and 

wetland areas 

would protect 

2,500,000 acres 

from increased 

erosion and 

sedimentation 

related to direct 

disturbances of 

congregating 

livestock and 

wildlife.

Locating new 

livestock water 

developments at 

least 0.25 miles 

from riparian and 

wetland areas would 

protect 2,500,000

acres from increased 

erosion and 

sedimentation 

related to direct 

disturbances of 

congregating 

livestock and 

wildlife. Approved 

deviation would 

Locating new 

livestock water 

developments at 

least 0.25 miles 

from riparian and 

wetland areas 

would protect 

2,500,000 acres 

from increased 

erosion and 

sedimentation 

related to direct 

disturbances of 

congregating 

livestock and 

wildlife. Approved 

Designing spring 

developments to 

ensure riparian

communities would 

maintain or improve 

the integrity and 

functionality of 

riparian and wetland

areas would benefit 

overall watershed 

health.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-197

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

ensure the area 

continued to 

function properly 

with erosion control, 

stabilized banks, and 

filtered sediments.

deviation would 

ensure the area 

continued to 

function properly 

with erosion 

control, stabilized 

banks, and filtered 

sediments.

INVASIVE 

SPECIES

Equipment 

movement, sheep

grazing restrictions, 

and case-by-case 

treatment of invasive 

weed species under 

this alternative 

would increase 

invasive species.

This alternative 

would be 40-percent 

less cost efficient 

than Alternative E 

because of the lack 

of scientific, 

methodical 

prioritization of 

invasive species 

treatments.

Prohibiting 

disruptive activities 

would preclude 

weed control.

Sheep grazing 

restrictions in the 

Bighorn Sheep 

Range under this 

alternative would 

increase invasive 

species.

This alternative 

would be the most 

restrictive, which 

would aid in 

limiting invasive 

species spread 

through 

development but 

there would still be 

new infestations 

through natural 

paths (wildlife, 

wind, and water 

sources). However, 

because treatment is 

not prioritized, this 

Prohibiting 

disruptive activities 

would also preclude 

weed control.

Early Detection 

Rapid Response

would be the most 

cost-efficient, 

effective method for 

recovering 

vegetation to its 

native state.

Allowing sheep 

grazing to treat 

invasive species in 

the Bighorn Sheep 

Range would 

support vital weed 

control in those 

areas.

This alternative 

would increase (in 

comparison to

Alternatives A, B, 

and C) the 

percentage of 

Invasive species 

would increase if 

priority treatment 

areas were areas in 

which the 

surrounding private 

lands were within 

an active invasive 

species treatment 

area and in which 

the respective 

private landowners 

were actively 

controlling 

invasive species.

Allowing sheep 

grazing to treat 

invasive species in 

the Bighorn Sheep 

Range would 

support vital weed 

control in these 

areas.

The lack of 

methodology and 

scientific approach 

to treatments of 

Surface-disturbing 

activities under this 

alternative would 

threaten the 

ecological status of 

vegetation.

Early Detection 

Rapid Response

would be the most 

cost-efficient, 

effective method for 

recovering 

vegetation to its 

native state.

Allowing sheep 

grazing to treat 

invasive species in 

the Bighorn Sheep 

Range would 

support vital weed 

control in these 

areas.

Alternative E would 

increase the 

productivity of 

invasive species 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-198

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

alternative is 40% 

less productive than 

Alternative E.

infestations treated 

in the planning area.

invasive species 

under this 

alternative would 

decrease the 

percentage of acres 

treated by 40% in 

comparison to 

Alternative A.

treatments similarly 

to Alternative C, but 

would allow

invasive species 

treatments across 

the entire planning 

area. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE

FISH AND 

WILDLIFE, 

AQUATICS

There would be a 

general declining 

trend in habitat 

conditions of prairie 

streams and rivers 

under this 

alternative.

Designations of 

sensitive aquatic 

wildlife species, 

species included 

under the ESA or 

state and federally 

listed species would 

increase.

Prairie stream and 

river habitat 

conditions would 

plateau or improve 

under this 

alternative. 

Actions under this 

alternative would 

help protect 

endangered and 

sensitive fish, 

amphibians, and 

reptiles.

Habitat conditions 

of prairie streams 

and rivers would 

plateau under this 

alternative. 

Riparian vigor 

would increase and 

soil erosion and 

sedimentation of 

aquatic wildlife

habitat would 

decrease.

There would be a 

general declining 

trend in habitat 

conditions of 

prairie streams and 

rivers under this 

alternative.

Designations of 

sensitive aquatic 

wildlife species, 

species included 

under the ESA or 

state and federally 

listed species 

would increase.

Prairie stream and 

river habitat 

conditions would be 

variable under this 

alternative. 

Habitat conditions 

would plateau or 

even improve in 

areas in which fish

passage were 

required and strict 

300-foot buffers

applied to riparian

areas and waterbodies. Prairie 

stream and river 

habitat conditions 

would decline in 

areas in which these 

conditions were not 

applied.

FISH AND 

WILDLIFE, 

TERRESTRIAL

Wildlife habitat 

conditions would 

slowly degrade in the 

future, which would 

result in long-term 

declines in a number 

Although habitat 

conditions would 

continue to be 

affected, overall 

conditions would be 

most improved 

Wildlife habitat 

conditions would 

improve in the 

planning area in the 

future. This 

alternative would 

This alternative 

would improve 

fewer acres of 

habitats than 

Alternatives B or C 

but more than those 

Alternative E would 

provide 

improvements 

similar to those 

under Alternative D. 

Additional acres of 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-199

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

of wildlife and 

special status 

wildlife species

habitats through 

increased individual 

mortality, 

displacement, 

increased habitat 

fragmentation, and 

wildlife avoidance of 

affected areas or 

important habitats.

under this 

alternative.

Management would 

cause long-term 

improvements in a 

number of wildlife

and special status 

wildlife species

habitat through 

increased individual 

recruitment and 

decreased 

displacement and 

habitat 

fragmentation. This 

alternative would 

cause few impacts 

to endangered and 

threatened species

habitats and slow 

degradation, ensure 

protection of these 

habitat and species, 

and possibly 

enhance important 

habitat for these 

species.

cause few impacts to 

endangered and 

threatened species

habitats and slow 

degradation, ensure 

protection of these 

habitat and species, 

and possibly 

enhance important 

habitat for these 

species. Although 

this alternative 

would provide more 

protection than 

Alternatives D and E 

for certain species 

habitats, it would 

provide less 

protection than 

Alternative B.

improved under 

Alternative A. This 

alternative would 

cause few impacts 

to endangered and 

threatened species

habitats and slow 

degradation, ensure 

protection of these 

habitat and species, 

and possibly 

enhance important 

habitat for these 

species.

protection would 

depend on species 

habitats (such as big 

game, raptors, and 

prairie dogs) that 

included habitats for 

other special status 

wildlife species.

Fish and Wildlife, 

Terrestrial

This alternative 

would contribute to 

long-term declines in 

sage-grouse 

abundance and 

potential losses of 

sagebrush habitat.

Habitat 

compensation and 

restrictions for 

surface-disturbing 

activities in sagegrouse habitats 

under this 

alternative would 

provide the most 

protection (except 

Habitat 

compensation and 

restrictions for 

surface-disturbing 

activities in sagegrouse habitats 

under this 

alternative would 

provide protection 

for fewer acres of 

This alternative 

would provide 

comparable to 

fewer protections 

for sage-grouse, 

depending on the 

sage-grouse area. 

This alternative 

would contribute to 

long-term declines 

Habitat 

compensation and 

restrictions for 

surface-disturbing 

activities in sagegrouse habitats 

under this 

alternative would 

provide protection 

for fewer acres of 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-200

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

for those areas 

included in 

Restoration Areas 

under this 

alternative) of any 

of the alternatives. 

Habitat 

compensation

would minimize 

disturbances within 

the habitat areas or 

provide incentives 

for project 

proponents to 

prevent new 

disturbances. 

Habitat conditions 

would improve in 

the planning area in 

the future.

habitat than those 

protected under 

Alternative B. 

Habitat 

compensation would 

minimize 

disturbances within 

the habitat areas or 

provide incentives 

for project 

proponents to 

prevent new 

disturbances.

in sage-grouse 

abundance and 

potential loss of 

sage brush habitat. 

Habitat 

compensation

would minimize 

disturbances within 

the habitat areas or 

provide incentives 

for project 

proponents to 

prevent new 

disturbances.

habitat than those 

protected under 

Alternative B. This 

alternative would 

include more 

protection for 

Restoration Areas 

(including a source 

population area) 

than would other 

alternatives. 

Because this 

alternative would 

not include habitat

compensation, 

habitat disturbances 

would not be 

minimized and 

potential off-site 

mitigation 

employed.

Fish and Wildlife, 

Terrestrial

This alternative 

would cause direct 

and indirect habitat 

loss and overall 

decreased densities 

and abundances of 

prairie dogs. Impacts 

would include 

potential 

abandonment or 

displacement of the 

prairie dog colony. 

Allowing energy 

development in 

This alternative 

would ensure that 

prairie dog colonies 

were maintained or 

expanded in the 

planning area. 

Prohibiting surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities 

and oil and gas

leasing in and 

within 0.5 miles of 

black-tailed prairie 

dog colonies would 

This alternative 

would ensure that 

prairie dog colonies 

were maintained or 

expanded in the 

planning area. 

Prohibiting surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities 

and oil and gas

leasing in and within 

0.25 miles of blacktailed prairie dog 

colonies would 

This alternative 

would provide less 

protection than 

Alternatives B and 

C for prairie dogs

because it would 

allow surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities 

and oil and gas

leasing in blacktailed prairie dog 

colonies (with 

mitigation to 

This alternative 

would provide less 

protection than 

Alternatives B and 

C for prairie dogs

because it would 

allow surfacedisturbing and 

disruptive activities 

and oil and gas

leasing in blacktailed prairie dog 

colonies (with 

mitigation to 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-201

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

prairie dog colonies 

would also impact 

numerous species 

associated with 

prairie dogs (i.e., 

burrowing owls and 

ferruginous hawks) 

depending on the 

species’ tolerance to 

disturbance.

provide the most 

protection for 

prairie dog 

colonies.

provide protection 

for prairie dog 

colonies.

minimize direct 

and indirect habitat 

loss). This 

alternative would 

ensure that some 

prairie dog habitat 

remained in the 

planning area.

minimize direct and 

indirect habitat 

loss). This 

alternative would 

ensure that some 

prairie dog habitat 

remained in the 

planning area.

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGY

FUELS 

MANAGEMENT/

PRESCRIBED 

FIRE

Alternative A would 

contribute to the 

anticipated impacts.

Same as Alternative 

A: Alternative B 

would contribute to 

the anticipated 

impacts.

Alternative C would 

contribute to the 

anticipated impacts. 

Mitigation measures 

required for project 

planning and 

implementation 

would reduce 

effective fuels 

management for 

hazardous fuels 

reduction or wildlife

habitat 

improvement, which 

would cause 

resource competition 

and increase 

vegetative stress 

across the landscape.

Alternative D 

would contribute to 

the anticipated 

impacts. Mitigation 

measures required 

for project 

planning and 

implementation 

would reduce 

effective fuels 

management for 

hazardous fuels 

reduction or 

wildlife habitat 

improvement, 

which would cause 

resource 

competition and 

increase vegetative 

stress across the 

landscape.

Alternative E would 

result in less 

restrictions than 

Alternatives A and 

B for project 

planning and 

implementation of 

effective fuels 

management for 

hazardous fuels 

reduction or wildlife

habitat 

improvement.

WILDLAND 

FIRE 

MANAGEMENT

Alternative A would 

be less restrictive for 

wildland fire 

management 

activities than 

Alternative B would 

be the most 

restrictive to 

wildland fire 

management 

Alternative C would 

require fewer 

restrictions to 

wildland fire 

management and 

Alternative D 

would require 

fewer restrictions 

to wildland fire 

management and 

Alternative E would 

require fewer 

restrictions to 

wildland fire 

management and 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-202

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

Alternative B. actions, which 

would cause larger 

fire perimeters, 

higher costs to 

suppress wildfire, 

and increases in 

burned area 

rehabilitation and 

emergency 

stabilization

(resulting from the 

impacts of 

wildfire).

provide more 

options to manage 

wildland fire within 

the ecosystem than 

Alternatives A and 

B.

provide more 

options to manage 

wildland fire 

within the 

ecosystem than 

Alternatives A and 

B.

provide more 

options to manage 

wildfire within the 

ecosystem than 

Alternatives A and 

B.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Cultural Resources 

From 212,000 to 

270,000 acres would 

be disturbed, which 

would potentially 

encounter from 

2,125 to 2,749 

cultural resource 

sites in the planning 

area that would 

potentially be 

impacted and 

affected by 

management actions. 

Actions would 

encounter and 

possibly impact 

between a high of 

277 (10%) and 413 

(15%) and a low of 

214 (10%) and 319 

(15%) of cultural 

resource properties 

considered eligible 

Approximately 

34,000 acres would 

be disturbed, which 

would potentially 

encounter 602 

cultural resource 

sites in the planning 

area that would 

potentially be 

impacted and 

affected by 

management 

actions. Actions 

would encounter 

and possibly impact 

between 60 (10%) 

and 92 (15%) of 

cultural resource 

properties 

considered eligible 

for the NRHP.

However, 

adherence to the 

From 210,000 to 

360,000 acres would 

be disturbed, which 

would potentially 

encounter from 

2,139 to 3,573 

cultural resource 

sites in the planning 

area that would 

potentially be 

impacted and 

affected by 

management 

actions. Actions 

would encounter and 

possibly impact 

between a high of 

358 (10%) and 535 

(15%) and a low of 

between 214 (10%) 

and 320 (15%) of 

cultural resource 

properties 

From 240,000 to 

410,000 acres 

would be disturbed, 

which would 

potentially 

encounter from 

2,395 to 4,119 

cultural resource 

sites in the 

planning area that 

would potentially 

be impacted and 

affected by 

management 

actions. Actions 

would encounter 

and possibly 

impact between a 

high of 411 (10%) 

and 618 (15%) and 

a low of 239 (10%) 

and 359 (15%) of 

cultural resource 

From 170,000 to 

200,000 acres would 

be disturbed, which 

would potentially 

encounter from 

1,738 to 2,007 

cultural resource 

sites in the planning 

area that would 

potentially be 

impacted and 

affected by 

management 

actions. Actions 

would encounter 

and possibly impact 

between a high of 

201 (10%) and 302

(15%) and a low of 

between 174 (10%) 

and 262 (15%) of 

cultural resource 

properties 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-203

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

for the NRHP.

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.

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.

considered eligible 

for the NRHP.

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.

properties 

considered eligible 

for the NRHP.

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.

considered eligible 

for the NRHP.

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.

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Paleontological 

Resources

From 210,000 to 

270,000 acres would 

be disturbed, which 

would impact from 

111 to 144 

paleontological 

resources in the 

planning area.

Approximately 

34,000 acres would 

be disturbed, which 

would impact 16 

paleontological 

resources in the 

planning area.

From 210,000 to 

360,000 acres would 

be disturbed, which 

would impact from 

112 to 187 

paleontological 

resources in the 

planning area.

From 240,000 to 

410,000 acres 

would be disturbed 

which would 

impact from 125 to 

216 paleontological 

resources in the 

planning area.

From 170,000 to 

200,000 acres would 

be disturbed, which 

would impact from 

90 to 104 

paleontological 

resources in the 

planning area.

FORESTRY AND WOODLAND PRODUCTS

Forestry and 

Woodland Products

Forest and 

woodlands would 

continue to decline 

in health and be at 

risk for extensive 

resource damage or 

loss due to 

landscape-level 

insect outbreaks or 

Same as Alternative 

A: Forest and 

woodland areas 

would continue to 

decline in health 

and be at risk for 

extensive resource 

damage or loss due 

to landscape-level 

Alternative C would 

allow sales of 

special forest

products (e.g., 

firewood, posts and 

poles, and Christmas 

trees) and provide a 

moderate volume of 

commercial forest

Alternative D 

would allow sales 

of special forest

products (e.g., 

firewood, posts and 

poles, and 

Christmas trees) 

and provide a 

moderate to high 

Alternative E would 

allow sales of 

special forest

products (e.g., 

firewood, posts and 

poles, and 

Christmas trees) and 

provide a moderate 

to high volume of 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-204

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

high-intensity 

wildfires.

insect outbreaks or 

high-intensity 

wildfires.

products, with PSQs

up to 650 mbf /year, 

contributing to longterm forest health 

improvement.

Proactive 

silvicultural 

treatments would 

help restore 

conditions 

characteristic with 

the Historical Range 

of Variability, 

enhancing the 

overall vigor, 

productivity, and 

resiliency of forest

and woodland

vegetation.

Risk for extensive 

resource damage 

from insects, 

diseases, or highintensity wildfire

would be reduced.

volume of 

commercial forest

products, with 

PSQs up to 1,100 

mbf/year, 

contributing to 

long-term forest

health 

improvement.

Proactive 

silvicultural 

treatments would 

help restore 

conditions 

characteristic with 

the Historical 

Range of 

Variability, 

enhancing the 

overall vigor, 

productivity, and 

resiliency of forest

and woodland

vegetation.

Risk for extensive 

resource damage 

from insects, 

diseases, or highintensity wildfire

would be reduced. 

commercial forest

products, with PSQs

up to 1,100 

mbf/year, 

contributing to longterm forest health 

improvement.

Proactive 

silvicultural 

treatments would 

help restore 

conditions 

characteristic with 

the Historical Range 

of Variability, 

enhancing the 

overall vigor, 

productivity, and 

resiliency of forest

and woodland

vegetation.

Risk for extensive 

resource damage 

from insects, 

diseases, or highintensity wildfire

would be reduced. 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Livestock Grazing 

2,800,000 acres with 

an estimated 546,570

AUMs would be 

available for all 

2,500,000 acres and 

an estimated 

502,706 AUMs 

would be available 

2,700,000 acres and 

an estimated 

545,189 AUMs 

would be available 

2,800,000 acres 

and an estimated 

545,943 AUMs 

would be available 

2,700,000 acres and 

an estimated 

544,709 AUMs 

would be available 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-205

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

livestock grazing. for livestock 

grazing (excluding 

domestic sheep and 

goats). 2,100,000 

acres and 

approximately 

422,903 AUMs 

would be available 

for grazing by 

domestic sheep and 

goats.

for livestock grazing

(excluding domestic 

sheep and goats). 

2,700,000 acres and 

approximately 

544,578 AUMs 

would be available 

for grazing by 

domestic sheep and 

goats.

for all livestock 

grazing.

for all livestock 

grazing.

MINERALS

COAL

Closures and 

restrictions would 

tend to slow coal 

exploration but not 

severely restrict it. 

Typically, coal 

exploration precedes 

leasing applications.

Coal companies 

would be severely 

restricted and the 

companies would 

not be able to find 

new reserves. The 

closures and 

restrictions 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 

Closures and 

restrictions would 

increase the 

difficulty of coal 

exploration by 

eliminating lands for 

exploration and 

imposing new 

restriction on the 

land available. In the 

future, coal 

companies would be 

able to continue to 

explore but 

encounter more 

difficulties and 

greater costs under 

this alternative.

Coal companies 

would be able to 

continue to explore 

but encounter more 

difficulties and 

greater costs under 

this alternative.

Same as Alternative 

D: Coal companies 

would be able to 

continue to explore 

but encounter more 

difficulties and 

greater costs under 

this alternative
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-206

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

private and state 

coal resources).

OIL, GAS, AND 

GEOTHERMAL

This alternative 

would not contribute 

to cumulative 

impacts to the 

mineral estate. It 

would allow drilling 

and development to 

continue at a slow, 

irregular pace with 

numerous 

restrictions for 

resource protection. 

Oil and gas well 

development would 

be expected to occur 

within the predicted 

reasonably 

foreseeable 

development (RFD) 

of 816 conventional 

drilled oil wells; 668

conventional drilled

gas wells; and 278

drilled CBNG wells 

on BLMadministered mineral 

estate (1,762 total 

wells drilled on 

BLM-administered 

mineral estate) in the 

planning area.

This alternative 

would contribute to 

cumulative impacts 

to the mineral 

estate. It would be 

the most restrictive 

for drilling and 

development. The 

increased number of 

closures and 

restricted acres 

would considerably 

limit, and possibly 

eliminate 

development in the 

planning area. 

Under this 

alternative, there 

would be a range of 

58 to 444 drilled oil

wells; 48 to 363 

drilled gas wells; 20 

to 151 drilled 

CBNG wells on 

BLM-administered 

mineral estate (126 

to 958 total wells 

drilled on BLMadministered 

mineral estate) in 

the planning area.

The increased 

amount of 

This alternative 

would contribute to 

cumulative impacts 

to the mineral estate. 

It would restrict and 

limit drilling and 

development 

through an increased 

number of restricted 

acres. 

Under this 

alternative there 

would be a range of

728 to 751 drilled

oil wells; 596 to 615

drilled conventional 

gas wells; and 248

to 256 drilled CBNG

wells on BLMadministered 

mineral estate (1,571 

to 1,622 total wells 

drilled on BLMadministered 

mineral estate) in the 

planning area.

The increased 

amount of 

restrictions under 

this alternative 

compared to 

Alternative A would 

raise the cost of 

This alternative 

would contribute to 

cumulative impacts 

to the mineral 

estate and reduce 

and slow drilling 

and development. 

It would allow 

drilling and 

development with 

restrictions for 

resource 

protection. 

Under this 

alternative there 

would be a range 

of 742 to 751 

drilled oil wells; 

607 to 615 drilled 

conventional gas

wells; and 253 to 

256 drilled CBNG

wells on BLMadministered 

mineral estate 

(1,601 to 1,621 

total wells drilled 

on BLMadministered 

mineral estate) in 

the planning area.

The increased 

This alternative 

would contribute to 

cumulative impacts 

to the mineral 

estate. This 

alternative would 

restrict and limit 

drilling and 

development on 

BLM-administered 

minerals through an 

increased number of 

restricted acres. 

Under this 

alternative there 

would be a range of

525 to 752 drilled

oil wells; 430 to 616

drilled conventional 

gas wells; and 179

to 256 drilled

CBNG wells on 

BLM-administered 

mineral estate 

(1,134 to 1,624 total 

wells drilled on 

BLM-administered 

mineral estate) in 

the planning area.

The increased 

amount of 

restrictions under 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-207

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

restrictions under 

this alternative 

compared to 

Alternative A 

would raise the cost 

of drilling on 

federal minerals and 

make some ventures 

uneconomical or 

unapprovable, 

thereby increasing 

the amount of 

drainage compared 

to Alternative A.

Impacts to oil and 

gas development 

from other resource 

restrictions are 

greater under 

Alternative B than 

under any other 

alternative.

drilling on federal

minerals and make 

some ventures 

uneconomical or 

unapprovable, 

thereby increasing 

the amount of 

drainage compared 

to Alternative A.

amount of 

restrictions under 

this alternative 

compared to 

Alternative A 

would raise the 

cost of drilling on 

federal minerals 

and make some 

ventures 

uneconomical or 

unapprovable, 

thereby increasing 

the amount of 

drainage compared 

to Alternative A.

this alternative 

compared to 

Alternative A would 

raise the cost of 

drilling on federal 

minerals and make 

some ventures 

uneconomical or 

unapprovable, 

thereby increasing 

the amount of 

drainage compared 

to Alternative A.

LOCATABLE

MINERALS

Some land use 

management actions 

requiring special 

design, avoidance, or 

habitat functionality 

would cause changes 

to mining POs and 

NOIs if these actions 

complied with the 

mining laws and 

surface management 

regulations.

Same as Alternative 

A: Some land use 

management 

actions requiring 

special design, 

avoidance, or 

habitat functionality 

would cause 

changes to mining 

POs and NOIs if 

these actions 

complied with the 

mining laws and 

surface 

Same as Alternative 

A: Some land use 

management actions 

requiring special 

design, avoidance, 

or habitat 

functionality would 

cause changes to 

mining POs and 

NOIs if these actions 

complied with the 

mining laws and 

surface management 

regulations.

Same as 

Alternative A: 

Some land use 

management 

actions requiring 

special design, 

avoidance, or 

habitat 

functionality would 

cause changes to 

mining POs and 

NOIs if these 

actions complied 

with the mining 

Same as Alternative 

A: Some land use 

management actions 

requiring special 

design, avoidance, 

or habitat would 

cause changes to 

mining POs and 

NOIs if these 

actions complied 

with the mining 

laws and surface 

management 

regulations.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-208

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

management 

regulations.

laws and surface 

management 

regulations.

MINERAL 

MATERIALS

This alternative 

would close 81,000 

to mineral material

development.

This alternative 

would close an 

additional 

2,000,000 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 

future trend in sales 

of mineral 

materials.

This alternative 

would close an 

additional 3,300,000 

acres of BLMadministered 

mineral material

estate. (This is 

cumulative figure 

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.

This alternative 

would close 

3,100,000 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 future 

trend in sales of 

mineral materials.

This alternative 

would close 31,000 

acres to mineral 

material

development. Some 

land use 

management actions 

requiring special 

design, avoidance, 

or habitat would 

preclude 

development on an 

undetermined 

number of acres 

because of the 

expense of the 

proposed 

management action 

or denial of the 

proposal by the 

BLM.

RECREATION (VRM, LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS, TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

AND OHV, AND BACK COUNTRY BYWAYS)

Recreation (VRM, 

Lands with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics, 

Travel Management 

and OHV, and Back 

Country Byways) 

Alternative A would 

maintain current 

trends in recreation, 

with no net increase 

or decrease in 

recreational use.

Under Alternative 

B, increased 

recreational demand 

for dispersed 

recreation 

opportunities would 

conflict with 

approved land uses, 

such as 

Under Alternative C, 

most programs 

would increase in 

overall net 

recreational use 

through the 

maintenance or 

improvement of 

recreational settings 

A decrease in 

protective 

measures under 

this alternative 

would reduce fish

and wildlife

habitat, which 

would alter fishand wildlifeUnder Alternative 

E, most programs 

would increase in 

overall net 

recreational use the 

maintenance or 

improvement of 

recreational settings 

in the planning area.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-209

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

development 

activities that would 

alter recreational 

settings. However, 

because fewer acres 

would be available 

for mineral 

development and 

surface-disturbing 

activities, resource 

protection would 

increase under this 

alternative.

Constraints

identified to protect

lands with 

wilderness 

characteristics 

would result in 

minimal surface 

disturbance and 

visual intrusions,

which would 

enhance these 

lands.

Because more acres 

would be 

designated VRM 

Class II (more than 

500,000) and VRM 

Class III (more than 

600,000) under this 

alternative, this 

alternative would 

have more direct, 

in the planning area.

In the long term, the 

designation of VRM 

classes under this 

alternative would 

result in more 

beneficial impacts to 

visual resources than 

Alternative A 

because more acres 

would be managed 

to preserve 

relatively 

undeveloped high

quality scenic 

landscapes.

However, more 

acres would be 

designated as Class 

VRM III and IV 

(compared to 

Alternative B) with 

long-term impacts 

occurring in those 

areas containing

high scenic quality

but managed at 

lower classes.

related activities 

such as hunting and 

fishing, 

recreational 

settings, 

opportunities, and 

experiences in 

developed areas.

Compared to 

Alternative A, B, 

and C; Alternative 

D would have more 

long-term impacts 

to VRM because 

more acres would 

be managed at 

lower classes of 

scenic quality 

protection (from a 

VRM II to VRM 

III), which would 

subject a greater 

amount of land to 

surface-disturbing 

activities. This 

alternative would 

provide the least 

protection for 

visual resources.

More acres would 

be managed as Class 

II VRM 

management 

objective (410,000 

acres) than in 

Alternative A 

(400,000 acres) and 

Alternative D 

(360,000 acres), but 

less acres than in 

Alt B (580,000 

acres). This will 

result in more 

beneficial impacts 

within the MCFO as 

more lands will be 

managed to preserve 

the scenic 

landscapes. 

Under this 

alternative, more 

acres would be 

designated as Class 

III and IV, which 

would manage more 

acres at lower 

classes. Alternative 

E would, in the long 

term, permit areas 

with higher scenic 

quality to develop 

the characteristics of 

lower VRM classes 

through increased
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-210

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

long-term impacts 

to visual resources 

because more 

acreage would be 

protected under 

higher classes than

Alternative A. 

permitted surface 

disturbances and 

visual intrusions,

and so would be less 

protective of visual 

resources than 

Alternative B.

SRMAS

An emphasis on 

recreation 

management 

activities would be 

prioritized in 

SRMAs, ensuring 

that quality 

recreation 

opportunities and 

experiences would 

be provided. There 

would be a total of 

three SRMAs 

designated.

Recreation 

management

activities would be 

increased in 

comparison to 

Alternatives A and 

D through the 

designation of eight 

additional SRMAs

for a total of 11.

Alternative C would 

increase 

management 

activities through 

the designation of 

eight additional 

SRMAs, which 

would total 11.

Under Alternative 

D, there would be 

no SRMA

designations, 

which would 

decrease the 

benefits and 

experiences for 

recreationists.

An emphasis on 

recreation 

management would 

be prioritized within 

SRMAs, increasing 

the benefits and 

experiences for 

recreationists. There 

would be a total of 

11 SRMAs 

designated.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Renewable Energy Requiring special design features for Renewable Energy ROWs would increase application processing time, cost, 

or in some cases, relocation or denial of the project.

Renewable Energy, 

Excluded

Managing 55,000

acres of BLMadministered surface 

in the planning area 

as renewable energy 

exclusion areas 

would remove 2% of 

the BLM surface 

from development, 

including 11,000

acres (2%) of the 

550,000 acres in 

Wind Power Class 4 

Managing 

2,400,000 acres of 

BLM-administered 

surface in the 

planning area as 

renewable energy 

exclusion areas 

would remove 86%

of the BLM surface 

from development, 

including 484,000 

acres (88%) of the 

550,000 acres of 

Managing 860,000

acres of BLMadministered surface 

in the planning area 

as renewable energy 

exclusion areas 

would remove 31% 

of the BLM surface 

from development, 

including 136,000 

acres (25%) of the 

550,000 acres in 

Wind Power Class 4 

Managing 560,000

acres of BLMadministered 

surface in the 

planning area as 

renewable energy 

exclusion areas 

would remove 20% 

of the BLM surface 

from development, 

including 86,000 

acres of the 

550,000 acres 

Managing 15,000 

acres of BLMadministered surface 

in the planning area 

as renewable energy 

exclusion areas 

would remove less 

than 1% of the BLM 

surface from 

development, 

including 150 acres 

(less than 1%) of the 

550,000 acres in 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-211

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

and above. Wind Power Class 

4 and above.

and above. (16%) in Wind 

Power Class 4 and 

above.

Wind Power Class 4 

and above.

Renewable Energy, 

Avoided

Managing 300 acres 

of BLMadministered surface 

in the planning area 

as renewable energy 

avoidance areas 

would potentially 

limit or deny 

development, or 

require specialized 

mitigation that 

increase costs and 

processing time on 

less than 1% of the 

BLM (see impacts 

under exclusion for 

Wind Power Class 4 

and above), leaving 

2,700,000 acres 

(98%) of BLMadministered surface, 

including 540,000 

(98%) Class 4 and 

above acres, open for 

renewable energy 

development in the 

planning area.

See impacts under 

exclusion, which 

would leave 

400,000 acres 

(14%) of BLMadministered 

surface including 

64,000 (12%) Class 

4 and above acres 

open for renewable 

energy development 

in the planning area. 

Managing 620,000

acres of BLMadministered surface 

in the planning area 

as renewable energy 

avoidance areas 

would potentially 

limit or deny 

development or 

require specialized 

mitigation that 

increased costs and 

processing time on 

22% of the BLMadministered 

surface, including 

170,000 acres (31%) 

of the 550,000 acres 

in Wind Power 

Class 4 and above, 

leaving 1,300,000 

acres (47%) of 

BLM-administered 

surface, including 

240,000 acres (44%) 

Class 4 and above 

acres, open for 

renewable energy 

development in the 

planning area.

Managing 490,000

acres of BLMadministered 

surface in the 

planning area as 

renewable energy 

avoidance areas 

would potentially 

limit or deny 

development or 

require specialized 

mitigation that 

increased costs and 

processing time on 

18% of the BLMadministered 

surface, including 

140,000 acres 

(26%) of the 

550,000 acres in 

Wind Power Class 

4 and above, 

leaving 1,700,000 

acres (62%) of 

BLM-administered 

surface, including 

320,000 (58%) 

Class 4 and above 

acres, open for 

renewable energy 

development in the 

planning area.

Managing 1,300,000 

acres of BLMadministered surface 

in the planning area 

as renewable energy 

avoidance areas 

would potentially 

limit or deny 

development or 

require specialized 

mitigation that 

increased costs and 

processing time on 

45% of the BLMadministered 

surface, including 

290,000 acres (54%) 

of the 550,000 acres 

in Wind Power 

Class 4 and above, 

leaving 1,500,000 

acres (55%) of 

BLM-administered 

surface, including 

250,000 (46%) 

Class 4 and above 

acres, open for 

renewable energy 

development in the 

planning area.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-212

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

Renewable Energy, 

Power Lines

There would be no 

restrictions for 

power lines under 

this alternative.

Requiring burial of 

power lines for 

renewable energy

projects (unless it 

was not 

technologically 

feasible) would 

increase the cost 

and time, possibly 

cause conflicts with 

aboveground power 

lines on adjoining 

lands, and cause 

more surface 

disturbance than 

aboveground power 

lines. Burying 

power lines would 

potentially cause 

avoidance of the 

area or denial of the 

project.

Power line design 

required to maintain 

specific wildlife 

habitat functionality 

under this 

Alternative could 

inhibit the 

development of 

renewable energy if 

meeting the 

requirements makes 

it economically 

unfeasible to 

construct 

transmission lines 

necessary to deliver 

generated renewable 

energy to market.

Power line design 

required to 

maintain specific 

wildlife habitat 

functionality under 

this Alternative 

could inhibit the 

development of 

renewable energy if 

meeting the 

requirements 

makes it 

economically 

unfeasible to 

construct 

transmission lines 

necessary to 

deliver generated 

renewable energy 

to market.

Power line design 

required to maintain 

specific wildlife 

habitat functionality 

under this 

Alternative could 

inhibit the 

development of 

renewable energy if 

meeting the 

requirements makes 

it economically 

unfeasible to 

construct lines 

necessary to deliver 

generated renewable 

energy to market. 

Burying lines on 

public land when 

feasible could cause 

conflicts and 

incompatibility with 

aboveground lines 

on adjacent lands.

ROWs, Prescribed 

Fire

No impact from 

allowing prescribed 

fire.

Prohibiting 

prescribed fire on 

2,500,000 (91%) 

acres of BLMadministered lands 

would increase fuel 

buildup for 

wildfires, which 

would increase the 

susceptibility of 

ROW and other 

No impact from allowing prescribed fire.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-213

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

land use 

authorization 

facilities to damage.

LANDS AND REALTY

LAND USE AUTHORIZATIONS

ROWs and other 

Land Use 

Authorizations

Requiring special design features for Renewable Energy ROWs would increase the time, cost, or, in some cases, 

avoidance or denial of the project.

ROWs and other 

Land Use 

Authorizations

Excluded

Excluding ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations on 

57,000 BLMadministered acres 

would limit 

implementation at 

certain times or 

prohibit 

authorizations in 2%

of the BLMadministered lands in 

the planning area.

Excluding ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations on 

2,400,000 BLMadministered acres 

would limit 

implementation at 

certain times or 

prohibit 

authorizations in 

88% of the BLMadministered lands 

in the planning area.

Excluding ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations on 

880,000 BLMadministered acres 

would limit 

implementation at 

certain times or 

prohibit 

authorizations in 

32% of the BLMadministered lands 

in the planning area.

Excluding ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations on 

570,000 BLMadministered acres 

would limit 

implementation at 

certain times or 

prohibit 

authorizations in 

21% of the BLMadministered lands 

in the planning 

area.

Excluding ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations on 

16,000 BLMadministered acres 

would prohibit 

authorizations in 

less than 1% of the 

BLM-administered 

lands in the 

planning area.

ROWs and other 

Land Use 

Authorizations

Avoided

Avoiding ROWs and 

other land use 

authorizations on 

300 BLMadministered acres 

would increase the 

cost and time of 

projects and reduce 

opportunities for the 

public to receive 

land use approvals. 

These restrictions 

would impact less 

than 1% of the 

See impacts from 

Exclusion, which 

would leave 

327,000 acres 

(12%) of BLMadministered 

surface open for 

ROW and other 

land use 

authorization 

development in the 

planning area.

Avoiding ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations on 

6201,000 BLMadministered acres 

would increase the 

cost and time of 

projects, reduce 

opportunities for the 

public to receive 

land use approvals, 

and would 

potentially cause the 

denial of projects. 

Avoiding ROWs

and other land use 

authorizations on 

490,000 BLMadministered acres 

would increase the 

cost and time of 

projects, reduce 

opportunities for 

the public to 

receive land use 

approvals, and 

would potentially 

cause the denial of 

Avoiding land use 

authorizations on 

1,300,000 BLMadministered acres 

would increase the 

cost and time of 

projects, reduce 

opportunities for the 

public to receive 

land use approvals, 

and would 

potentially cause the 

denial of projects. 

These restrictions 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-214

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

BLM-administered 

lands in the planning 

area, leaving 

2,700,000 acres 

(98%) of BLMadministered surface 

open for ROW and 

other land use 

authorization 

development in the 

planning area.

These restrictions 

would impact 22%

of the BLMadministered lands 

in the planning area, 

leaving 1,300,000 

acres (46%) of 

BLM-administered 

surface open for 

ROW and other land 

use authorization 

development in the 

planning area.

projects. These 

restrictions would 

impact 18% of the 

BLM-administered 

lands in the 

planning area, 

leaving 1,700,000 

acres (61%) of 

BLM-administered 

surface open for 

ROW and other 

land use 

authorization 

development in the 

planning area.

would impact 45%

of the BLMadministered lands 

in the planning area, 

leaving 1,500,000 

acres (55%) of 

BLM-administered 

surface open for 

ROW and other land 

use authorization 

development in the 

planning area.

Lands and Realty, 

Power Lines

Within the Powder 

River RMP area, 

low-voltage power 

lines associated with

oil and gas would be 

buried if feasible, 

which would 

increase the cost and 

time of the project, 

possibly cause 

conflicts with 

aboveground power 

lines on adjoining 

lands, and cause 

more surface 

disturbance than 

aboveground power 

lines.

Requiring burial of 

power lines (if 

feasible) would 

increase the cost 

and time of the 

project, possibly 

cause conflicts with 

aboveground power 

lines on adjoining 

lands, and cause 

more surface 

disturbance than 

aboveground power 

lines. Burying 

power lines would 

potentially cause 

avoidance of the 

area or denial of the 

project.

Power line

restrictions would 

prohibit power line

ROWs, particularly 

for aboveground 

power lines unless 

the power line can 

be designed in a 

manner that 

maintained specific 

wildlife habitat 

functionality. These 

restrictions would 

increase the cost and 

time of projects and 

would potentially 

cause avoidance of 

the area or denial of 

the project.

Power line

restrictions would 

prohibit power line

ROWs, particularly 

for aboveground 

power lines unless 

the power line can 

be designed in a 

manner that 

maintained specific 

wildlife habitat 

functionality. 

These restrictions 

would increase the 

cost and time of 

projects and would 

potentially cause 

avoidance of the 

area or denial of 

the project.

Requiring burial of 

low-voltage power 

lines for renewable 

energy projects (if 

feasible) or 

specialized design 

features that 

maintained habitat 

would increase the 

cost and time of 

projects, cause more 

surface disturbance 

than aboveground 

power lines, and 

possibly cause 

conflicts with 

aboveground power 

lines on adjoining 

lands.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-215

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

ROWs and other 

Land Use 

Authorizations, 

Prescribed Fire

No impact from 

allowing prescribed 

fire.

Prohibiting 

prescribed fire on 

2,500,000 (91%) 

acres of BLMadministered lands 

would increase fuel 

buildup for 

wildland fires, 

which would 

increase the 

susceptibility of 

ROW and other 

land use 

authorization 

facilities to damage. 

No impact from allowing prescribed fire.

SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS

ACECs

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. However, should impacts 

be unavoidable, mitigation would be applied prior to the authorization of project implementation.

The Ash Creek 

Divide, Bug Creek, 

Hell Creek, Sand 

Arroyo, Big Sheep 

Mountain, Hoe, 

Jordan Bison Kill, 

Powder River Depot, 

Seline, Finger 

Buttes, Piping 

Plover, Smoky 

Butte, and Blackfooted Ferret

Reintroduction 

would continue to be 

designated ACECs.

Little, if any, impacts 

would occur to 

resources within 

The Ash Creek Divide, Bug Creek, Hell Creek, Sand Arroyo, Big Sheep Mountain, Hoe, 

Jordan Bison Kill, Powder River Depot, Seline, Finger Buttes, Piping Plover, Smoky 

Butte, and Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction Area would continue to be designated 

ACECs. The Cedar Creek Battlefield, Flat Creek Paleontological Area, Powderville

Paleontological Area, Long Medicine Wheel Area, Walstein Area, and Yonkee Area 

would be designated ACECs. Little if any impacts would occur to resources within 

ACECs as they would be protected from the variety of management actions.
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-216

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

ACECs because they 

would be protected 

from the variety of 

management actions.

Ash Creek Divide

ACEC

The ACEC would be 7,921 acres under this alternative.

Bug Creek ACEC The ACEC would be 3,837 acres under this alternative.

Hell Creek ACEC The ACEC would be 19,373 acres under this alternative.

Sand Arroyo ACEC The ACEC would be 9,052 acres under this alternative.

Big Sheep Mountain 

ACEC

The ACEC would be 363 acres under this alternative.

Hoe ACEC The ACEC would be 147 acres under this alternative.

Jordan Bison Kill 

ACEC

The ACEC would be 160 acres under this alternative.

Powder River Depot 

ACEC

The ACEC would be 1,401 acres under this alternative.

Seline ACEC The ACEC would be 80 acres under this alternative.

Battle Butte

Battlefield ACEC 

The ACEC would be 

121 acres under this 

alternative. Little if 

any impacts would 

occur to resources 

within ACECs as 

they would be 

protected from the 

variety of 

management actions.

The ACEC would be 237 acres under this alternative. Little if any 

impacts would occur to resources within ACECs as they would be 

protected from the variety of management actions.

The ACEC would 

be 320 acres under 

this alternative.

Little if any impacts 

would occur to 

resources within 

ACECs as they 

would be protected 

from the variety of 

management 

actions.

Reynolds Battlefield

ACEC

The ACEC would be 

324 acres under this 

alternative. Little if 

any impacts would 

occur to resources 

within ACECs 

because they would 

The Reynolds Battlefield area would increase to 922 acres. Little if any impacts would 

occur to resources within ACECs because they would be protected from the variety of 

management actions.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-217

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

be protected from the 

variety of 

management actions.

Finger Buttes ACEC The ACEC would be 1,520 acres under this alternative.

Piping Plover ACEC The ACEC would be 16 acres under this alternative.

Smoky Butte ACEC The ACEC would be 80 acres under this alternative.

Black-footed Ferret 

Reintroduction ACEC 

The ACEC would be 11,221 acres under this alternative.

Cedar Creek

Battlefield Area 

The area would be 1,022 acres under this alternative.

Flat Creek

Paleontological Area 

The area would be 547 acres under this alternative.

Powderville

Paleontological Area

The area would be 

29,571 acres under 

this alternative.

The ACEC would 

be 27,151 acres 

under this 

alternative.

The ACEC would be 

27,151 acres under 

this alternative.

The ACEC would 

be 27,151 acres 

under this 

alternative.

The ACEC would 

be 9,518 acres 

under this 

alternative.

Long Medicine Wheel

Area 

The area would be 179 acres under this alternative.

Walstein Area The area would be 2,054 acres under this alternative.

Yonkee Area The area would be 40 acres under this alternative.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC

Social and Economic 

Continuation of 

current management 

would maintain or 

enhance the quality 

of life of permittees, 

those who prefer

resource use, and 

many residents of 

local communities. 

Those who prefer 

resource protection 

for prairie 

ecosystems 

(including greater 

This alternative 

would enhance the 

quality of life of 

those who prefer

resource protection 

and recreation that 

provides primitive, 

quiet experiences. 

Permittees, those

who favor resource 

use, OHV

enthusiasts, and 

many residents of 

local communities, 

would not feel their 

This alternative 

would maintain the 

quality of life of 

those who prefer 

resource protection 

for prairie 

ecosystems 

(including greater 

sage-grouse habitat) 

and primitive, quiet 

recreation 

opportunities. 

Permittees, those 

who favor resource 

use, OHV

This alternative 

would maintain or 

enhance the quality 

of life of 

permittees, those 

who prefer

resource use, many 

residents of local 

communities, and 

those who 

participate in offroad recreation 

opportunities. 

Those who prefer

resource protection 

This alternative may

maintain the quality 

of life of those who 

prefer resource 

protection for 

prairie ecosystems 

(including greater 

sage-grouse habitat)

and primitive, quiet 

recreation 

opportunities. 

Permittees, those 

who favor resource 

use, OHV

enthusiasts, and 
ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2

2-218

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

sage-grouse habitat) 

and primitive, quiet 

recreation 

opportunities would 

not feel these 

resources would 

receive adequate 

protection and may 

experience a decline 

in quality of life. 

Total local jobs and 

associated labor 

income related to 

BLM land 

management would

be an estimated 

2,278 jobs and $126 

million, an increase 

of 45% and 48.2%

from current levels.

concerns were 

adequately 

addressed and may 

experience a decline 

in quality of life.

Opportunities for 

primitive, quiet 

recreation 

experiences would 

be greatest under 

this alternative.

Total local jobs and 

associated labor 

income related to 

BLM land 

management would 

be an estimated 

1,596 jobs and 

$86.7 million, an 

increase of 1.5%

and 1.8% from 

current levels.

Overall, 

employment and 

income related to 

BLM activities 

would increase by 

approximately 2%

from current levels, 

which would be 

lower than under 

other alternatives.

enthusiasts, and 

some residents of 

local communities, 

would also feel their 

concerns were 

addressed. 

Total local jobs and 

associated labor 

income related to 

BLM land 

management would 

be an estimated 

2,081 jobs and 

$113.6 million, an 

increase of 32.4%

and 33.5% from 

current levels.

for prairie 

ecosystems 

(including greater 

sage-grouse 

habitat) and 

primitive, quiet 

recreation

opportunities 

would not feel that 

these resources 

would receive 

adequate protection 

and may 

experience a 

decline in quality 

of life. Except for 

Alternative A, this 

alternative would 

be result in the 

highest levels of 

resource use.

Total local jobs and 

associated labor 

income related to 

BLM land 

management would 

be an estimated 

2,135 jobs and 

$117.2 million, an 

increase of 35.8%

and 37.7% from 

current levels.

This alternative 

would allow the 

highest levels 

some residents of 

local communities, 

may also feel that 

their concerns were 

addressed. 

Total local jobs and 

associated labor 

income related to 

BLM land 

management would

be an estimated 

1,986 jobs and $109 

million, an increase 

of 26.4% and 27.8% 

from current levels. 
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2-219

TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or Resource 

Use

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E (Preferred)

livestock grazing, 

coal exploration 

and oil and gas

development 

except for 

Alternative A. 

Long-tailed weasel in winter near Ekalaka, Montana
This page intentionally left blank.