BLM

Lewistown Field Office 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Draft 

Resource Management Plan Amendment 

and Environmental Impact Statement 

US Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

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

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

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

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

BLM/MT/PL-14-001 

DOI-BLM-MT-L060-2013-0032-EIS 

Cover Photo: Steve Ting 
United States Department ofthe Interior 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Lewistown Field Office TAKE PRIDE 

920NEMain INAMERICA 

Lewistown, Montana 59457 

http ://www.blm.gov/mt 

September 18, 20 13 

Dear Reader: 

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

Plan Amendment (RMPA)/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Lewistown Field Office 

(LFO). This document has been prepared by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with assistance 

from the following cooperating agencies: US Fish and Wildlife Service; Natural Resources Conservation 

Service; Lewis and Clark National Forest; Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Montana 

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation; Fergus County; Judith Basin County; Petroleum 

County; Petroleum County Conservation District; Indian Butte Cooperative State Grazing District 

(CSGD); Winnett CSGD; and Chain Buttes CSGD. 

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


345,560 acres of BLM-administered surface and 639,927 acres of federal mineral estate in central 


Montana administered by the BLM's LFO. Alternative Dis identified as the agency's preferred 


alternative. Although a preferred alternative has been identified, a final decision has not been made. The 


final decision, which will be documented in a Record of Decision, will be made after consideration of the 


comments received on the draft EIS and after a proposed RMPA/final EIS is released. 


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


Appendices (including maps). Compact disc copies of the document may be obtained through the LFO, 


or a copy of the document may be viewed at http://blm.gov/f9kd website. 


You are invited to review and comment on the DEIS. The public review period for the DEIS is 90 


calendar days from the publication date of the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register by the US 


Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . Information regarding public meeting dates, and times to 


discuss the DEIS and provide comment will be released through the news media and website (identified 


in letterhead) after the publication of the EPA Notice of Availability. 


Written comments can be submitted to: Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse EIS, 920 NE Main 


Street Lewistown, MT 59457. Comments can also be submitted to this email address: 


blm mt lfo sage grouse@blm .gov or through a separate link located at the website shown above. 


Comments will be fully considered and evaluated in the preparation of the Proposed RMPA and Final 


EIS, and all substantive comments will be addressed. 


Comments will be most useful if they are specific, mention particular pages where appropriate, and 


address one or more of the following: 


• inaccuracies or discrepancies in information 

• identification of new information relevant to the analysis 

• identification of new impacts, alternatives, or mitigation measures 
" specific suggestions for improving management direction 

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

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

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

review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

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

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

Moor, Public Affairs Specialist, at (406) 538-1943. 

Geoff Beyersdorf 

Field Manager 
Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse

Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment and

Environmental Impact Statement

BLM/MT/PL-14-001

DOI-BLM-MT-L060-2013-0032-EIS

1. Responsible Agency: United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

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

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

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

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

following cooperating agencies: US Fish and Wildlife Service; Natural Resources Conservation 

Service; Lewis and Clark National Forest; Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Montana 

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation; Fergus County; Judith Basin County; 

Petroleum County; Petroleum County Conservation District; Indian Butte Cooperative State 

Grazing District (CSGD); Winnett CSGD; and Chain Buttes CSGD.

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

approximately 345,560 acres of BLM-administered surface and 639,927 acres of federal mineral 

estate in central Montana administered by the BLM’s Lewistown Field Office (LFO). Alternative A is 

a continuation of current management (No Action Alternative). Under this alternative, use of public 

lands and resources would continue to be managed under the Judith Resource Area and 

Headwaters RMPs, as amended. Alternative B describes management actions taken directly from the 

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

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

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

county (Fergus, Petroleum, Judith Basis, Chouteau and Meagher Counties) planning area containing 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat within the LFO. Alternative D is the BLM’s current preferred 

alternative. Alternative D is not a final agency decision but instead an indication of the agency’s 

preliminary preference that reflects the best combination of decisions to achieve BLM goals and 

policies, meet the purpose and need, address the key planning issues, and consider the

recommendations of cooperating agencies and BLM specialists.

Major issues discussed in the draft EIS include: lands and realty actions, minerals, recreation and 

travel management, livestock grazing, vegetation management, fire and fuels management, social, 

economic and environmental justice, special management areas, and drought and climate change. 

The alternatives present a range of management actions to achieve the goal of Greater Sage-Grouse

conservation for the LFO. When completed, the Record of Decision for the RMPA/EIS will provide 

allowable uses and management actions for select resources and resource uses to conserve Greater 

Sage-Grouse and its habitat.
5. Review Period: Comments on the draft RMPA/EIS will be accepted for 90 days following publication 

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

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

http://blm.gov/f9kd.

6. For further information contact: 

Adam Carr, Team Leader

Bureau of Land Management, 

Lewistown Field Office

920 NE Main Street

Lewistown, MT 59457

(406) 538-1900
October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

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

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

ES.2 Purpose and Need......................................................................................................................ES-5

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

ES.4 Scoping ..........................................................................................................................................ES-6

ES.5 Issues..............................................................................................................................................ES-7

ES.5.1 Issues Specific to Lewistown Field Office ..............................................................ES-8

ES.6 Planning Criteria..........................................................................................................................ES-8

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

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

ES.7.2 Elements Common to Action Alternatives B, C, and D ................................. ES-12

ES.7.3 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. ES-13

ES.7.4 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. ES-13

ES.7.5 Alternative D (Agency Preferred) ........................................................................ ES-13

ES.8 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................................. ES-14

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.5 BLM Planning Process..................................................................................................................1-6

1.5.1 Implementation of Land Use Plans............................................................................1-7

1.5.2 Monitoring .......................................................................................................................1-8

1.6 Scoping and Identification of Issues..........................................................................................1-8

1.6.1 The Scoping Process.....................................................................................................1-8

1.6.2 Scoping Comments .......................................................................................................1-9

1.6.3 Issues Identified ............................................................................................................1-10

1.6.4 Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed......................................................1-11

1.6.5 Issues Beyond the Scope of the Plan.......................................................................1-13

1.7 Development of Planning Criteria ..........................................................................................1-14

1.8 Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs.........................................................1-17

1.8.1 National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy................................................1-17

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

Management Policies and Procedures .........................................................................1-18

1.8.3 Greater Sage‐Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation 

Objectives Final Report..............................................................................................1-19

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

the Rangewide Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) .................................................................................................................1-19

1.8.5 National Level Programmatic EISs and Agreements...........................................1-19

1.8.6 Relevant Plan Amendments.......................................................................................1-20

1.8.7 Off-Highway Vehicle Record of Decision and Proposed Plan 

Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota....1-20
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

ii Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

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

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

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

2.3 Alternatives Development Process for the Lewistown Field Office Greater 

Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment..................................................................................................2-3

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

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

2.4.1 Management Common to All Alternatives..............................................................2-8

2.4.2 Alternative A (No Action)...........................................................................................2-8

2.4.3 Elements Common to Alternatives B, C, and D....................................................2-9

2.4.4 Alternative B.................................................................................................................2-10

2.4.5 Alternative C ................................................................................................................2-11

2.4.6 Alternative D (Agency Preferred) ...........................................................................2-13

2.5 Regional Mitigation Strategy.....................................................................................................2-14

2.6 Monitoring for the Greater Sage-grouse Planning Strategy..............................................2-15

2.7 Adaptive Management ...............................................................................................................2-17

2.7.1 Adaptive Management and Monitoring...................................................................2-17

2.7.2 Adaptive Management Plan........................................................................................2-17

2.8 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ..................................................................2-19

2.8.1 National Technical Team Conservation Measures Not Applicable to 

Lewistown Field Office...............................................................................................2-19

2.8.2 Elimination of Livestock Grazing from BLM Lands..............................................2-19

2.9 Considerations for Selecting a Preferred Alternative........................................................2-20

2.9.1 Recommendations and Resulting Actions..............................................................2-21

2.10 Summary Comparison of Alternatives ..................................................................................2-21

2.10.1 How to Read Table 2-4..............................................................................................2-25

2.11 Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in Lewistown Field Office by 

Alternative....................................................................................................................................2-45

2.12 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences..................................................2-48

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

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

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

3.2.1 WAFWA Management Zone Data............................................................................3-4

3.3 Greater Sage-Grouse...................................................................................................................3-4

3.3.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ................................................................................3-7

3.3.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-15

3.3.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-18

3.4 Lands and Realty .........................................................................................................................3-19

3.4.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-21

3.4.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-23

3.4.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-27

3.5 Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands)....................................3-27

3.5.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-28

3.5.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-33

3.5.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-36
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS iii

3.6 Wildland Fire Management and Ecology ...............................................................................3-37

3.6.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-38

3.6.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-39

3.6.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-42

3.7 Fluid Minerals...............................................................................................................................3-43

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

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

3.7.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-49

3.8 Solid Leasable Minerals..............................................................................................................3-49

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

3.8.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-50

3.8.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-50

3.9 Locatable Minerals......................................................................................................................3-50

3.9.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-50

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

3.9.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-51

3.10 Salable Minerals...........................................................................................................................3-51

3.10.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-51

3.10.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-52

3.10.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-53

3.11 Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management................................................3-53

3.11.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-53

3.11.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-55

3.11.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-56

3.12 Recreation ....................................................................................................................................3-56

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

3.12.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-57

3.12.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-59

3.13 Range Management.....................................................................................................................3-60

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

3.13.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-63

3.13.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-67

3.14 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ............................................................................3-68

3.14.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-69

3.14.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-69

3.14.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-70

3.15 Air Resources..............................................................................................................................3-70

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

3.15.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-75

3.15.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-75

3.16 Climate ..........................................................................................................................................3-76

3.16.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-77

3.16.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-77

3.16.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-78

3.17 Soil Resources.............................................................................................................................3-78

3.17.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-79

3.17.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-80
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

iv Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

3.17.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-83

3.18 Water Resources........................................................................................................................3-83

3.18.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-83

3.18.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-84

3.18.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-90

3.19 Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue..................................................................3-90

3.19.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-91

3.19.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-92

3.19.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-92

3.20 Fish and Wildlife..........................................................................................................................3-93

3.20.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-94

3.20.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-95

3.20.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-95

3.21 Renewable Energy ......................................................................................................................3-95

3.21.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-97

3.21.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-98

3.21.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-98

3.22 Social and Economic Conditions.............................................................................................3-99

3.22.1 Existing Conditions......................................................................................................3-99

3.23 Environmental Justice.............................................................................................................. 3-106

3.23.1 Existing Conditions................................................................................................... 3-106

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

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

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

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

4.1.3 Incomplete or Unavailable Information....................................................................4-5

4.2 Greater Sage-Grouse...................................................................................................................4-5

4.2.1 Methods and Assumptions..........................................................................................4-5

4.2.2 Nature and Type of Effects .........................................................................................4-7

4.2.3 Alternative A.................................................................................................................4-15

4.2.4 Alternative B.................................................................................................................4-20

4.2.5 Alternative C ................................................................................................................4-24

4.2.6 Alternative D ................................................................................................................4-28

4.2.7 Impacts Summary.........................................................................................................4-30

4.3 Lands and Realty .........................................................................................................................4-44

4.3.1 Methods and Assumptions........................................................................................4-44

4.3.2 Nature and Type of Effects .......................................................................................4-45

4.3.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.....................................................................4-46

4.3.4 Alternative A.................................................................................................................4-46

4.3.5 Alternative B.................................................................................................................4-47

4.3.6 Alternative C ................................................................................................................4-48

4.3.7 Alternative D ................................................................................................................4-49

4.4 Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands)....................................4-50

4.4.1 Methods and Assumptions........................................................................................4-50

4.4.2 Nature and Type of Effects .......................................................................................4-51

4.4.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.....................................................................4-56
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS v

4.4.4 Alternative A.................................................................................................................4-56

4.4.5 Alternative B.................................................................................................................4-64

4.4.6 Alternative C ................................................................................................................4-66

4.4.7 Alternative D ................................................................................................................4-68

4.5 Wildland Fire Management and Ecology ...............................................................................4-70

4.5.1 Methods and Assumptions........................................................................................4-70

4.5.2 Nature and Type of Effects .......................................................................................4-70

4.5.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.....................................................................4-73

4.5.4 Alternative A.................................................................................................................4-73

4.5.5 Alternative B.................................................................................................................4-75

4.5.6 Alternative C ................................................................................................................4-77

4.5.7 Alternative D ................................................................................................................4-78

4.6 Fluid Minerals...............................................................................................................................4-80

4.6.1 Methods and Assumptions........................................................................................4-80

4.6.2 Nature and Type of Effects .......................................................................................4-81

4.6.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.....................................................................4-82

4.6.4 Alternative A.................................................................................................................4-82

4.6.5 Alternative B.................................................................................................................4-83

4.6.6 Alternative C ................................................................................................................4-83

4.6.7 Alternative D ................................................................................................................4-84

4.7 Solid Leasable Minerals..............................................................................................................4-84

4.7.1 Methods and Assumptions........................................................................................4-84

4.7.2 Nature and Type of Effects .......................................................................................4-86

4.7.3 Alternative A.................................................................................................................4-86

4.7.4 Alternative B.................................................................................................................4-86

4.7.5 Alternative C ................................................................................................................4-87

4.7.6 Alternative D ................................................................................................................4-87

4.8 Solid Minerals (Locatable Minerals)........................................................................................4-87

4.8.1 Methods and Assumptions........................................................................................4-87

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

4.8.3 Alternative A.................................................................................................................4-89

4.8.4 Alternative B.................................................................................................................4-89

4.8.5 Alternative C ................................................................................................................4-90

4.8.6 Alternative D ................................................................................................................4-90

4.9 Solid Minerals (Salable Minerals).............................................................................................4-91

4.9.1 Methods and Assumptions........................................................................................4-91

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

4.9.3 Alternative A.................................................................................................................4-93

4.9.4 Alternative B.................................................................................................................4-93

4.9.5 Alternative C ................................................................................................................4-94

4.9.6 Alternative D ................................................................................................................4-94

4.10 Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management................................................4-95

4.10.1 Methods and Assumptions........................................................................................4-95

4.10.2 Nature and Type of Effects .......................................................................................4-96

4.10.3 Alternative A.................................................................................................................4-97

4.10.4 Alternative B.................................................................................................................4-97

4.10.5 Alternative C ................................................................................................................4-98
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

vi Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

4.10.6 Alternative D ................................................................................................................4-98

4.11 Recreation ....................................................................................................................................4-99

4.11.1 Methods and Assumptions........................................................................................4-99

4.11.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-100

4.11.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-102

4.11.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-102

4.11.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-103

4.11.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-105

4.11.7 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-106

4.12 Range Management.................................................................................................................. 4-107

4.12.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-107

4.12.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-109

4.12.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-112

4.12.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-113

4.12.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-116

4.12.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-119

4.12.7 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-121

4.13 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ......................................................................... 4-123

4.13.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-123

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

4.13.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-125

4.13.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-125

4.13.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-126

4.13.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-126

4.13.7 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-128

4.14 Air Resources........................................................................................................................... 4-128

4.14.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-128

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

4.14.3 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-129

4.14.4 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-129

4.14.5 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-130

4.14.6 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-131

4.15 Climate ....................................................................................................................................... 4-131

4.15.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-131

4.15.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-132

4.15.3 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-132

4.15.4 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-132

4.15.5 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-133

4.15.6 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-133

4.16 Soil Resources.......................................................................................................................... 4-134

4.16.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-134

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

4.16.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-137

4.16.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-137

4.16.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-139

4.16.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-141

4.16.7 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-142
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS vii

4.17 Water Resources..................................................................................................................... 4-144

4.17.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-144

4.17.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-145

4.17.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-146

4.17.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-147

4.17.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-149

4.17.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-151

4.17.7 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-153

4.18 Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue............................................................... 4-154

4.18.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-154

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

4.18.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-160

4.18.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-160

4.18.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-164

4.18.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-167

4.18.7 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-171

4.19 Fish and Wildlife....................................................................................................................... 4-174

4.19.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-174

4.19.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-176

4.19.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-177

4.19.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-177

4.19.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-178

4.19.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-180

4.19.7 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-182

4.20 Renewable Energy ................................................................................................................... 4-184

4.20.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-184

4.20.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-185

4.20.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-185

4.20.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-186

4.20.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-187

4.20.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-187

4.20.7 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-188

4.21 Social and Economic Conditions.......................................................................................... 4-189

4.21.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-189

4.21.2 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-190

4.21.3 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-191

4.21.4 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-192

4.21.5 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-193

4.22 Environmental Justice.............................................................................................................. 4-195

4.23 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts............................................................................................... 4-195

4.24 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................................ 4-196

4.25 Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity.............. 4-197

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

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

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

5.1.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions................................5-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

viii Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

5.2 Greater Sage-Grouse...................................................................................................................5-7

5.2.1 WAFWA Management Zone 1 Analysis..................................................................5-7

5.2.2 WAFWA Management Zone IV...............................................................................5-16

5.2.3 Conclusions...................................................................................................................5-19

5.3 Lands and Realty .........................................................................................................................5-21

5.4 Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands)....................................5-23

5.5 Wildland Fire Management and Ecology ...............................................................................5-26

5.6 Fluid Minerals...............................................................................................................................5-28

5.7 Solid Minerals (Solid Leasable Minerals)................................................................................5-28

5.8 Solid Minerals (Locatable Minerals)........................................................................................5-28

5.9 Solid Minerals (Salable Minerals).............................................................................................5-28

5.10 Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management................................................5-29

5.11 Recreation ....................................................................................................................................5-30

5.12 Range Management.....................................................................................................................5-31

5.13 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ............................................................................5-32

5.14 Air Resources..............................................................................................................................5-33

5.15 Climate ..........................................................................................................................................5-34

5.16 Soil Resources.............................................................................................................................5-35

5.17 Water Resources........................................................................................................................5-37

5.18 Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue..................................................................5-39

5.19 Fish and Wildlife..........................................................................................................................5-41

5.20 Renewable Energy ......................................................................................................................5-43

5.21 Social and Economic Conditions.............................................................................................5-44

5.22 Environmental Justice.................................................................................................................5-45

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INDEX ...............................................................................................................................INDEX-1
October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS ix

TABLES Page

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

ES-2 Range-Wide Planning Issues for the Lewistown Field Office..........................................................ES-7

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

1-2 Range-Wide Planning Issues for the Lewistown Field Office..........................................................1-10

2-1 Management Zone 1 – Yellowstone Watershed .................................................................................2-4

2-2 Management Zone IV – Belt Mountains.................................................................................................2-6

2-3 Comparative Summary of Alternatives ................................................................................................2-22

2-4 Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D.........................................................................................2-27

2-5 Summary of Impacts on GRSG...............................................................................................................2-45

2-6 Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D................................2-48

3-1 PPH and PGH Occurring on BLM-Administered Lands and Non-BLM Lands in the 

Planning Area ................................................................................................................................................3-7

3-2 Acres of PPH within Each Vegetation Type on BLM-Administered Lands and 

Non-BLM-Administered Lands in the Lewistown Field Office.........................................................3-9

3-3 Acres of PGH within Each Vegetation Type on BLM-Administered Lands and 

Non-BLM-administered Lands within the Lewistown Field Office................................................3-10

3-4 Surface Ownership in PPH and PGH....................................................................................................3-13

3-5 2012/2013 Active Lek Sizes within Planning Area .............................................................................3-17

3-6 Land Ownership by Population Area in PPH......................................................................................3-17

3-7 Surface Ownership within the Planning Area .....................................................................................3-21

3-8 GRSG Habitat within City Limits...........................................................................................................3-22

3-9 Transmission Lines within GRSG Habitat............................................................................................3-22

3-10 Number of Communication Towers within GRSG Habitat............................................................3-22

3-11 Vertical Obstructions within GRSG Habitat.......................................................................................3-23

3-12 Active ROW Authorizations within GRSG Habitat..........................................................................3-24

3-13 ROW Avoidance Areas within the Planning Area.............................................................................3-25

3-14 Communication Sites within the Planning Area .................................................................................3-26

3-15 Withdrawal Lands within GRSG Habitat.............................................................................................3-26

3-16 Montana Noxious Weed List..................................................................................................................3-31

3-17 Cheatgrass Potential within GRSG Habitat.........................................................................................3-33

3-18 Cropland within GRSG Habitat..............................................................................................................3-33

3-19 Vegetation Communities within GRSG Habitat on BLM-Administered Lands...........................3-34

3-20 Wetland Vegetation and Aquatic Habitat within GRSG Habitat on BLM-Administered 

Lands.............................................................................................................................................................3-34

3-21 PFC Assessments within GRSG Habitat on BLM-Administered Lands........................................3-35

3-22 Wildland Fire within GRSG Habitat......................................................................................................3-38

3-23 High Probability for Wildland Fire within GRSG Habitat................................................................3-39

3-24 National Vegetation Condition Class on BLM-Administered Lands.............................................3-40

3-25 Fires on BLM-Administered Lands within the Judith Resource Area RMP Area 

(1992-2012).................................................................................................................................................3-41

3-26 2011 County Drilling and Production Statistics.................................................................................3-44

3-27 Open to Oil and Gas Leasing within GRSG Habitat.........................................................................3-45

3-28 Closed to Oil and Gas Leasing within GRSG Habitat.......................................................................3-45

3-29 Oil and Gas Leases within GRSG Habitat............................................................................................3-46

3-30 Oil and Gas Leases Held by Production within GRSG Habitat......................................................3-46

3-31 Oil and Gas Wells within GRSG Habitat.............................................................................................3-46

3-32 Federal Mineral Status in the Planning Area........................................................................................3-47

3-33 Existing Oil and Gas Leases.....................................................................................................................3-48
TABLES (continued) Page

x Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

3-34 Salable Material Disposal Sites within GRSG Habitat .......................................................................3-52

3-35 Miles of Roads within GRSG Habitat....................................................................................................3-54

3-36 Acres of Roads within GRSG Habitat...................................................................................................3-54

3-37 Miles of Railroads within GRSG Habitat..............................................................................................3-54

3-38 Designated SRMAs in the Planning Area..............................................................................................3-57

3-39 Designated ERMAs in the Planning Area..............................................................................................3-58

3-40 Grazing Allotments within GRSG Habitat...........................................................................................3-62

3-41 Allotments Not Meeting Land Health Standards within GRSG Habitat.......................................3-63

3-42 Fences within GRSG Habitat ..................................................................................................................3-63

3-43 Lewistown Field Office Planning Area – Grazing Allocation...........................................................3-64

3-44 Lewistown Field Office Planning Area – Summary of Allotments and AUMs by 

Habitat Type ...............................................................................................................................................3-64

3-45 Lewistown Field Office Planning Area – Land Health Assessment................................................3-66

3-46 Air Quality Monitor Values Near the Planning Area (2009-2011)* ..............................................3-71

3-47 Air Quality Index Report, 2009-2011...................................................................................................3-73

3-48 Annual Average Deposition (2009-2011) ............................................................................................3-75

3-49 Dominant Soil Order on BLM-Administered Lands..........................................................................3-80

3-50 NRCS Farmlands on BLM-Administered Lands..................................................................................3-81

3-51 Sensitive Soils in the Planning Area .......................................................................................................3-82

3-52 Soil Restoration Potential on BLM-Administered Lands..................................................................3-82

3-53 Developed Water Sources in the Planning Area ...............................................................................3-84

3-54 Watershed Acreages in the Planning Area..........................................................................................3-85

3-55 Streams on BLM-Administered Lands in the Planning Area............................................................3-85

3-56 Acres of Freshwater Pond and Lacustrine in PPH and PGH on BLM-Administered 

Lands in the Planning Area ......................................................................................................................3-86

3-57 Impaired Streams on BLM-Administered Lands in the Planning Area ..........................................3-88

3-58 Habitat by Ownership within the Planning Area................................................................................3-91

3-59 Wildlife Species of the Lewistown Field Office..................................................................................3-94

3-60 Wind Potential on Slopes <15% on BLM-administered Lands........................................................3-98

3-61 Population by Race and Ethnicity (2010) .......................................................................................... 3-107

4-1 ROW Exclusion and Avoidance Areas in GRSG Habitat (PH and GH).......................................4-17

4-2 Acres and AUMs Available for Grazing in the Planning Area in GRSG Habitat.........................4-18

4-3 Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by 

Alternative...................................................................................................................................................4-31

4-4 Comparison of Lands and Realty Indicators by Alternative ............................................................4-44

4-5 Comparison of Vegetation Indicators by Alternative .......................................................................4-50

4-6 ReGAP Habitat Type including Non-BLM Acreage in PH and GH within Right-of-way 

Avoidance and Exclusion Areas by Alternative (Acres)...................................................................4-58

4-7 AUMs and Acres Available for Grazing in Decision Area ...............................................................4-62

4-8 Withdrawal from Locatable Mineral Entry in Decision Area..........................................................4-63

4-9 Comparison of Wildland Fire Management and Ecology Indicators by Alternative..................4-70

4-10 Comparison of Fluid Minerals Indicators by Alternative..................................................................4-80

4-11 Comparison of Solid Leasable Minerals Indicators by Alternative.................................................4-85

4-12 Comparison of Solid Minerals (Locatables) Indicators by Alternative..........................................4-88

4-13 Comparison of Solid Minerals (Salable Minerals) Indicators by Alternative................................4-91

4-14 Comparison of Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Indicators by 

Alternative...................................................................................................................................................4-95

4-15 Areas Open/Closed to New Road Construction by Alternative ..................................................4-97
TABLES (continued) Page

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS xi

4-16 Comparison of Recreation Indicators by Alternative.......................................................................4-99

4-17 Comparison of Range Management Indicators by Alternative .................................................... 4-107

4-18 Impacts on Livestock Grazing from Lands and Realty Actions.................................................... 4-114

4-19 Fluid Mineral Impacts on Range Management by Alternative ...................................................... 4-115

4-20 Comparison of ACEC Indicators by Alternative ............................................................................ 4-123

4-21 ACECs by Alternative ........................................................................................................................... 4-126

4-22 Comparison of Air Resource Indicators by Alternative................................................................ 4-128

4-23 Comparison of Climate Change Indicators by Alternative........................................................... 4-131

4-24 Comparison of Soil Resources Indicators by Alternative............................................................. 4-134

4-25 Quantitative Impact Summary by Alternative for Soils................................................................. 4-137

4-26 Comparison of Water Resources Indicators by Alternative ....................................................... 4-144

4-27 Quantitative Impact Summary by Alternative for Water Resources......................................... 4-147

4-28 Comparison of Special Status Species-Other Species of Issue Indicators by Alternative ..... 4-155

4-29 Non-BLM Acreage, GH, and PH within Right-of-way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas 

by Alternative (Acres) ........................................................................................................................... 4-162

4-30 Comparison of Wildlife Species Indicators by Alternative........................................................... 4-175

4-31 Comparison of Renewable Energy Resource Indicators by Alternative ................................... 4-184

4-32 BLM-Administered Lands Managed as ROW Exclusion and Avoidance Areas....................... 4-186

4-33 “Good” or Better Wind Potential That Would Be Managed as ROW Exclusion and 

Avoidance Areas..................................................................................................................................... 4-186

4-34 Wind Potential Affected by Alternative B ........................................................................................ 4-187

4-35 Wind Potential Affected by Alternative C........................................................................................ 4-188

4-36 Wind Potential Affected by Alternative D ....................................................................................... 4-189

4-37 Employment and Labor Income Generated from Recreation and Grazing under the 

RMPA......................................................................................................................................................... 4-190

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

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

6-1 Cooperating Agencies ................................................................................................................................6-5

DIAGRAMS Page

1-1 Nine-Step Planning Process.......................................................................................................................1-7

1-2 BLM and Forest Service GRSG Planning Strategy Sub-region/EIS Boundaries............................1-18

3-1 GRSG Survey Effort, Active Leks and Average Male Counts per Active Lek Surveyed 

in PPH 1952 – 2013 ..................................................................................................................................3-16

3-2 Percentage of PPH Leks in each Size Class 1952 – 2013.................................................................3-16

3-3 Land Use Authorizations .........................................................................................................................3-24

3-4 Population Change for the Five-County Impact Area ................................................................... 3-100

3-5 Employment Distribution in the Five-County Impact Area and Montana ................................ 3-101
xii Lewistown Field Office Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

APPENDICES

A Figures

B Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

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

Alternatives B and C

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

Alternative D

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

F Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public 

Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management for Montana and the Dakotas

G Regional Mitigation Strategy

H Land Pattern Review and Land Adjustment

I Drought Policy

J Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations

K GRSG Wildland Fire and Invasive Species Assessment

L Special Status Species Confirmed or Likely to Inhabit the Planning Area
October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS xiii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Full Phrase

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

AMP allotment management plan

APD application for permit to drill

AQI air quality index

AUM animal unit month

BER Baseline Environmental Report

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP best management practice

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO carbon monoxide

COA condition of approval

COT Conservation Objectives Team

CSGD Cooperative State Grazing District

CTTM comprehensive travel and transportation management

DOI Department of the Interior

EA environmental assessment

EIS environmental impact statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERMA Extensive Recreation Management Area

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

ES&R emergency stabilization and rehabilitation

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

FMU Fire Management Unit

Forest Service United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

FRCC fire regime condition class

GH general habitat

GHG greenhouse gas

GIS geographic information system

GRSG Greater Sage-Grouse

IM Instruction Memorandum

IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LFO Lewistown Field Office

MCF thousand cubic feet

MFWP Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks

MOU memorandum of understanding

MTDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality

MTNHP Montana Natural Heritage Program
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued) Full Phrase

xiv Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

mw megawatt

MZ Management Zone

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NRCS National Resource Conservation Service

NSHT National Scenic/Historic Trails

NSO no surface occupancy

NTT National Technical Team

OHV off-highway vehicle

PAC Priority Area for Conservation

PCPI per capita personal income

PFC proper functioning condition

PGH preliminary general habitat

PH priority habitat

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

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

PPH preliminary priority habitat

RDF required design feature

ReGAP Regional Gap Analysis Program

RMP resource management plan

RMPA resource plan amendment

ROD record of decision

ROW right-of-way

SGI NRCS Sage-Grouse Initiative

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area

SRP special recreation permit

TL timing limitation

TPI total personal income

US United States

USC United States Code

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

WAFWA Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

WSA Wilderness Study Area
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 INTRODUCTION

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

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

develop and periodically revise or amend its resource management plans 

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

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

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

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

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

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

has identified conservation measures in RMPs as the principal regulatory 

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

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

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

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

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

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

and will address, as necessary, amendments and revisions to RMPs throughout 

the range of the GRSG.

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

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

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

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

RMP revisions will also be addressing specific conservation measures. The 

amendments will be coordinated under two administrative planning regions 

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

Great Basin Region boundaries are drawn roughly to correspond with the 

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

ES-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) management 

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

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

management zones are similar and GRSG and their habitats are likely 

responding similarly to environmental factors and management actions. The 

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

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

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

Idaho and in portions of Utah and Montana.

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

publication of the USFWS 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater-SageGrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered. In this 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

both Listing Factors A and D (above) and proposes to provide consistency in 

the management of GRSG habitat.

This plan amendment addresses GRSG habitat within the Lewistown Field Office

(LFO). The BLM Montana State Office, in coordination with Montana Fish, 

Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP), has preliminarily mapped this habitat. GRSG habitat 

falls into one of the two following categories:

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

identified as having the highest conservation value to maintaining 

sustainable GRSG populations. These areas include breeding, late 

brood-rearing and winter concentration areas. 

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

year-round habitat outside of priority habitat. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

needed for sustainable GRSG populations.
Executive Summary (Introduction)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS ES-3

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

management zones is BLM-administered land; within the LFO, approximately 16 

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

of GRSG habitats are necessary to avoid the continued decline of populations 

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

measures, in the form of land use decisions will focus on areas affected by 

threats. Examples of these threats are wildfire, energy development, disease, 

and infrastructure development, depending on the threats identified for each 

subregion within the Rocky Mountain and Great Basin regions. The BLM 

administers a large portion of GRSG habitat within the affected states; because 

of this, changes in its management of GRSG habitats is anticipated to have a 

considerable impact on existing GRSG populations across the range of GRSG.

The planning area for the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse

Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA)/EIS is composed of lands 

administered by the BLM, the US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

(Forest Service), the USFWS, the US Department of Defense, and the State of 

Montana. It also includes private lands (Table ES-1, Land Ownership within the 

Planning Area). The planning area is in Chouteau, Fergus, Judith Basin, Meagher, 

and Petroleum Counties in central Montana. Unlike other RMPAs that are part 

of the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy, the Lewistown Field 

Office Greater Sage- Grouse RMPA/EIS does not address a range of alternatives 

for Forest Service surface/federal minerals. The Lewis & Clark National Forest is 

a cooperating agency; however, they have had minimal involvement in the 

planning process as the planning area does not include any Forest Service land 

that is considered GRSG habitat. A map of the planning area is provided as 

Figure 1-1, Project Planning Area, in Appendix A, Figures.

The planning area incorporates the PPH, PGH and additional lands not 

considered GRSG habitat. Though the planning area includes private lands, 

decisions in this amendment are made only for BLM federal surface and federal 

minerals. Management direction and actions apply only to these BLMadministered lands and to federal mineral estate under BLM jurisdiction that 

may lie beneath other surface ownership.

The planning area is currently managed under the Judith Resource Area Resource 

Management Plan (BLM 1994) and the Headwaters Resource Management 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision (BLM 1984). There is an 

existing protest resolution decision affecting lands managed within the LFO that 

does not allow oil and gas leasing of nominated parcels that would require a 

special stipulation to protect important wildlife values, which includes PPH and 

PGH. New leasing of areas with important wildlife values cannot occur until the 

BLM completes a plan amendment/EIS or a new/revised RMP/EIS, including oil 

and gas leasing decisions identified in a Record of Decision. Because this RMPA 

only considers management actions for GRSG and does not address oil and gas 
Executive Summary (Introduction)

ES-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table ES-1

Land Ownership within the Planning Area

Chouteau 

County Fergus County Judith Basin County

Meagher 

County

Petroleum 

County Planning Area

PPH

Acres

PGH

Acres

PPH

Acres

PGH

Acres

PPH

Acres

PGH

Acres

PPH

Acres

PGH

Acres

PPH

Acres

PGH

Acres

Planning 

Area 

Acres1

PPH

Acres

PGH

Acres

NonHabitat 

Acres

Surface Ownership

BLM2 0 18,696 83,148 55,855 0 3,692 0 439 150,071 33,659 593,995 233,219 112,341 248,435

Other 

Federal 0 0 113 2 0 0 0 1,626 3,575 89 1,010,816 3,688 1,717 1,005,411

State 

Lands 0 11,787 54,903 21,234 0 2,129 0 36,031 35,684 12,257 526,504 90,587 83,438 352,479

Private 0 107,728 506,694 275,159 0 25,627 0 265,747 371,477 142,608 5,168,165 878,171 816,869 3,473,125

Water 0 573 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,329 97 12,039 2,329 670 9,040

Total 0 138,784 644,858 352,250 0 31,448 0 303,843 563,136 188,710 7,311,519 1,207,994 1,015,035 5,088,490

Federal Mineral Estate3

All 

Minerals 0 30,202 102,760 80,304 0 6,679 0 11,910 166,428 43,932 820,108 269,189 173,027 367,480

Other 0 4,231 100,074 65,417 0 260 0 4,417 16,430 6,882 293,733 124,635 82,293 99,239

Total 0 34,433 202,834 145,721 0 6,939 0 16,327 182,858 50,814 1,509,263 393,824 255,320 466,719

Source: BLM 2012a

1

Planning area acres include PPH, PGH, and non-habitat. 2

For the purpose of this planning process, all BLM-administered lands have subsurface minerals. 3

These terms are derived primarily from master title plats and indicate what minerals are reserved by the federal government.
Executive Summary (Introduction)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS ES-5

leasing options for other wildlife resource values, oil and gas leasing will not be 

addressed in this RMPA/EIS. (The LFO RMP revision process will begin in 2013, 

which will address oil and gas leasing for the entire LFO planning area boundary.)

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

233,219 acres of PPH (20 percent of all PPH in the planning area) and 112,341 

acres of PGH (11 percent of all PGH in the planning area). PPH and PGH were 

mapped in cooperation with the MFWP. Table ES-1 provides acres of PPH and 

PGH by landowner, and Figure 1-1 (Appendix A) includes areas mapped as 

PPH and PGH.

ES.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The BLM is preparing RMP amendments and revisions with associated EISs for 

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

2010 “warranted, but precluded” ESA listing petition decision. Inadequacy of 

regulatory mechanisms was identified as a significant threat in the USFWS 

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

regulatory mechanism for the BLM as conservation measures embedded in 

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

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

These plan amendments and revisions (BLM plans being amended or revised

across the entire GRSG range) would focus on areas affected by threats to 

GRSG habitat identified by the USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision. A 

threats cross-walk table is included in Chapter 2, Proposed Action and 

Alternatives, to show what threats are being addressed in the range of 

alternatives for this RMPA/EIS.

The purpose for the RMP amendments and revisions is to identify and 

incorporate appropriate conservation measures to conserve, enhance and/or 

restore GRSG habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to that 

habitat.

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

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

considerable beneficial impact on present and future GRSG populations and 

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

the ESA.

ES.3 PROPOSED ACTION

This proposed Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS provides

future management direction to maintain or increase GRSG abundance and 

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

which populations depend throughout the LFO portion of WAFWA 

Management Zones (MZ) 1 and 4 (Stiver et al. 2006). MZ 1 includes all of 

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

northeastern Wyoming. Additionally, a small portion of MZ 4 is within the LFO 
Executive Summary (Proposed Action)

ES-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

in Meagher County. The portions of MZs 1 and 4 within the LFO are analyzed 

as part of this RMPA/EIS.

Proposed amendments to the Judith Resource Area Resource Management Plan 

(BLM 1994) and the Headwaters Resource Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement Record of Decision (BLM 1984) would include allowable uses 

and management actions for select resources and resource uses. Allowable uses 

are those that are allowed, restricted, or prohibited and may include 

stipulations. The decisions to be made are (1) to delineate PH and GH and (2) 

to identify the management actions, restrictions, and constraints that would be 

placed on allowable uses on BLM-administered lands to conserve, restore, and 

enhance GRSG habitat.

ES.4 SCOPING

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

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

planning process. It is designed to meet the public involvement requirements of 

FLPMA and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Scoping identifies the 

affected public and agency concerns and defines the relevant issues and 

alternatives that will be examined in detail in the plan amendment. A planning 

issue is defined as a major controversy or dispute regarding management or 

uses on BLM-administered lands that can be addressed through a range of 

alternatives.

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

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

The scoping period was extended through a notice of extension published 

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

included soliciting input from interested state and local governments, tribal 

governments, other federal agencies and organizations, and individuals to 

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

in the formulation of reasonable alternatives. The scoping process is an 

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

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

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

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

public submit nominations for potential Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern for GRSG and their habitat.

Scoping included an open-house meeting in Lewistown, Montana, on January 10, 

2012. In addition, the BLM issued news releases to notify the public about the 

scoping period and to invite them to provide written comments. Comments 

obtained during the scoping period were used to define the relevant issues that 

would be addressed by a reasonable range of alternatives in the Lewistown Field 

Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS. 
Executive Summary (Scoping)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS ES-7

The National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Scoping Summary Report

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

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

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

to eastern Montana.

ES.5 ISSUES

During the scoping process for the range-wide planning effort, the public and 

agencies identified the issues to be addressed in the Lewistown Field Office 

Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS. The issues identified in the Scoping Summary 

Report, and other resource and use issues identified in the BLM Planning 

Handbook and Manual (H-1610-1), were considered in developing the 

alternatives. Range-wide issues identified in the Scoping Summary Report that 

are applicable for the LFO are in Table ES-2, Range-Wide Planning Issues for 

the Lewistown Field Office.

Table ES-2

Range-Wide Planning Issues for the Lewistown Field Office

Issue Planning Issue 

Category Planning Issue

1. Greater Sage-Grouse

and habitat

How would the BLM use the best available science to delineate

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

impact of land uses on GRSG?

2. Energy and mineral 

development

How would energy and mineral development, including renewable 

energy, be managed within GRSG habitat, while recognizing valid 

existing rights?

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

improve GRSG habitat, while maintaining permitted grazing use?

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

such as sagebrush communities and minimize or prevent the 

introduction or spread of noxious weeds and invasive species?

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

would increase management efficiency for GRSG and habitat?

6. Social, economic, and 

environmental justice

How could the BLM promote or maintain activities that provide 

social and economic benefit to local communities, while providing 

protection for GRSG habitat?

7. Recreation and travel 

management

How would motorized, nonmotorized, and mechanized travel be 

managed to provide access to federal lands and a variety of 

recreation opportunities, while protecting GRSG habitat?

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

fires, while protecting GRSG habitat?

9. Special management 

areas

What special management areas would the BLM designate to 

benefit the conservation, enhancement, and restoration of GRSG

and habitat?
Executive Summary (Issues)

ES-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table ES-2

Range-Wide Planning Issues for the Lewistown Field Office

Issue Planning Issue 

Category Planning Issue

10. Drought and climate 

change

How would the BLM incorporate the impacts of a changing 

climate on GRSG habitat?

ES.5.1 Issues Specific to Lewistown Field Office

Issues discussed in the comments for the LFO included GRSG habitat, energy 

and mineral development, livestock grazing, fish and wildlife, social and 

economic concerns, vegetation management, recreation and travel management, 

and special management areas. No additional unique comment themes were 

identified outside of the issues identified in the range-wide analysis (Table ES2).

ES.6 PLANNING CRITERIA

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

resolve issues and develop alternatives. Planning criteria are based on 

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

Criteria also were based on public participation and coordination with 

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

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

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

analysis.

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

urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report (USFWS 2013),

WAFWA’s Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-Grouse and 

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

Summary of Science, Activities, Programs and Policies that Influence 

the Rangewide Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) (Manier et al 2013), and any other appropriate 

resources to identify GRSG habitat requirements and best 

management practices.

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

Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy.

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

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

Regulations (CFR), Parts 1500 – 1508; on the Department of the 

Interior’s regulations at 43 CFR, Part 46, and 43 CFR, Part 1600; on 

the BLM H-1601-1 Land Use Planning Handbook, “Appendix C: 

Program-Specific and Resource-Specific Decision Guidance 

Requirements” (as amended) for affected resource programs; on 
Executive Summary (Planning Criteria)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS ES-9

the 2008 BLM NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1; BLM 2008a); and all 

other applicable BLM policies and guidance.

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

specific to the conservation of GRSG habitat.

• The BLM will consider allocations and prescriptive standards to 

conserve GRSG habitat, as well as objectives and management 

actions to restore, enhance, and improve GRSG habitat.

• The RMPAs will recognize valid existing rights.

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

(including surface-estate and split-estate lands) in GRSG habitat. Any 

decisions in the RMPAs/revisions will apply only to BLMadministered lands.

• The BLM will use a collaborative and multi-jurisdictional approach, 

where appropriate, to determine the desired future condition of 

BLM-administered lands for the conservation of GRSG and their 

habitats.

• As described by law and policy, the BLM will strive to ensure that 

conservation measures are as consistent as possible with other 

planning jurisdictions within the planning area boundaries.

• The BLM will consider a range of reasonable alternatives, including 

appropriate management prescriptions that focus on the relative 

values of resources, while contributing to the conservation of the 

GRSG and its habitat.

• The BLM will analyze socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives, 

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

• The BLM will endeavor to use current scientific information, 

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

coordination to determine appropriate local and regional 

management strategies that will enhance or restore GRSG habitat. 

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

habitats will follow existing land health standards. Guidelines for 

livestock grazing and other programs will be applicable to all 

alternatives for BLM-administered lands.

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

areas, and objects important to their cultural and religious heritage 

within GRSG habitats.

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

ensure that it considers provisions of pertinent plans, seeks to 

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

provides ample opportunities for state, local, and tribal governments 

to comment on the development of amendments or revisions.
Executive Summary (Planning Criteria)

ES-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

• The BLM will develop vegetation management objectives, including 

objectives for managing noxious weeds and invasive species, 

including identifying the desired future condition for specific areas, 

within GRSG habitat.

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

• The RMPAs will be developed using an interdisciplinary approach to 

identify alternatives and to analyze resource impacts, including 

cumulative impacts on natural and cultural resources and the social 

and economic environment.

• The most current approved BLM corporate spatial data will be

supported by current metadata and will be used to ascertain GRSG

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

of the Information Quality Act of 2000.

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

to the fullest extent in making management determinations on 

federal lands.

• Analysis of impacts in the plan amendments will address the 

resources and resource programs identified in the NTT report (A 

Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures; 

NTT 2011) and alternatives that contain specific management 

measures for conservation of GRSG habitat.

• Resources and resource programs that do not contain specific 

management direction for GRSG that may be indirectly affected by 

proposed management actions will be identified and discussed only 

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

the proposed management actions.

An additional criterion was received in public scoping comments during the 

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

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

the responsibility and authority to manage wildlife.

ES.7 MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

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

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

alternatives. Alternatives development is guided by established planning criteria 

(as outlined in 43 CFR Part 1610).

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

potential management scenarios that:

• Address the identified major planning issues
Executive Summary (Management Alternatives)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS ES-11

• Explore opportunities to enhance management of resources and 

resource uses

• Resolve conflicts among resources and resource uses

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

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

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

The various groups and cooperating agencies met numerous times throughout 

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

developed one no action alternative (A) and three preliminary action 

alternatives (B, C, and D). The action alternatives were designed to

• Address the 10 planning issues (see Section 1.6.3, Issues 

Identified)

• Fulfill the purpose and need for the RMPA (outlined in Section 1.2, 

Purpose and Need)

• Meet the multiple use mandates of FLPMA

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

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

issues and concerns identified through public scoping and to maintain or 

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

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

objectives, allowable uses, and management actions constituting a separate 

RMPA. The goal is met to varying degrees, with the potential for different longrange outcomes and conditions. Conservation measures in the alternatives focus 

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

have been delineated by the MFWP, in coordination with the BLM.

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

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

pertaining to individual resource programs. When resources or resource uses 

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

or no distinctions between alternatives.

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

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

to employ resource programs to address the USFWS-identified threats. A 

complete description of all decisions proposed for each alternative is in 

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

included in Appendix A.

ES.7.1 Alternative A (No Action)

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

considered. This alternative continues current management direction and 
Executive Summary (Management Alternatives)

ES-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

prevailing conditions derived from existing planning documents. Goals and 

objectives for resources and resource uses are based on the Judith Resource 

Area Resource Management Plan and the Headwaters Resource Management 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision, along with associated 

amendments, activity and implementation level plans. It is also based on other 

management decision documents; laws, regulations, and BLM policies that 

supersede RMP decisions would apply.

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

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

and allowable uses and restrictions pertaining to activities such as mineral 

leasing and development, recreation, construction of utility infrastructure, and 

livestock grazing would also remain the same. The BLM would not modify 

existing or establish additional criteria to guide the identification of site-specific 

use levels for implementation activities.

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

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

required design features (RDF).

Delineate Lands as Priority and General Habitat

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

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

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

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

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

order to maintain genetic diversity to sustain GRSG populations. The areas 

delineated as PH and GH would be the same under each alternative; however, 

the allowable uses and management actions within PH and GH may vary 

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

alternative.

Required Design Features

RDFs are means, measures, or practices intended to reduce or avoid adverse 

environmental impacts. This RMPA/EIS proposes a suite of design features that 

would establish the minimum specifications for certain activities—water 

developments, mineral development, and fire and fuels management—and would 

mitigate adverse impacts. These RDFs would provide a greater level of 

regulatory certainty than through implementation of best management practices.

In general, the RDFs are accepted practices that are known to be effective when 

implemented properly at the project level. However, their applicability and 

overall effectiveness cannot be fully assessed except at the project-specific level,

when the project location and design are known. Because of site-specific 

circumstances, some features may not apply to some projects (e.g., a resource is 

not present on a given site) or may require slight variations from what is 

described in the RMPA/EIS (e.g., a larger or smaller protective area). All 
Executive Summary (Management Alternatives)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS ES-13

variations in design features would require appropriate analysis and disclosure as 

part of future project authorizations. Additional mitigation measures may be 

identified and required during individual project development and environmental 

review. The proposed RDFs are presented in Appendix C, Required Design 

Features and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for 

Alternatives B and C, and Appendix D, Required Design Features and Best 

Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D.

ES.7.3 Alternative B

GRSG conservation measures in A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse

Conservation Measures (NTT 2011) were used to form BLM management 

direction under Alternative B. Management actions by the BLM, in concert with 

other state and federal agencies, and private landowners play a critical role in 

the future trends of GRSG populations. To ensure that BLM management 

actions are effective and are based on the best available science, the National 

Policy Team created a National Technical Team (NTT) in August of 2011. The 

BLM’s objective for chartering this planning strategy was to develop new or 

revised regulatory mechanisms, through RMPs, to conserve and restore GRSG

and its habitat on BLM-administered lands range‐wide over the long term. 

Conservation measures under Alternative B are focused on PH (areas that have 

the highest conservation value to maintaining or increasing GRSG populations).

These conservation measures would include such protections as right-of-way

exclusion.

ES.7.4 Alternative C

During scoping for the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy, 

individuals and conservation groups submitted management direction 

recommendations for protecting and conserving GRSG and habitat at the rangewide level. The recommendations, in conjunction with resource allocation 

opportunities and internal subregional BLM input, were reviewed to develop 

BLM management direction for GRSG under Alternative C. Conservation 

measures under Alternative C are focused on both PH and GH areas (seasonal 

or year-round habitat outside of PH).

ES.7.5 Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

Alternative D, the agency-preferred alternative, seeks to allocate limited 

resources among competing human interests and land uses and the conservation 

of natural resource values. It would do this while sustaining and enhancing 

ecological integrity across the landscape, including plant, and wildlife habitat. 

This alternative incorporates local adjustments to A Report on National Greater 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures and habitat boundaries. This is to provide a 

balanced level of protection, restoration, enhancement, and use of resources 

and services to meet ongoing programs and land uses. Conservation measures 

under Alternative D are focused on both PH and GH.
Executive Summary (Environmental Consequences)

ES-14 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

ES.8 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The purpose of the environmental consequences analysis in this RMPA/EIS is to 

determine the potential for significant impacts of the federal action on the 

human environment. CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA state that the 

human environment is interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and 

physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment (40 

CFR, Part 1508.14). The federal action is the BLM’s selection of an RMPA that 

will provide a consistent framework for managing the GRSG and its habitat on 

BLM-administered lands. This would be done in concert with its allocation of 

resources, in accordance with the multiple-use and sustained yield mandates of 

FLPMA.

Management actions proposed in Chapter 2 are primarily planning-level 

decisions and typically would not result in direct on-the-ground changes. 

However, by planning for uses on BLM-administered surface estate and federal 

mineral estate during the planning horizon for the Judith Resource Area

Resource Management Plan and Headwaters Resource Management Plan, this 

impact analysis focuses on impacts that could eventually result in on-the-ground 

changes. Impacts for some resources or resource uses, such as livestock grazing 

and off-highway vehicle use, could be confined to the BLM-administered surface 

estate. Other impacts, such as energy and minerals and requirements to protect 

GRSG from such activity, could apply to all BLM-administered federal mineral 

estate (including split-estate). Some BLM management actions may affect only 

certain resources under certain alternatives. This impact analysis in Chapter 4, 

Environmental Consequences, identifies impacts that may enhance or improve a 

resource as a result of management actions, as well as those impacts that could 

impair a resource.
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 1-1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

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

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

(BLM) to develop and periodically revise or amend its resource management 

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

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

decision for the Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) as “warranted but precluded”

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

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

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

has identified conservation measures in RMPs as the principal regulatory 

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

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

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

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

listing as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA. In response to the 

USFWS findings, the BLM will evaluate the adequacy of its RMPs and will 

address, as necessary, amendments and revisions to RMPs throughout the range 

of the GRSG.

Consistent with its national policy, the BLM is preparing several environmental 

impact statements (EISs), with associated plan amendments. These documents 

will address a range of alternatives focused on specific conservation measures 

across the range of the GRSG. Several on-going RMP revisions will also be 

addressing specific conservation measures. The plan amendments will be 

coordinated under two administrative planning regions across the entire range 

of the GRSG. The Rocky Mountain Region and the Great Basin Region

boundaries are drawn roughly to correspond with the threats identified by the 

USFWS in the 2010 listing decision, along with the Western Association of Fish
1. Introduction (Introduction)

1-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) management zones framework (Stiver et al. 

2006). The management zones reflect ecological and biological issues and 

similarities. In addition, management challenges within management zones are 

similar, and GRSG and their habitats are likely responding similarly to 

environmental factors and management actions. The Rocky Mountain Region 

consists of land use plans in North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, 

and portions of Montana and Utah. The Great Basin Region consists of land use 

plans in California, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, and portions of Utah and Montana.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

both Listing Factors A and D (above) and proposes to provide consistency in 

the management of GRSG habitat.

This plan amendment addresses GRSG habitat within the Lewistown Field Office

(LFO). This habitat has been preliminarily mapped by the BLM Montana State 

Office in coordination with Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP). GRSG

habitat falls into one of the two following categories:

• Preliminary priority habitat (PPH)—Areas that have been 

identified as having the highest conservation value to maintaining 

sustainable GRSG populations. These areas include breeding, late 

brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas

• Preliminary general habitat (PGH)—Areas of seasonal or 

year-round habitat outside of priority habitat

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

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

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

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

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

breeding, migration, or winter survival) in order to maintain genetic diversity 

needed for sustainable GRSG populations.

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

management zones is BLM-administered land; within the LFO, approximately 16 
1. Introduction (Introduction)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 1-3

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

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

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

conservation measure, in the form of land use decisions will focus on areas 

affected by threats. Examples of these threats are wildfire, energy development, 

disease, and infrastructure development, depending on the threats identified for 

each subregion within the Rocky Mountain and Great Basin regions. The BLM 

administers a large portion of GRSG habitat within the affected states, because 

of this, changes in its management of GRSG habitats is anticipated to have a 

considerable impact on existing GRSG populations across the range of GRSG.

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The BLM is preparing RMP amendments and revisions with associated EISs for 

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

2010 “warranted, but precluded” ESA listing petition decision. Inadequacy of 

regulatory mechanisms was identified as a significant threat in the USFWS 

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

regulatory mechanism for the BLM as conservation measures embedded in 

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

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

These plan amendments and revisions (BLM plans being amended or revised

across the entire GRSG range) would focus on areas affected by threats to 

GRSG habitat identified by the USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision. A 

threats cross-walk table is included in Chapter 2, Proposed Action and 

Alternatives, to show what threats are being addressed in the range of 

alternatives for this RMPA/EIS.

The purpose for the RMP amendments and revisions is to identify and

incorporate appropriate conservation measures to conserve, enhance and/or 

restore GRSG habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to that 

habitat.

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

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

considerable beneficial impact on present and future GRSG populations and 

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

the ESA.

1.3 PROPOSED ACTION

This proposed Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Resource 

Management Plan Amendment (RMPA)/EIS provides future management 

direction to maintain or increase GRSG abundance and distribution by 

conserving, enhancing, or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem on which 

populations depend throughout the LFO portion of WAFWA Management 

Zones (MZ) 1 and 4 (Stiver et al. 2006). MZ 1 includes all of Montana (except 

the Dillon Field Office), North Dakota, South Dakota, and northeastern 
1. Introduction (Proposed Action)

1-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Wyoming. Additionally, a small portion of MZ 4 is within the LFO in Meagher 

County. The portions of MZs 1 and 4 within the LFO are analyzed as part of 

this RMPA/EIS.

The planning area is currently managed under the Judith Resource Area 

Resource Management Plan (BLM 1994) and the Headwaters Resource 

Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision (ROD; 

BLM 1984). There is an existing protest resolution decision affecting lands 

managed within the LFO that does not allow oil and gas leasing of nominated 

parcels that would require a special stipulation to protect important wildlife 

values, which includes PPH and PGH, or PH and GH. New leasing of areas with 

important wildlife values cannot occur until the BLM completes a plan 

amendment/EIS or a new/revised RMP/EIS, including oil and gas leasing decisions 

identified in a ROD. Because this RMPA only considers management actions for 

GRSG and does not address oil and gas leasing options for other wildlife 

resource values, oil and gas leasing will not be addressed in this RMPA/EIS. (The 

LFO RMP revision process will begin in 2013, which will address oil and gas leasing for 

the entire LFO planning area boundary.)

The Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS would amend both 

of these RMPs. Proposed amendments include allowable uses and management 

actions for select resources and resource uses. Allowable uses indicate which 

uses are allowed, restricted, or prohibited and may include stipulations. 

Allowable uses also identify lands where specific uses are excluded to protect 

resource values. Management actions include management measures that will

guide future and day-to-day activities to conserve GRSG and GRSG habitat. In 

addition, this RMPA would include identifying required design features (RDFs) 

and best management practices (BMPs). Implementation decisions generally

constitute site-specific on-the-ground actions and are not addressed in the 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS.

The decisions to be made are (1) to delineate PH and GH and (2) to identify the 

management actions, restrictions, and constraints that would be placed on 

allowable uses on BLM-administered lands to conserve, restore, and enhance 

GRSG habitat.

1.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE GREATER SAGE-GROUSE PLANNING AREA

1.4.1 Overview

The planning area for the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse 

RMPA/EIS is in Chouteau, Fergus, Judith Basin, Meagher, and Petroleum counties

in central Montana. These lands are either private or are administered by the 

BLM; the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service (Forest 

Service); the USFWS; the US Department of Defense; or the State of Montana

(Table 1-1, Land Ownership within the Planning Area). Figure 1-1, Project 

Planning Area, in Appendix A, Figures, is a map of the planning area.
1. Introduction (Description of the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Area)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 1-5

Table 1-1

Land Ownership within the Planning Area

Chouteau 

County Fergus County Judith Basin County

Meagher 

County

Petroleum 

County Planning Area

PPH

Acres

PGH

Acres

PPH

Acres

PGH

Acres

PPH

Acres

PGH

Acres

PPH

Acres

PGH

Acres

PPH

Acres

PGH

Acres

Planning 

Area 

Acres1

PPH

Acres

PGH

Acres

NonHabitat 

Acres

Surface Ownership

BLM2 0 18,696 83,148 55,855 0 3,692 0 439 150,071 33,659 593,995 233,219 112,341 248,435

Other 

Federal 0 0 113 2 0 0 0 1,626 3,575 89 1,010,816 3,688 1,717 1,005,411

State 

Lands 0 11,787 54,903 21,234 0 2,129 0 36,031 35,684 12,257 526,504 90,587 83,438 352,479

Private 0 107,728 506,694 275,159 0 25,627 0 265,747 371,477 142,608 5,168,165 878,171 816,869 3,473,125

Water 0 573 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,329 97 12,039 2,329 670 9,040

Total 0 138,784 644,858 352,250 0 31,448 0 303,843 563,136 188,710 7,311,519 1,207,994 1,015,035 5,088,490

Federal Mineral Estate3

All 

Minerals 0 30,202 102,760 80,304 0 6,679 0 11,910 166,428 43,932 820,108 269,189 173,027 367,480

Other 0 4,231 100,074 65,417 0 260 0 4,417 16,430 6,882 293,733 124,635 82,293 99,239

Total 0 34,433 202,834 145,721 0 6,939 0 16,327 182,858 50,814 1,509,263 393,824 255,320 466,719

Source: BLM 2012a

1

Planning area acres include PPH, PGH, and non-habitat. 2

For the purpose of this planning process, all BLM-administered lands have subsurface minerals. 3

These terms are derived primarily from master title plats and indicate what minerals are reserved by the federal government.
1. Introduction (Description of the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Area)

1-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

The planning area incorporates the PPH, PGH and additional lands not 

considered GRSG habitat. Though the planning area includes private lands, 

decisions are made only for BLM-administered federal surface and federal 

minerals in this RMPA. Management direction and actions outlined in this EIS 

apply only to these BLM-administered lands in the planning area and to federal 

mineral estate under BLM jurisdiction that may lie beneath other surface 

ownership. Unlike other RMPAs that are part of the National Greater SageGrouse Planning Strategy, the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage- Grouse 

RMPA/EIS does not address a range of alternatives for Forest Service 

surface/federal minerals. The Lewis & Clark National Forest is a cooperating 

agency; however, they have had minimal involvement in the planning process as 

the planning area does not include any Forest Service land that is considered 

GRSG habitat.

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

233,219 acres of PPH (20 percent of all PPH in the planning area) and 112,341 

acres of PGH (11 percent of all PGH in the planning area). PPH and PGH were 

mapped in cooperation with the MFWP. Table 1-1 provides acres of PPH and 

PGH by landowner, and Figure 1-1 (Appendix A) includes areas mapped as 

PPH and PGH.

1.5 BLM PLANNING PROCESS

FLPMA requires the BLM to use RMPs as tools by which “present and future 

use is projected” (43 United States Code [USC], Section 1701 [a][2]). FLPMA’s 

implementing regulations for planning, 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),

Part 1600, state that land use plans are a preliminary step in the overall process 

of managing BLM-administered lands. The regulations state that the plans are 

“designed to guide and control future management actions and the development 

of subsequent, more detailed and limited scope plans for resources and uses” 

(43 CFR, Part 1601.0-2). Public participation and input are important 

components of land use planning.

The BLM uses a nine-step planning process (Diagram 1-1, Nine-Step Planning 

Process) when developing or revising RMPs, as required by 43 CFR, Part 1600, 

and planning program guidance in the BLM Handbook H-1601-1, Land Use 

Planning Handbook (BLM 2005a). The planning process is designed to help the 

BLM identify the uses of BLM-administered lands desired by the public and to 

consider these uses to the extent they are consistent with the laws established 

by Congress and the policies of the executive branch of the federal government.

Once an RMP is approved, a plan may be changed through an amendment. An 

amendment is initiated by the need to consider monitoring and evaluation 

findings, new data, new or revised policy, a change in circumstances or a 

proposed action that may result in a change in the scope of resource uses or a 

change in the terms, conditions, and decisions of the approved plan. If a decision 
1. Introduction (BLM Planning Process)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 1-7

Diagram 1-1

Nine-Step Planning Process

is made to prepare a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document, the 

amending process would follow the same procedure required for preparing and 

approving the plan, but the focus would be limited to that portion of the plan 

being amended (43 CFR, Part 1610.5-5).

The planning process is issue driven and is undertaken to resolve management 

issues and problems, as well as to take advantage of management opportunities. 

The BLM uses the public scoping process to identify planning issues to revise or 

modify an existing plan. The scoping process (see Section 1.6.1, The Scoping 

Process) is also used to introduce the public to preliminary planning criteria, 

which set the parameters for conducting the planning process.

1.5.1 Implementation of Land Use Plans

When an approved land use plan or land use plan amendment decision 

document is signed, most of the land use plan decisions in the plan are effective 

immediately and require no additional planning or NEPA analysis. Upon approval 

of the land use plan, subsequent implementation decisions are put into effect by 

developing activity-level or project-specific implementation plans. An activitylevel plan typically describes multiple projects in detail that will lead to on-theground action. These plans traditionally focused on single resource programs 

(e.g., habitat management plans, allotment management plans (AMPs), and 
1. Introduction (BLM Planning Process)

1-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

RMPs). Implementation decisions are made with the appropriate level of NEPA 

analysis along with any procedural and regulatory requirements for individual 

programs.

The BLM develops strategies to facilitate implementation of land use plans. An 

implementation strategy lists prioritized decisions that will help achieve the 

desired outcomes of one or more land use plans and can be implemented given 

existing or anticipated resources. Developing implementation strategies enables 

the BLM to prioritize the preparation of implementation decisions. 

Implementation strategies can include such steps as: (1) developing a framework 

to portray the work; (2) identifying priorities for a given timeframe; (3) 

developing a budget for a given timeframe; (4) and developing an outreach 

strategy to support implementation.

1.5.2 Monitoring

The regulations in 43 CFR 1610.4-9 require that land use plans establish 

intervals and standards for monitoring, based on the sensitivity of the resource 

decisions involved. Land use plan monitoring is the process of tracking the 

implementation of land use planning decisions (implementation monitoring) and 

collecting data/information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of land use 

planning decisions (effectiveness monitoring). The level and intensity of 

monitoring will vary, depending on the sensitivity of the resource or area and 

the scope of the proposed management activity. See Section 2.6, Monitoring 

for the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy, and Appendix B, Greater SageGrouse Draft Monitoring Framework, for more information related to 

monitoring in Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS.

1.6 SCOPING AND IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES

1.6.1 The Scoping Process

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

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

planning process. Scoping is designed to meet the public involvement 

requirements of FLPMA and NEPA. It identifies the affected public and agency 

concerns and defines the relevant issues and alternatives that will be examined 

in detail in the RMPA. A planning issue is defined as a major controversy or 

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

addressed through a range of alternatives.

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

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

scoping period was extended through a notice of extension published February 

10, 2012; the period ended on March 23, 2012. This cooperative process 

included soliciting input from interested state and local governments, tribal 

governments, other federal agencies and organizations, and individuals to 

identify the scope of issues to be addressed in the RMPA and to assist in the 
1. Introduction (Scoping and Identification of Issues)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 1-9

formulation of reasonable alternatives. The scoping process is an excellent 

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

GRSG and its habitats on BLM-administered lands. The process also identifies

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

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

submit nominations for potential Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

(ACECs) for GRSG and their habitat.

Scoping included an open-house meeting in Lewistown, Montana, on January 10, 

2012. In addition, news releases were used to notify the public regarding the 

scoping period and to invite the public to provide written comments. Public 

comments obtained during the scoping period were used to define the relevant 

issues that would be addressed by a reasonable range of alternatives in the 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS.

The National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Scoping Summary Report (BLM 

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

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

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

eastern Montana.

1.6.2 Scoping Comments

During the public scoping period, the BLM received 272 unique written 

submissions for the Rocky Mountain Region (which includes eastern Montana)

and 585 unique written submissions for the Great Basin Region. Submissions 

resulted in 7,472 unique comments; in addition, 30,397 form letters were 

received.

In the Greater Sage-Grouse Scoping Summary Report, the comments that 

pertain to the LFO are listed in the eastern Montana section. Out of the 7,472 

unique comments received, only 67 were specific to eastern Montana.

Commenter Affiliation

Individual members of the public submitted 50 percent of the comments specific 

to eastern Montana; representatives from the commercial sector accounted for 

eight percent of the commenters and nonprofit or citizen groups represented 

33 percent. Local government agencies represented eight percent of 

commenters; federal and state agencies submitted no comments.

Number of Comments by Process Category

Of the 67 comments received specific to eastern Montana, 52 (85 percent) 

were related to a planning issues that are addressed in the RMPA. These issues

are summarized below (Section 1.6.3, Issues Identified) and are discussed in

Chapter 3, Issue Summary, of the Scoping Summary Report. It should be noted 

that some comments addressed multiple planning issues. In addition, nine 

comments (15 percent) were related to issues that will be addressed in the EISs 

but do not fall within a specific planning issue category. These were general 
1. Introduction (Scoping and Identification of Issues)

1-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

comments on the BLM planning process, alternatives development, 

collaboration, and requirements of NEPA and other regulations. The remaining 

six comments were on issues that are beyond the scope of the EISs (four 

comments, 67 percent) and issues that will be resolved through national policy 

or administrative action (two comments, 33 percent).

1.6.3 Issues Identified 

Issues to be addressed in the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse 

RMPA/EIS were identified by the public and the agencies during the scoping 

process for the range-wide planning effort. The issues identified in the Scoping

Summary Report and other resource and use issues identified in the BLM 

Planning Handbook and Manual (H-1610-1) were considered in developing the 

alternatives brought forward for analysis. Range-wide issues identified in the 

Scoping Summary Report that are applicable for the LFO are included in Table 

1-2, Range-Wide Planning Issues for the Lewistown Field Office.

Table 1-2

Range-Wide Planning Issues for the Lewistown Field Office

Issue Planning Issue 

Category Planning Issue

1. Greater Sage-Grouse 

and habitat

How would the BLM use the best available science to designate 

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

impact of land uses on GRSG?

2. Energy and mineral 

development

How would energy and mineral development, including renewable 

energy, be managed within GRSG habitat, while recognizing valid 

existing rights?

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

improve GRSG habitat while maintaining permitted grazing use?

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

such as sagebrush communities, and minimize or prevent the 

introduction or spread of noxious weeds and invasive species?

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

would increase management efficiency for GRSG and habitat?

6. Social, economic, and 

environmental justice

How could the BLM promote or maintain activities that provide 

social and economic benefit to local communities, while providing 

protection for GRSG habitat?

7. Recreation and travel 

management

How would motorized, nonmotorized, and mechanized travel be 

managed to provide access to federal lands and a variety of 

recreation opportunities, while protecting GRSG habitat?

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

fires, while protecting GRSG habitat?

9. Special management 

areas

What special management areas would the BLM designate to 

benefit the conservation, enhancement, and restoration of GRSG

and habitat?
1. Introduction (Scoping and Identification of Issues)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 1-11

Table 1-2

Range-Wide Planning Issues for the Lewistown Field Office

Issue Planning Issue 

Category Planning Issue

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

climate on GRSG habitat?

Issues Specific to Lewistown Field Office

Issues discussed in the comments for the LFO included GRSG habitat, energy 

and mineral development, livestock grazing, fish and wildlife, social and 

economic concerns, vegetation management, recreation and travel management, 

and special management areas. No additional unique comment themes were 

identified outside of the issues identified in the range-wide analysis (Table 1-2).

1.6.4 Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed

National Policy or Administrative Action 

Policy or administrative actions are those that the BLM implements because 

they are standard operating procedure, because federal law requires them, or 

because they are BLM policy. They are, therefore, issues that are eliminated 

from detailed analysis in this planning effort. Administrative actions do not 

require a planning decision to implement.

The following issues were determined to be outside the scope of the rangewide planning effort, including the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse 

RMPA/EIS:

• Hunting sage-grouse—Many commenters questioned why GRSG

hunting is allowed if the bird is in need of protection. Hunting is an 

allowed use on BLM-administered lands and is regulated by MFWP; 

these comments therefore relate to state-regulated actions and are 

outside the scope of the RMPA.

• Predator control—Many commenters stated that predator 

control was needed to protect GRSG from predation. The State of 

Montana possesses primary authority and responsibility for 

managing wildlife within the state, while the BLM is responsible for 

managing habitat. Consistent with a memorandum of understanding 

(MOU) between the BLM and the USDA, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service-Wildlife Services, the BLM would continue to 

work with the MFWP and USDA Wildlife Services to meet state 

wildlife population objectives. Predator control is allowed on BLMadministered lands and is regulated by MFWP; these comments 

therefore relate to state-regulated actions and are outside the 

scope of the RMPA. The BLM will continue to work with agencies, 
1. Introduction (Scoping and Identification of Issues)

1-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

such as MFWP, to address current predation of GRSG. The BLMadministered lands in the planning area will remain open to predator 

control under state laws.

• Warranted but precluded decision—Commenters questioned 

population levels and the need to incorporate range-wide 

conservation measures. Others questioned the effectiveness of ESA

listing as a method of species conservation. These comments relate 

to decisions under the purview of the USFWS and are not

addressed in this RMPA.

• Elimination of livestock grazing—Commenters asked that 

grazing be limited or completely stopped on all National System of 

Public Lands administered by the BLM due to detrimental ecosystem 

effects. Others stated that national grazing policies should be 

reformed as the requirements are too limiting and impact ranchers’

livelihoods. In addition, some commenters state that grazing 

provides habitat enhancements for certain sensitive species.

Decisions about livestock grazing national policies are outside the 

scope of this RMPA and are no made in this planning effort.

However, for the purposes of this document, the removal of 

livestock in all PH and GH within the planning area (i.e., no 

authorized livestock grazing) is considered in Alternative C. This is 

consistent with Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2012-169, RMP 

Alternative Development for Livestock Grazing (BLM 2012c). Note that 

this document is specific to PPH and PGH, not an entire planning 

area. Additionally, IM MT-2012-042, Guidance to Address Alternative 

Development in Livestock Grazing Permit Renewals, directs the BLM in 

Montana to analyze a no grazing alternative as part of the grazing 

permit renewal process (BLM 2012d).

• Renewable energy policies—Commenters stated concerns 

about renewable energy development, including economic instability 

due to government subsidies and risk of wildlife deaths, specifically 

bats and birds. General policy decisions about renewable energy 

management on BLM-administered lands will be determined by 

national policy and are not addressed in this RMPA.

Range-Wide Issues not Carried Forward in the Lewistown Field Office

Amendment

The following range-wide issues are not being carried forward in the Lewistown 

Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS:

• Fluid mineral leasing—As discussed in Section 1.3, Proposed 

Action, an existing protest resolution decision affecting lands 

managed within the LFO does not allow oil and gas leasing of 

nominated parcels that would require a special stipulation to 
1. Introduction (Scoping and Identification of Issues)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 1-13

protect important wildlife values, which includes PPH and PGH. 

New leasing of areas with important wildlife values cannot occur 

until the BLM completes a plan amendment/EIS or a new/revised

RMP/EIS, including oil and gas leasing decisions identified in a ROD. 

This RMPA is only considering management actions for GRSG and it 

will not include consideration of oil and gas leasing options for lands 

with other important wildlife resource values. Therefore, oil and gas 

leasing will not be addressed in this RMPA/EIS. (The LFO RMP revision 

process will begin in 2013, which will address oil and gas leasing for the 

entire LFO planning area boundary.)

• Fish and wildlife—GRSG will be addressed under the topic of

Greater Sage-Grouse, and other relevant Special Status Species will 

be addressed under the topic Special Status Species – Other Species 

of Issue. Fish and wildlife management is not a main issue that would 

drive alternatives design for this RMPA; however, management 

activities that impact these resources, such as oil and gas and 

grazing, are addressed in this EIS.

• Water and soil—Soil and water management is not a main issue 

that would drive alternatives design for this RMPA; however, 

management activities that impact these resources, such as oil and 

gas and grazing, are addressed in this EIS.

• Wild horse and burros—There are no wild horse and burros, or 

wild horse and burro herd management areas, in the LFO, so this 

issue is not relevant to this RMPA.

1.6.5 Issues Beyond the Scope of the Plan 

Issues beyond the scope of the RMP planning process are those not related to 

decisions that would occur as a result of the planning process, such as issues 

that address the threats to GRSG. They include decisions that are not under the 

jurisdiction of the BLM or that are beyond its capability to resolve as part of the 

RMPA. Issues identified in this category are the following:

• New wilderness or Wilderness Study Area (WSA) proposals

• Elimination of grazing, mineral development, and off-highway vehicle

(OHV) use on all public lands

• Activities and uses beyond the jurisdiction of the BLM

• Compensation of private landowners for conservation efforts and 

off-site mitigation

• Changing existing laws, policies, and regulations

• Availability of funding and personnel for managing programs, and for 

NEPA procedures and costs
1. Introduction (Scoping and Identification of Issues)

1-14 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

The purpose and need of the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy is 

limited to making land use planning decisions specific to the conservation of 

GRSG habitats. No decisions related to the management of lands with 

wilderness characteristics will be made as part of this planning effort; therefore, 

management of lands with wilderness characteristics is considered outside the 

scope of this RMPA process. As part of the original FLPMA Section 603-

mandated inventories, inventories were conducted for the LFO beginning in 

1979. The intensive inventories published in the early 1980's resulted in the 

designation of two WSAs that are located outside of this planning area. No 

other inventories have been completed for lands with wilderness characteristics 

since then; however, inventories are currently underway as part of the RMP 

revision process beginning this year.

National Historic Trails

The purpose and need of the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy is 

limited to making land use planning decisions specific to the conservation of 

GRSG habitats. No decisions related to the management of National 

Scenic/Historic Trails (NSHT) will be made as part of this planning effort; 

therefore, management of NSHT is considered outside the scope of this RMPA 

process. The Nez Perce National Historic Trail is the only NSHT within the 

planning area. The portion of the trail on BLM-administered lands in the planning

area consists of three segments of trail in LFO, totaling two miles of trail route, 

none being a High Potential Route segment. Management of the trail will 

continue to be consistent with the Forest Service’s Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo) 

National Historic Trail Comprehensive Plan (Forest Service 1990) and BLM’s 

Manual direction for administration and management of National Scenic and 

Historic Trails (6250; BLM 2012e/6280; BLM 2012f). As part of the LFO RMP 

revision, a trail corridor will be defined to assist in resource identification and 

management.

1.7 DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNING CRITERIA

Planning criteria are based on appropriate laws, regulations, BLM Manual 

sections, and policy directives. Criteria are also based on public participation 

and coordination with cooperating agencies, other federal agencies, state and 

local governments, and Indian tribes. Planning criteria are the standards, rules, 

and factors used as the parameters to resolve issues and develop alternatives. 

Planning criteria are prepared to ensure decision making is tailored to the issues 

and to ensure that the BLM avoids unnecessary data collection and analysis.

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

urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report (USFWS 2013), 

WAFWA’s Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-Grouse and 

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

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

Influence the Rangewide Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse
1. Introduction (Development of Planning Criteria)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 1-15

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

appropriate resources to identify GRSG habitat requirements and 

BMPs.

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

Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy.

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

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500-

1508, and DOI regulations at 43 CFR Part 46, and 43 CFR Part 

1600; the BLM H-1601-1 Land Use Planning Handbook, “Appendix 

C: Program-Specific and Resource-Specific Decision Guidance 

Requirements” (as amended) for affected resource programs; the 

2008 BLM NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1; BLM 2008a); and all other 

applicable BLM policies and guidance.

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

specific to the conservation of GRSG habitat.

• The BLM will consider allocations and prescriptive standards to 

conserve GRSG habitat, as well as objectives and management 

actions to restore, enhance, and improve GRSG habitat.

• The RMPAs will recognize valid existing rights.

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

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

GRSG habitats. Any decisions in the RMPAs and revisions will apply 

only to BLM-administered lands.

• The BLM will use a collaborative and multi-jurisdictional approach, 

where appropriate, to determine the desired future condition of 

BLM-administered lands for the conservation of GRSG and their

habitats.

• As described by law and policy, the BLM will strive to ensure that 

conservation measures are as consistent as possible with other 

planning jurisdictions within the planning area boundaries.

• The BLM will consider a range of reasonable alternatives, including 

appropriate management prescriptions that focus on the relative 

values of resources, while contributing to the conservation of the 

GRSG and its habitat.

• The BLM will analyze socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives

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

• The BLM will endeavor to use current scientific information, 

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

coordination to determine appropriate local and regional 

management strategies that will enhance or restore GRSG habitats.
1. Introduction (Development of Planning Criteria)

1-16 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

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

habitats will follow existing land health standards. Guidelines for 

livestock grazing and other programs will be applicable to all 

alternatives for BLM-administered lands.

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

areas, and objects important to their cultural and religious heritage 

within GRSG habitats.

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

ensure that it considers provisions of pertinent plans; it will seek to 

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

provide ample opportunities for state, local, and tribal governments 

to comment on the development of amendments or revisions.

• The BLM will develop vegetation management objectives, including 

objectives for managing noxious weeds and invasive species and

identifying the desired future condition for specific areas, within 

GRSG habitat.

• The RMPAs will be based on the principles of Adaptive 

Management.

• The RMPAs will be developed using an interdisciplinary approach to 

identify alternatives and to analyze resource impacts, including 

cumulative impacts on natural and cultural resources and the social 

and economic environment.

• The most current, approved, BLM corporate spatial data will be 

supported by current metadata and will be used to ascertain GRSG

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

of the Information Quality Act of 2000.

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

to the fullest extent practicable in making management 

determinations on federal lands.

• Analysis of impacts in the plan amendments will address the 

resources and resource programs identified in the National 

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

contain specific management measures for conservation of GRSG

habitat.

• Resources and resource programs that do not contain specific 

management direction for GRSG that may be indirectly affected by 

proposed management actions will be identified and discussed only 

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

the proposed management actions.
1. Introduction (Development of Planning Criteria)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 1-17

An additional criterion was received in public scoping comments during the 

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

planning criteria. The comment was that state game and fish agencies have the 

responsibility and authority to manage wildlife.

1.8 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER POLICIES, PLANS, AND PROGRAMS

Currently, lands within the planning area are managed according to the Judith 

Resource Area Resource Management Plan (BLM 1994), as amended, and the 

Headwaters Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 

Record of Decision (BLM 1984), as amended. This RMPA is a necessary step in 

the overall process of managing BLM-administered lands, specifically to include 

new policy for conservation of GRSG habitat. As a result, this planning process 

must recognize the many ongoing programs, plans, and policies that are being 

implemented in the planning area by other land managers and government 

agencies. The BLM will seek to be consistent with other management actions 

whenever possible. Plans that need to be considered during GRSG planning are 

listed below.

1.8.1 National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy 

On December 9, 2011, a Notice of Availability was published in the Federal 

Register to initiate the GRSG Planning Strategy across nine western states, 

including Northeast California, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, Utah, and Southwest 

Montana in the Great Basin Region and Northwest Colorado, Wyoming, 

Montana, South Dakota, and North Dakota in the Rocky Mountain Region (see 

Diagram 1-2, BLM and Forest Service GRSG Planning Strategy Sub-region/EIS 

Boundaries). The BLM is the lead agency for this planning effort. On February 

10, 2012, the BLM published a Notice of Correction that changed the names of 

the regions that are coordinating the EISs, extended the scoping period, and 

added 11 Forest Service land management plans to this process. This Lewistown 

Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS is one of 15 separate EISs that are 

currently being conducted to analyze and incorporate specific conservation 

measures across the range of the GRSG, consistent with National BLM policy.

On December 27, 2011, the BLM Washington Office released IM No. 2012-044, 

which directed all of the planning efforts across the GRSG range to consider all 

applicable conservation measures when revising or amending its RMPs in GRSG 

habitat, including the measures developed by the NTT that were presented in 

their December 2011 document – A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures. The BLM’s IM-2012-044 directs all planning efforts 

associated with the national strategy to consider and analyze (as appropriate) 

the conservation measures presented in the NTT Report.

Along with the applicable measures that were outlined in the NTT Report, 

planning efforts associated with this National GRSG Planning Strategy will also 

analyze applicable conservation measures that were submitted to the BLM from

various state governments and from citizens during the public scoping process.
1. Introduction (Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs)

1-18 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Diagram 1-2

BLM and Forest Service GRSG Planning Strategy Sub-region/EIS Boundaries

It is the goal of the BLM to make a final decision on these plans by the end of 

2014 so that adequate regulatory mechanisms are integrated into the land use 

plans before the USFWS makes a listing decision in 2015.

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

Management Policies and Procedures

This IM provides interim conservation policies and procedures to the BLM field 

officials to be applied to ongoing and proposed authorizations and activities that 

affect the GRSG and its habitat (BLM 2012g). This direction ensures that interim 

conservation policies and procedures are implemented when field offices 

authorize or carry out activities on BLM-administered land while the BLM 

develops and decides how to best incorporate long-term conservation measures 

for GRSG into applicable RMPs. This direction promotes sustainable GRSG 

populations and conservation of its habitat while not closing any future options 

in the LFO before the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS 

can be completed.
1. Introduction (Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 1-19

1.8.3 Greater Sage‐Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation 

Objectives Final Report

The USFWS created a Conservation Objectives Team (COT) of state and 

USFWS representatives to develop range-wide conservation objectives for the 

GRSG to define the degree to which threats need to be reduced or ameliorated 

to conserve GRSG so that it is no longer in danger of extinction or likely to 

become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. The Greater Sage‐

Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives Final Report 

(released in March 2013) is the outcome of the COT’s efforts (USFWS 2013).

This report delineates reasonable objectives, based upon the best scientific and 

commercial data available at the time of its release, for the conservation and 

survival of GRSG. The report was prepared to provide additional information 

for consideration pertinent to future decision making relative to GRSG. The 

report will also serve as guidance to federal land management agencies, state 

GRSG teams, and others in focusing efforts to achieve effective conservation for 

this species.

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

the Rangewide Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus)

To augment this planning document at a biologically meaningful scale for GRSG, 

a Baseline Environmental Report (BER) of GRSG was produced by the USGS for 

BLM (Manier et. al. 2013). The BER is a science support document that provides 

information to put planning units and issues into the context of the larger 

WAFWA Sage-Grouse management zones. The BER examines each threat 

identified in the USFWS’s listing decision published on March 15, 2010. For each 

threat, the BER summarizes the current, scientific understanding of various 

impacts to GRSG populations and habitats. When available, the BER also reports 

patterns, thresholds, indicators, metrics, and measured responses that quantify 

the impacts of each specific threat.

1.8.5 National Level Programmatic EISs and Agreements

• Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatment on BLM 

Lands in Thirteen Western States (BLM 1991; common to the 

Proposed Plan and draft alternatives)

• Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 

Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and 

Associated Record of Decision (BLM 2007a)

• Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of Decision

for Designation of Energy Corridors on Bureau of Land ManagementAdministered Lands in the 11 Western States (BLM 2009a)

• Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendments for 

Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (BLM 2008b)
1. Introduction (Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs)

1-20 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

• Implementation of a Wind Energy Development Program and Associated 

Land Use Plan Amendments Record of Decision (BLM 2005b)

• National-level MOUs

1.8.6 Relevant Plan Amendments 

• Fire/Fuels Management Plan Environmental Assessment/Plan Amendment 

for Montana and the Dakotas (BLM 2003a)

• Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management for Montana and the Dakotas Record of Decision (BLM 

1997)

1.8.7 Off-Highway Vehicle Record of Decision and Proposed Plan 

Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and Portions of South 

Dakota

In the Montana-Dakotas region, the BLM has limited travel to existing roads and 

trails since the Off-Highway Vehicle Record of Decision and Proposed Plan 

Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota was 

signed in 2003 (BLM 2003b). Therefore, travel in the LFO planning area is 

already managed as limited, and this designation will remain the same among all 

alternatives in the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS. The 

following provides an explanation of the BLM’s travel management process and 

the next steps for travel management once a ROD is signed:

1. Although travel has been limited (e.g., no cross-country travel 

allowed), additional detailed route inventory information still needs 

to be collected in order to complete site-specific travel planning 

once this ROD is signed. This data collection will provide the 

information needed to fully evaluate the impacts of these routes on 

other resource allocations, uses and to the public, in addition to the 

GRSG.

2. Once the inventories are underway and/or completed, the BLM will 

initiate travel and transportation implementation plans. The plans 

will undergo a NEPA analysis that includes further public 

involvement.

3. Through this subsequent NEPA and planning process, the BLM will 

consider road and trail permanent and seasonal closures, as well as 

area closures. The decision to close routes or areas (e.g., around 

leks) to OHV use in the travel and transportation plans would be 

based on the overall goal of protecting, preserving and enhancing 

GRSG and their habitats.
CHAPTER 2

PROPOSED ACTION AND 

ALTERNATIVES 

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-1

CHAPTER 2

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter details Alternatives A through D for the Lewistown Field Office 

Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS. It includes references to maps (Appendix A) 

identifying where actions would be applicable. The proposed alternatives were 

formulated in response to issues and concerns identified through public scoping. 

The alternatives are to maintain or increase GRSG abundance and distribution 

by conserving, enhancing, or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem. Populations of 

GRSG depend on this ecosystem throughout WAFWA MZs 1 and 4 of the 

Rocky Mountain Region (Stiver et al. 2006). Decisions in this RMPA pertain to 

593,995 acres of BLM-administered land and 639,927 acres of federal subsurface 

mineral estate, excluding unleased federal fluid mineral estate (refer to 

Sections 1.3 and 1.6.4), in the planning area (shown in Figure 1-1, Appendix 

A). This land is administered by the BLM’s LFO.

The No Action Alternative (Alternative A) represents the continuation of 

current management direction and proposes no new plan or management 

actions. This alternative is required by CEQ regulations and provides a baseline 

for comparing the other alternatives (CEQ 1981). The BLM developed the 

action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, and D) by considering issues and concerns 

raised during the public scoping period. The BLM also used planning criteria and 

guidance applicable to managing resources and resource uses relevant to GRSG

habitat. Alternatives B, C, and D describe proposed changes to current 

management, as well as any existing management that would be carried forward.

These alternatives provide a range of choices for resolving the planning issues

identified in Chapter 1.

The BLM recognizes that social, economic, and environmental issues cross land 

ownership lines, and that extensive cooperation is needed to address issues of 

mutual concern. To the extent possible, these alternatives were developed using 

input from public scoping comments and cooperating agencies.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Introduction to Alternatives)

2-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

2.2 INTRODUCTION TO ALTERNATIVES

Decisions in this RMPA consist of allowable uses and management actions 

necessary for maintaining or increasing GRSG abundance and distribution on 

BLM-administered lands. These critical determinations guide future land 

management actions and subsequent site-specific implementation actions to 

conserve, enhance, or restore the sagebrush ecosystem in the planning area.

Components of Alternatives

Goals are broad statements of desired outcomes (RMP-wide and resource- or 

resource use-specific) and are not quantifiable or measurable. Objectives are 

specific measurable desired conditions or outcomes intended to meet goals. 

While the goal for this RMPA is the same across all alternatives, objectives 

typically vary, resulting in different allowable uses and management actions for 

some resources and resource uses.

Allowable uses and management actions are designed to achieve objectives. 

Allowable uses delineate which uses are permitted, restricted, or prohibited and 

may include restrictions. Allowable uses also identify lands where specific uses 

are excluded to protect resource values, or where certain lands are open or 

closed in response to legislative, regulatory, or policy requirements.

Management actions are measures that guide day-to-day and future activities.

Implementation decisions are site-specific on-the-ground actions and are not 

addressed in this RMPA.

Purpose of Alternatives Development

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

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

alternatives. Alternatives development is guided by established planning criteria 

(as outlined in 43 CFR, Part 1610).

The basic goal of alternatives development is to produce distinct potential 

management scenarios that:

• Address the identified major planning issues

• Explore opportunities to enhance management of resources and 

resource uses

• Resolve conflicts among resources and resource uses

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

• Are feasible

Pursuit of this goal provides the BLM and the public with an appreciation for the 

diverse ways in which conflicts regarding resources and resource uses might be 

resolved. It also offers the BLM State Director a reasonable range of alternatives 

from which to make an informed decision. The components and broad aim of 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Introduction to Alternatives)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-3

each alternative considered for the Lewistown Field Office Greater SageGrouse RMPA/EIS are discussed below.

2.3 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FOR THE LEWISTOWN FIELD OFFICE

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE PLAN AMENDMENT

The Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS planning team 

employed the BLM planning process (outlined in Section 1.5) to develop a 

reasonable range of alternatives for the RMPA. The BLM complied with NEPA

and the CEQ implementing regulations at 40 CFR, Part 1500, in developing

alternatives for this RMPA/EIS, including seeking public input and analyzing 

reasonable alternatives. Where necessary to meet the planning criteria, to 

address issues and comments from cooperating agencies and the public, or to 

provide a reasonable range of alternatives, the alternatives include management 

options for the planning area that would modify or amend decisions made in the 

Judith Resource Area Resource Management Plan (BLM 1994) and the 

Headwaters Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

Record of Decision (BLM 1984), as amended. Since this RMPA specifically

addresses GRSG conservation, many decisions from the Judith Resource Area 

Resource Management Plan and the Headwaters Resource Management 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision are acceptable and 

reasonable; in these instances, there is no need to develop alternative 

management prescriptions.

Public input received during the scoping process was considered to ensure that 

all issues and concerns would be addressed, as appropriate, in developing the 

alternatives. The planning team developed planning issues to be addressed in the 

RMPA. The team based these on broad concerns or controversies related to 

conditions, trends, needs, and existing and potential uses of planning area lands 

and resources.

2.3.1 Developing a Reasonable Range of Alternatives

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

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

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

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

team developed one no action alternative and three preliminary action 

alternatives. The action alternatives were designed to:

• Address the 10 planning issues (refer to Section 1.6.3)

• Fulfill the purpose and need for the RMPA (outlined in Section 1.2)

• Meet the multiple use mandates of FLPMA (43 USC, Section 1732).

2.4 RESULTING RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES

The three resulting action alternatives offer a range of possible management 

approaches for responding to planning issues and concerns. These were

identified through public scoping and are intended to maintain or increase 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Resulting Range of Alternatives)

2-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

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

same across alternatives, each alternative contains a discrete set of objectives,

allowable uses, and management actions, constituting a separate RMPA. The goal 

is met in varying degrees, with the potential for different long-range outcomes 

and conditions. Conservation measures in the alternatives focus on PH and GH

areas, depending on the alternative’s objective. The PH and GH have been 

delineated by MFWP in coordination with BLM.

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

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

pertaining to individual resource programs. When resources or resource uses 

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

or no distinctions between alternatives.

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

threats to GRSG and their habitat. All of the action alternatives use resource 

programs to address the USFWS-identified threats (USFWS 2013). Table 2-1, 

Management Zone 1 – Yellowstone Watershed, identifies the threats and the 

applicable BLM-resource programs in RMPs for addressing the threats to the 

Yellowstone Watershed population. Table 2-2, Management Zone IV – Belt 

Mountains, identifies the threats and the applicable BLM resource programs in 

RMPs for addressing the threats to the Belt Mountain GRSG population.

Select differences among the four alternatives are described in Table 2-3, 

Comparative Summary of Alternatives. Table 2-4, Description of Alternatives 

A, B, C, and D, provides a complete description of proposed decisions for each 

alternative, including the project goal and objectives, allowable uses, and

management actions for individual resource programs. Figures in Appendix A

provide a visual representation of differences between alternatives. In some 

instances, varying levels of management overlap a single polygon due to 

management prescriptions from different resource programs.

Table 2-1

Management Zone 1 – Yellowstone Watershed

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

Programs for Addressing Threats

USFWS-Identified Threat 

to GRSG and Their Habitat

(Threats not known to be 

present or unknown are not 

listed)

Status1 Applicable BLM RMP Resource Program for 

Addressing the Threat

1Threats characterized as: Y = threat is present and widespread, L = threat present but localized

Agriculture Conversion Y Program: Lands and Realty

Decision: Identify lands for acquisition, retention, and 

disposal
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Resulting Range of Alternatives)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-5

Table 2-1

Management Zone 1 – Yellowstone Watershed

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

Programs for Addressing Threats

USFWS-Identified Threat 

to GRSG and Their Habitat

(Threats not known to be 

present or unknown are not 

listed)

Status1 Applicable BLM RMP Resource Program for 

Addressing the Threat

Weeds/Annual Grasses Y Program: Vegetation

Decisions: Implement weed control, suppression, or 

eradication; allowable use restrictions; or active 

management or treatment

Energy Y Program: Fluid Minerals

Decisions: This amendment will not make any decisions 

regarding new fluid mineral leases as described in 

Chapter 1, Section 1.3 and Section 1.6.4.

Infrastructure Y Program: Lands and Realty – Right-of-Ways (ROW)

Decisions: Issue ROW grant; identify ROW avoidance or 

exclusion areas; issue permits and leases to authorize use 

of lands (for example, agricultural, occupancy, storage)

Program: Range Management – Fences

Decision: Install or remove fences

Program: Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management 

(CTTM)– Roads

Decisions: Identify travel management areas, modes of 

access and travel, and areas open, limited, or closed to 

OHVs

Grazing Y Program: Range Management

Decisions: Identify acres open and closed to grazing; 

establish animal unit months (AUMs); manage grazing 

systems; improve ranges; identify season of use and 

stocking rates

Program: Special Status Species

Decision: Identify habitat management

Sagebrush Elimination L Program: Vegetation

Decision: Conduct vegetation treatments

Fire L Program: Wildland Fire Management

Decisions: Change fire management strategies; identify 

areas suitable/unsuitable for wildland fire use and priority 

areas for suppression

Program: Wildland Fire Management

Decisions: Establish fire management strategies; identify 

areas suitable and unsuitable for prescribed fire use

Program: Vegetation

Decision: Conduct vegetation treatments through

prescribed fire
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Resulting Range of Alternatives)

2-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 2-1

Management Zone 1 – Yellowstone Watershed

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

Programs for Addressing Threats

USFWS-Identified Threat 

to GRSG and Their Habitat

(Threats not known to be 

present or unknown are not 

listed)

Status1 Applicable BLM RMP Resource Program for 

Addressing the Threat

Conifers L Program: Vegetation

Decision: Conduct vegetation treatments

Recreation L Program: Recreation

Decision: Issue special recreation permits (SRP)

Program: CTTM – Roads

Decisions: Identify travel management areas, modes of 

access and travel, and areas open, limited, or closed to 

OHVs

Source: USFWS 2013

Table 2-2

Management Zone IV – Belt Mountains

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

Programs for Addressing Threats

USFWS-Identified Threat 

to GRSG and Their Habitat

(Threats not known to be 

present or unknown are not 

listed)

Status1 Applicable BLM RMP Resource Program for 

Addressing the Threat

1Threats characterized as: Y = threat is present and widespread, L = threat present but localized

Isolated/Small Size Y Program: Lands and Realty

Decision: Identify lands for acquisition, retention, and 

disposal

Agriculture Conversion Y Program: Lands and Realty

Decision: Identify lands for acquisition, retention, and 

disposal

Weeds/Annual Grasses Y Program: Vegetation

Decisions: Implement weed control, suppression, or 

eradication; allowable use restrictions; or active 

management or treatment

Grazing Y Program: Range Management

Decisions: Identify acres open and closed to grazing; 

establish AUMs; manage grazing systems; improve ranges; 

identify season of use and stocking rates

Program: Special Status Species

Decision: Identify habitat management
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Resulting Range of Alternatives)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-7

Table 2-2

Management Zone IV – Belt Mountains

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

Programs for Addressing Threats

USFWS-Identified Threat 

to GRSG and Their Habitat

(Threats not known to be 

present or unknown are not 

listed)

Status1 Applicable BLM RMP Resource Program for 

Addressing the Threat

Sagebrush Elimination L Program: Vegetation

Decision: Conduct vegetation treatments

Fire L Program: Wildland Fire Management

Decisions: Change fire management strategies; identify 

areas suitable/unsuitable for wildland fire use and priority 

areas for suppression

Program: Wildland Fire Management

Decisions: Establish fire management strategies; identify 

areas suitable and unsuitable for prescribed fire use

Program: Vegetation

Decision: Conduct vegetation treatments through

prescribed fire

Energy Y Program: Fluid Minerals

Decisions: This amendment will not make any decisions 

regarding new fluid mineral leases as described in 

Chapter 1, Sections 1.3 and 1.6.4.

Infrastructure Y Program: Lands and Realty –ROWs

Decisions: Issue ROW grant; identify ROW avoidance or 

exclusion areas; issue permits and leases to authorize use 

of lands (for example, agricultural, occupancy, storage)

Program: Range Management – Fences 

Decision: Install or remove fences

Program: CTTM – Roads

Decisions: Identify travel management areas, modes of 

access and travel, and areas open, limited, or closed to 

OHVs

Conifers L Program: Vegetation

Decision: Conduct vegetation treatments

Recreation L Program: Recreation

Decision: Issue SRPs

Program: CTTM – Roads

Decisions: Identify travel management areas, modes of 

access and travel, and areas open, limited, or closed to 

OHVs

Urbanization L Program: Lands and Realty

Decision: Identify retention and disposal areas

Source: USFWS 2013
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Resulting Range of Alternatives)

2-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

2.4.1 Management Common to All Alternatives

Allowable uses and management actions from the existing RMPs that remain 

valid and do not require revision have been carried forward to all of the 

proposed alternatives. Other decisions are common only to the action 

alternatives.

Although each alternative emphasizes a slightly different mix of resources and 

resource uses, all four alternatives contain the following common elements:

• Comply with state and federal laws, regulations, policies, and 

standards, including FLPMA multiple use mandates.

• Implement actions originating from laws, regulations, and policies 

and conform to day-to-day management, monitoring, and 

administrative functions not specifically addressed.

• Honor valid existing rights, which include any leases, claims, or 

other use authorizations established before a new or modified 

authorization, change in land designation, or new or modified 

regulation is approved.

• Existing fluid mineral leases are managed through conditions of 

approval (COAs). The BLM has the discretion to modify surface 

operations to change or add specific mitigation measures when 

supported by environmental analysis. All mitigation/conservation 

measures not already required as stipulations would be analyzed in a 

site-specific NEPA document, and be incorporated, as appropriate, 

into conditions of approval of the permit, plan of development, 

and/or other use authorizations. Those types of decisions are 

outside the scope of the Lewistown Field Office Greater SageGrouse RMPA/EIS.

• Collaborate with adjacent landowners, federal and state agencies, 

tribes, communities, other agencies, and other individuals and 

organizations, as needed, to monitor and implement decisions to 

achieve desired resource conditions.

• Protect people and property from wildfire.

In addition to the shared elements above, allowable uses and management 

actions common to all four alternatives are listed in Table 2-4. These uses and 

actions are indicated by a single cell across the table row.

2.4.2 Alternative A (No Action)

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

considered. This alternative continues current management direction and 

prevailing conditions derived from existing planning documents. Goals and 

objectives for resources and resource uses are based on the Judith Resource 

Area Resource Management Plan and the Headwaters Resource Management
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Resulting Range of Alternatives)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-9

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision, along with associated 

amendments, activity and implementation level plans, and other management 

decision documents. Laws and regulations that supersede RMP decisions would 

apply.

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

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

and allowable uses and restrictions pertaining to such activities as mineral 

leasing and development, recreation, construction of utility infrastructure, and 

livestock grazing would also remain the same. The BLM would not modify 

existing criteria or establish additional criteria to identify site-specific use levels.

2.4.3 Elements Common to Alternatives B, C, and D

Alternatives B, C, and D include two basic components: delineated PH and GH

and RDFs.

Delineate Lands as Priority and General Habitat

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, PPH and PGH data would be refined to (1) 

delineate PH and analyze actions within PH to conserve GRSG habitat 

functionality, or where possible, improve habitat functionality; and (2) delineate 

GH and analyze actions within GH that provide for major life history function 

(e.g., breeding, migration, or winter survival). The purpose of this would be to 

maintain genetic diversity needed for sustainable GRSG populations. The areas 

delineated as PH and GH would be the same under each alternative; however, 

the allowable uses and management actions within PH and GH may vary 

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

alternative.

Required Design Features

RDFs are means, measures, or practices intended to reduce or avoid adverse 

environmental impacts. This RMPA/EIS proposes a suite of design features that 

would establish the minimum specifications for certain activities, such as water 

developments, certain mineral development, and fire and fuels management, to 

mitigate adverse impacts. These RDFs would provide a greater level of 

regulatory certainty than through implementing BMPs.

In general, the RDFs are accepted practices that are known to be effective when 

implemented properly at the project level. However, their applicability and 

overall effectiveness cannot be fully assessed except at the project-specific level,

when the project location and design are known. Because of site-specific 

circumstances, some features may not apply to some projects (e.g., a resource is 

not present on a given site) or may require slight variations from what is 

described in the RMPA/EIS (e.g., a larger or smaller protective area). All 

variations in RDFs would require appropriate analysis and disclosure as part of 

future project authorizations. Additional mitigation measures may be identified 

and required during individual project development and environmental review. 

The proposed RDFs are presented in Appendix C, Required Design Features 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Resulting Range of Alternatives)

2-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for 

Alternatives B and C, and Appendix D, Required Design Features and Best 

Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D.

2.4.4 Alternative B

GRSG conservation measures in A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures (NTT 2011) to form BLM management direction under 

Alternative B. Management actions by the BLM, in concert with other state and 

federal agencies and private landowners, play a critical role in the future trends 

of GRSG populations. To ensure BLM management actions are effective and 

based on the best available science, the National Policy Team created a National 

Technical Team in August 2011. The BLM’s objective for chartering this planning 

strategy was to develop new or revised regulatory mechanisms, through RMPs, 

to conserve and restore the GRSG and its habitat on BLM-administered lands. 

Conservation measures under Alternative B are focused on PH (areas that have 

the highest conservation value to maintaining or increasing GRSG populations).

Table 2-3, summarizes select proposed decisions, and Table 2-4, includes 

details of all proposed decisions. Appendix C provides RDFs and BMPs for

surface-disturbing activities. Key components of Alternative B are discussed 

below.

Travel and transportation management—Alternative B would limit 

motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails at a minimum until 

travel management planning is complete and routes are either designated or 

closed. Under Alternative B, route construction in PH would be limited to 

realignments of existing designated routes, except to access valid existing rights; 

this would require additional mitigation for disturbances greater than three 

percent for that area. Alternative B would emphasize restoration of 

nondesignated roads, primitive roads, and trails in PH.

Lands and realty—PH would be designated as ROW exclusion area for new

land use authorizations (approximately 233,219 acres), and GH would be 

designated as ROW avoidance areas for new land use authorizations

(approximately 112,341 acres). Lands within PH would be recommended for 

mineral withdrawal proposals, and other withdrawal proposals in PH would 

need to be consistent with GRSG conservation measures.

Range management—Grazing would be allowed on all lands identified as 

suitable (approximately 337,165 acres). Alternative B would consider retiring 

permitted grazing use on allotments in PH when the current permittee is willing. 

Within PH, GRSG habitat objectives and management considerations would be 

incorporated into all BLM grazing allotments through AMPs or permit renewals. 

The BLM would prioritize completion of land health assessments in PH and 

implement actions to modify grazing management to meet GRSG habitat 

requirements. Alternative B would focus forage treatments and restrictions to 

range improvements in PH.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Resulting Range of Alternatives)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-11

Energy and mineral development—Existing leases in PH would be subject 

to conservation measures through RMP implementation decisions and on 

completion of the environmental record of review. All mitigation/conservation 

measures not already required as stipulations would be analyzed in a sitespecific NEPA document, and be incorporated, as appropriate, into COAs of 

the permit, plan of development, and/or other use authorizations.

Surface coal mining would be considered unsuitable (approximately 385,693 

acres), and no subsurface coal mining disturbances and facilities would be 

allowed in PH. All PH (approximately 279,097 acres) would be closed to salable 

minerals and nonenergy leasable minerals, and would be recommended for 

withdrawal for locatable minerals.

Fire and fuels management—In PH, the BLM would design and implement 

fuels treatments and suppression, with an emphasis on protecting sagebrush 

ecosystems. Sagebrush canopy cover would not be reduced less than 15 

percent, unless a fuels management objective were to require additional 

reduction in sagebrush cover to meet strategic protection of PH and conserve 

habitat quality for the species. Under Alternative B, fuels management projects 

in PH would be designed to reduce wildfire threats in the greatest area.

Habitat restoration/vegetation management—The BLM would prioritize 

implementing restoration projects. Decisions would be based on environmental 

variables that would improve chances for project success in areas most likely to 

benefit GRSG. The BLM would make meeting habitat restoration objectives 

within PH areas the highest restoration priority.

Special designations—GRSG habitat would not be designated as an ACEC. 

GRSG PH and GH areas would be protected and managed consistent with the 

identified management actions and constraints in this alternative.

2.4.5 Alternative C

During scoping for the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy, 

individuals and conservation groups submitted management direction 

recommendations for protecting and conserving GRSG and habitat at the rangewide level. The recommendations, in conjunction with resource allocation 

opportunities and internal subregional BLM input, were reviewed in order to 

develop BLM management direction for GRSG under Alternative C. 

Conservation measures under Alternative C are focused on both PH and GH

(seasonal or year-round habitat outside of PH).

Table 2-3 summarizes select proposed decisions, and Table 2-4 includes 

details of all proposed decisions. Appendix C provides RDFs and BMPs for 

surface-disturbing activities. Key components of Alternative C are discussed 

below.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Resulting Range of Alternatives)

2-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Travel and transportation management—Similar to Alternative B, 

Alternative C would limit motorized travel in PH to existing roads, primitive 

roads, and trails, at a minimum. Alternative C would have the most restrictive 

requirements for constructing routes to existing valid rights, requiring a fourmile buffer from leks. Under Alternative C, route construction in PH and GH

would be limited to realignments of existing designated routes. Like Alternative 

B, this alternative would also emphasize restoration of nondesignated roads, 

primitive roads, and trails in PH. Alternative C would have the most restrictions 

on travel and transportation.

Lands and realty—PH and GH would be designated as ROW exclusion areas

(approximately 345,560 acres). Lands within PH would be recommended for 

mineral withdrawal proposals, and other withdrawal proposals in PH and GH 

would need to be consistent with effective GRSG conservation measures. 

Alternative C would have the most restrictions on ROW development and 

withdrawals.

Range management—Alternative C would remove livestock grazing from all 

allotments in PH and GH.

Energy and mineral development—Existing leases in PH and GH habitat 

would be subject to conservation measures as COAs at the project and well 

permitting stages, and through RMP implementation decisions on completion of 

the environmental record of review. All mitigation/conservation measures not 

already required as stipulations would be analyzed in a site-specific NEPA

document and incorporated, as appropriate, into COAs of the permit, plan of 

development, and/or other use authorizations.

Management of coal, salable minerals, nonenergy leasable minerals, and locatable 

minerals would be similar to that under Alternative B. Alternative C would have 

the most restrictions on energy and mineral development.

Fire and fuels management—This is similar to management under 

Alternative B; however, all management would apply to both PH and GH.

Habitat restoration/vegetation management—The BLM would prioritize 

implementing restoration projects based on environmental variables that 

improve chances for project success in areas most likely to benefit GRSG. The 

BLM would make meeting habitat restoration objectives within PH and GH the 

highest restoration priority.

Special designations—All PH areas for GRSG with at least 4,000 acres of 

contiguous BLM surface ownership would be designated as an ACEC to protect 

GRSG habitat (96,246 acres; see Appendix E, Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern Evaluation of Relevance and Importance Criteria). Management actions 

for the ACEC would be consistent with the management actions/constraints 

identified in Alternative C to protect GRSG habitat.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Resulting Range of Alternatives)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-13

2.4.6 Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

Alternative D, the agency-preferred alternative, seeks to allocate limited 

resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of 

natural resource values. At the same time, it would sustain and enhance

ecological integrity across the landscape, including plant, and wildlife habitat. 

This alternative incorporates local adjustments to A Report on National Greater 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures (NTT 2011) and habitat boundaries to 

provide a balanced level of protection, restoration, enhancement, and use of 

resources and services to meet ongoing programs and land uses. Conservation 

measures under Alternative D are focused on both PH and GH.

Table 2-3 summarizes select proposed decisions, and Table 2-4 includes 

details of all proposed decisions. Appendix D provides RDFs and BMPs for 

surface-disturbing activities. Key components of Alternative D are discussed 

below.

Travel and transportation management—Similar to Alternative A, 

Alternative D would limit motorized travel in the planning area to existing 

roads, primitive roads, and trails. Similar to Alternative B, route construction in 

PH would be limited to realignments of existing designated routes. However, 

construction of access roads to existing rights would be less restrictive and

would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Similar to Alternative B, Alternative 

D would emphasize restoration of nondesignated roads, primitive roads, and 

trails in PH, following completion of travel management plans.

Lands and realty—PH would be designated as ROW avoidance areas

(approximately 233,219 acres; wind energy authorizations would be avoided

from PH and GH areas). GH would be open to non-wind ROW development

and evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Similar to Alternative B, nonmineral

withdrawal proposal in PH would need to be consistent with GRSG

conservation measures.

Range management—Similar to Alternative B, grazing would be allowed on 

all lands identified as suitable (approximately 337,165 acres). Within PH, GRSG

habitat objectives and management considerations would be incorporated into 

all BLM grazing allotments through watershed planning and permit renewal 

process. Similar to Alternative B, the BLM would prioritize completion of land 

health assessments in PH. Like Alternative B, Alternative D would focus forage 

treatments and restrictions on range improvements in PH.

In PH, land health evaluations and determinations would be conducted that 

include (at a minimum) indicators and measurements of

structure/condition/composition of vegetation specific to achieving GRSG

habitat objectives. State objectives would be used for fine-scale analysis, unless 

local objectives are developed at the field office level, in partnership with MFWP 

and USFWS. The objectives would be used during the land health evaluation and 

determination process and specifically linked to LFO Standard #5, the 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Resulting Range of Alternatives)

2-14 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

biodiversity standard (see Appendix F, Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands Administered by 

the Bureau of Land Management for Montana and the Dakotas). Future 

management actions would be developed if land health determinations indicate 

that an allotment is not meeting standards (that have incorporated the GRSG 

habitat objectives) due to current livestock grazing.

Energy and mineral development—Existing leases in the planning area

would be subject to conservation measures through implementation decisions 

and on completion of the environmental record of review. Operating 

constraints would also be applied to existing leases as COAs. All 

mitigation/conservation measures not already required as stipulations would be 

analyzed in a site-specific NEPA document, and be incorporated, as appropriate, 

into COAs of the permit, plan of development, and/or other use authorizations.

The planning area would be available for coal exploration, subject to 

environmental review and mitigation measures. On a case-by-case basis, 

unsuitability criteria for coal would be applied and a plan amendment would be 

prepared. Proposed locatable minerals actions would be analyzed in Plan of 

Operations and appropriate mitigation would be applied. Permits for nonenergy 

leasable minerals and salable minerals would be considered on a case-by-case 

basis, and appropriate mitigation measures would be required.

Fire and fuels management—In suitable GRSG habitat, the BLM would 

design and implement fuels treatment and suppression with an emphasis on 

protecting sagebrush ecosystems. Sagebrush canopy would not be reduced to 

less than 15 percent, unless a fuels management objective were to require 

additional reduction in sagebrush cover to meet strategic protection of PH and 

conserve habitat quality for the species. Similar to Alternative B, fuels 

management projects in PH would be designed to reduce wildfire threats in the 

greatest area.

Habitat restoration/vegetation management— The BLM would make 

meeting GRSG habitat restoration objectives in PH and GH a high priority, 

while also considering other species.

Special designations—GRSG habitat would not be designated as an ACEC. It

would be protected and managed consistent with the identified management 

actions and constraints under this alternative.

2.5 REGIONAL MITIGATION STRATEGY

Mitigation strategies, which take into account the mitigation hierarchy (avoid, 

minimize, restore, offset), are an important tool for ensuring the BLM meets 

their GRSG resource objectives while continuing to honor our multiple-use 

mission. The BLM priority is to mitigate impacts to an acceptable level onsite, to 

the extent practical, through avoidance (not taking a certain action or parts of 

an action), minimization (limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Regional Mitigation Strategy)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-15

implementation), rectification (repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected 

environment), or reduction of impacts over time (preservation and maintenance 

operations during the life of the action). While mitigating impacts for proposed 

projects to an acceptable level onsite is typically analyzed and determined 

through site-specific, implementation-level NEPA documents and their 

commensurate decision documents, the analysis and mitigation for project level 

activities would be tiered to the analysis and mitigation proposed throughout 

each of the action alternatives in this RMPA. Appendix G, Regional Mitigation 

Strategy, provides the approach to the regional mitigation strategy.

2.6 MONITORING FOR THE GREATER SAGE-GROUSE PLANNING STRATEGY

The BLM’s planning regulations, specifically 43 CFR 1610.4-9, require that land 

use plans establish intervals and standards for monitoring based on the 

sensitivity of the resource decisions. Land use plan monitoring is the process of 

tracking the implementation of land use plan decisions (implementation 

monitoring) and collecting the data/information necessary to evaluate the 

effectiveness of land use plan decisions (effectiveness monitoring). These types 

of monitoring are also described in the criteria found in the USFWS’s Policy for 

Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (50 CFR 

Volume 68, No. 60). One of the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts 

When Making Listing Decisions criteria evaluates whether provisions for 

monitoring and reporting progress on implementation (based on compliance 

with the implementation schedule) and effectiveness (based on evaluation of 

quantifiable parameters) of the conservation effort are provided.

A guiding principle in the BLM National Sage-grouse Conservation Strategy 

(DOI 2004) is that “the Bureau is committed to sage-grouse and sagebrush 

conservation and will continue to adjust and adapt our National Sage-grouse 

Strategy as new information, science, and monitoring results evaluate 

effectiveness over time.” In keeping with the WAFWA Sage-grouse 

Comprehensive Conservation Strategy (Stiver et al. 2006) and the Greater Sagegrouse Conservation Objectives: Final Report (USFWS 2013), the BLM would 

monitor implementation and effectiveness of conservation measures in 

Alternatives B, C, and D in GRSG habitats.

On March 5, 2010, USFWS’ 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater SageGrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered were posted as 

a Federal Register notice (75 Federal Register 13910-14014, March 23, 2010). 

This notice stated:

...the information collected by BLM could not be used to make broad 

generalizations about the status of rangelands and management actions. 

There was a lack of consistency across the range in how questions were 

interpreted and answered for the data call, which limited our ability to 

use the results to understand habitat conditions for sage-grouse on BLM 

lands.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Monitoring for the Greater Sage-grouse Planning Strategy)

2-16 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Standardization of monitoring methods and implementation of a defensible 

monitoring approach (within and across jurisdictions) would help resolve this 

situation. The BLM and other conservation partners use the resulting 

information to guide implementation of conservation activities.

Monitoring strategies for GRSG habitat and populations must be collaborative, 

as habitat occurs across jurisdictional boundaries (52 percent on BLMadministered lands, 31 percent on private lands, eight percent on National 

Forest System lands, five percent on state lands, four percent on tribal and 

other federal lands; 75 Federal Register 13910, March 23, 2010), and state fish 

and wildlife agencies have primary responsibility for population level wildlife 

management, including population monitoring. Therefore, population efforts 

would continue to be conducted in partnership with state fish and wildlife 

agencies. The monitoring framework includes methods, data standards, and 

intervals of monitoring at broad- and mid-scales; consistent indicators to 

measure and metric descriptions for each of the scales (see Habitat Assessment 

Framework and Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring core indicators); 

analysis and reporting methods; and the incorporation of monitoring results into 

adaptive management. The need for fine-scale and site-specific habitat 

monitoring may vary by area depending on existing conditions, habitat variability, 

threats, and land health. Indicators at the fine- and site-scales would be 

consistent with the Habitat Assessment Framework; however, the values for the 

indicators could be adjusted for regional conditions. The major components of 

the monitoring framework are in Appendix B.

More specifically, the framework discusses how the BLM would monitor and 

track implementation and effectiveness of planning decisions (e.g., tracking of 

waivers, modifications, and site-level actions). The BLM would monitor the 

effectiveness of RMP decisions in meeting management and conservation 

objectives. Effectiveness monitoring would include monitoring disturbance in 

habitats, as well as landscape habitat attributes. To monitor habitats, the BLM 

would measure and track attributes of PH and GH at the broad-scale, and 

attributes of habitat availability, patch size, connectivity, linkage/connectivity 

habitat, edge effect, and anthropogenic disturbances at the mid-scale. 

Disturbance monitoring would measure and track changes in the amount of 

sagebrush in the landscape and changes in the anthropogenic footprint, including 

change energy development density. The framework also includes methodology 

for analysis and reporting for field offices, states, and BLM districts, including 

geospatial and tabular data for disturbance mapping (e.g., geospatial footprint of 

new permitted disturbances) and management actions effectiveness.

The monitoring data would provide the indicator estimates for adaptive 

management. The BLM would adjust management decisions through an adaptive 

management process.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Adaptive Management)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-17

2.7 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Adaptive management is a decision process that promotes flexible resource 

management decision making that can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as 

outcomes from management actions and other events become better 

understood. Careful monitoring of these outcomes both advances scientific 

understanding and helps with adjusting resource management directions as part 

of an iterative learning process. Adaptive management also recognizes the 

importance of natural variability in contributing to ecological resilience and 

productivity. It is not a ‘trial and error’ process, but rather emphasizes learning 

while doing. Adaptive management does not represent an end in itself, but 

rather a means to more effective decisions and enhanced benefits. On February 

1, 2008, the DOI published its Adaptive Management Implementation Policy 

(522 DM 1). The adaptive management strategy presented within this EIS 

complies with this policy.

In relation to the BLM’s National Greater Sage-grouse Planning Strategy, 

adaptive management will help identify if GRSG conservation measures 

presented in Alternatives B, C, and D in this EIS contain the needed level of 

certainty for effectiveness. If principles of adaptive management are 

incorporated into the conservation measures in the plan (to ameliorate threats 

to a species), then there is a greater likelihood that a conservation measure or 

plan will be effective in reducing threats to that species. The following provides 

the BLM adaptive management strategy for this RMPA.

2.7.1 Adaptive Management and Monitoring

This Draft EIS contains a monitoring framework plan (Appendix B) which 

includes an effectiveness monitoring component. The agencies intend to use the 

data collected from the effectiveness monitoring to identify any changes in 

habitat conditions related to the goals and objectives of the plan and other 

range-wide conservation strategies (DOI 2004; Stiver et al. 2006; USFWS 2013). 

When available from WAFWA and/or state wildlife agencies, information about 

population trends will be considered with effectiveness monitoring data (taking 

into consideration the lag effect response of populations to habitat changes 

[Garton et al. 2011]). The information collected through the Monitoring 

Framework Plan outlined in Appendix B will be used by the BLM to determine 

when adaptive management hard and soft triggers (discussed below) are met.

2.7.2 Adaptive Management Plan

The BLM will develop an adaptive management plan to provide certainty that 

unintended negative impacts on GRSG will be addressed before consequences 

become severe or irreversible and to provide regulatory certainty to the 

USFWS that appropriate action will be taken by the BLM. This adaptive 

management plan will:
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Adaptive Management)

2-18 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

• identify science based soft and hard adaptive management triggers 

applicable to each population or subpopulation within the planning 

area,

• address how the multiple-scale data from the Monitoring 

Framework Plan (Appendix B) will be used to gauge when 

adaptive management triggers are met, and

• charter an adaptive management working group to assist with 

responding to soft adaptive management triggers.

Adaptive Management Triggers

Adaptive management triggers are essential for identifying when potential 

management changes are needed in order to continue meeting GRSG

conservation objectives. The BLM will use a continuum of trigger points (soft 

and hard triggers), which will enhance BLM’s ability to effectively manage GRSG

habitat. The soft and hard triggers that will be delineated in the adaptive 

management plan will (at a minimum):

• be based upon the best available science, 

• tied to the populations/demographics,

• take into account the importance of various seasonal habitat types, 

and

• not be limited to a single time “window”. 

Soft triggers indicate when the BLM will consider adjustments to 

resource/resource use management. An adaptive management working group 

will help identify the causal factors as to what prompted the soft adaptive 

management trigger. The group will also provide recommendations to the 

appropriate BLM authorizing official (decision maker) regarding the applicable 

management response to address this trigger (e.g., effective mitigation, 

restoration, reclamation, and in some instances, a land use plan amendment or 

revision). When organizing the adaptive management working group, the BLM 

will invite participation from BLM, USFWS, local governments, cooperating 

agencies, and MFWP.

Hard triggers indicate when the BLM will take immediate action to stop the 

continued deviation from conservation objectives. These actions could include 

one or more of the following (which may require subsequent NEPA):

• Temporary closures (as directed under BLM IM No. 2013-035),

• Immediate implementation of interim management policies and 

procedures through the BLM directives system, and

• Initiation of a new RMP amendment to consider changes to the

existing RMP decisions.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-19

2.8 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS

The following alternatives were considered but were not carried forward for 

detailed analysis because (1) they would not fulfill requirements of FLPMA or 

other existing laws or regulations, (2) they did not meet the purpose and need, 

(3) they were already part of an existing plan, policy, or administrative function, 

or (4) they did not fall within the limits of the planning criteria. FLPMA requires 

the BLM to manage BLM-administered lands and resources in accordance with 

the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. This includes recognizing the 

nation’s needs for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber. 

Moreover, the BLM is required by law to recognize existing valid rights on BLMadministered lands and to manage BLM-administered lands in accordance with 

existing laws. These include the General Mining Law of 1872 and the Mining and 

Minerals Policy Act of 1970.

2.8.1 National Technical Team Conservation Measures Not Applicable to 

Lewistown Field Office

No management actions from A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures (NTT 2011) concerning wild horse and burros were 

carried forward. This is because there are no wild horse or burro herds 

managed by the LFO.

2.8.2 Elimination of Livestock Grazing from BLM Lands 

An alternative that proposes to make the entire planning area unavailable for 

livestock grazing would not meet the purpose and need of the Lewistown Field 

Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS. NEPA requires that agencies study, 

develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of 

action in any proposal that involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative 

uses of available resources. No issues or conflicts have been identified during 

this land use planning effort that require the complete elimination of livestock 

grazing within the planning area for their resolution (BLM Washington Office IM 

2012-169) (BLM 2012c). Livestock removal and use adjustment where 

appropriate 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 BLM-administered lands in RMPs, the analysis of an 

alternative to entirely eliminate grazing is not needed.

In accordance with the BLM’s H-1601-1 Land Use Planning Handbook and BLM 

Washington Office 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 a planning 

area-wide basis. An alternative eliminating livestock grazing in all allotments in 

PH and GH was developed. On allotments outside of PH and GH, no multipleuse conflicts or issues were identified that would affect GRSG habitat conditions 

or management. The range of alternatives considered includes a meaningful 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis)

2-20 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

reduction in livestock grazing, both through a reduction in areas available to 

livestock grazing and forage allocation.

The majority of the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS 

planning area is located in the northwestern portion of the Great Plains 

Ecoregion (EPA 2010a) and the rangelands in the planning area are classified as 

mixed-grass prairie. The rangelands of the Great Plains have a long evolutionary 

history of grazing and grazing is accepted by grassland ecologists as a keystone 

process of the grassland ecosystem (Fuhlendorf and Engle 2001; Milchunas, et al. 

1988; Knapp et al. 1999). There is also agreement among many scientists and 

natural resource managers that some level of grazing disturbance is necessary to 

assure the ecological integrity of the mixed-grass prairie ecosystem (Parks 

Canada 2002).

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.

2.9 CONSIDERATIONS FOR SELECTING A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The proposed alternatives offer a range of discrete strategies for the following:

• Resolving deficiencies in existing management

• Exploring opportunities for enhanced management

• Addressing issues identified through internal assessment and public 

scoping related to maintaining or increasing GRSG abundance and 

distribution on BLM-administered lands

Comments submitted by other government agencies, public organizations, state 

and tribal entities, and interested individuals were given careful consideration. 

Public scoping enabled the BLM to identify and shape important issues pertaining 

to GRSG habitat, energy development, livestock grazing, West Nile virus, 

potential ACECs, BLM-administered land access, and other program areas. 

Cooperating agencies reviewed and provided comments at critical intervals 

during the alternatives development process.

NEPA regulations developed by the CEQ require the BLM to identify a 

preferred alternative in the RMPA/EIS. Formulated by the planning team, the 

preferred alternative represents those goals, objectives, and actions determined 

to be most effective at resolving planning issues and balancing resource use at 

this stage of the process. While collaboration is critical in developing and 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Considerations for Selecting a Preferred Alternative)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-21

evaluating alternatives, the final designation of a preferred alternative remains 

the exclusive responsibility of the BLM.

The identification of a preferred alternative does not constitute a commitment 

or decision in principle, and there is no requirement to select the preferred 

alternative or any of the separate individual alternatives as they are presented in 

the Draft EIS within the ROD. The BLM has the discretion to select any of the 

alternatives as the agency’s preferred alternative and can modify the preferred 

alternative between the Draft EIS and the Final EIS, as long as the actions 

presented in the proposed alternative within the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS are 

analyzed somewhere within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the EIS.

2.9.1 Recommendations and Resulting Actions

The Alternative D (Agency-Preferred Alternative) indicates the agency's 

preliminary preference. The Preferred Alternative does not represent a final 

BLM decision and may change between publication of the Draft and Final 

RMPA/EIS based on comments received on the Draft RMPA/EIS, new 

information, or change in BLM policies or priorities. The BLM selected the 

Preferred Alternative based on the following criteria:

1. Satisfy statutory requirements

2. Reflect the best combination of decisions to achieve the BLM goals 

and policies

3. Represent the best solution to the purpose and need

4. Provide the best approach to addressing key planning issues

5. Consider cooperating agencies and BLM specialists’

recommendations

2.10 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

This section summarizes and compares Alternatives A through D considered in 

the EIS. Combined with the appendices and maps; Table 2-3 provides the 

differences among the alternatives, relative to what they establish and where 

they occur. The table represents a summary of differences with the most 

potential to affect resources among the alternatives.

Decisions made by this RMPA/EIS are anticipated to be subsequently 

implemented. Restrictions on resource uses (e.g., ROW exclusion area) made

through this RMPA apply for the life of the RMP being amended. Actions taken 

or authorized by the BLM during RMP implementation would comply with RDFs

and BMPs (Appendix C for Alternatives B and C, and Appendix D for 

Alternative D), as appropriate.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

2-22 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 2-3

Comparative Summary of Alternatives

Resources/Resource Uses Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C

Alternative D

(Agency 

Preferred)

Planning Area – BLM Surface (no PH or GH delineation) (acres) 248,435 248,435 248,435 248,435

GRSG Habitat Areas (acres)

PH – All ownerships 0 1,207,994 1,207,994 1,207,994

PH – BLM 0 233,219 233,219 233,219

GH – All ownerships 0 1,015,035 1,015,035 1,015,035

GH – BLM 0 112,341 112,341 112,341

Livestock Grazing

Open for all classes of livestock grazing (acres) 570,112 337,165 0 337,165

Open for all classes of livestock grazing in PH n/a 230,716 0 230,716

Open for all classes of livestock grazing in GH n/a 106,449 0 106,449

Open for all classes of livestock grazing in non-habitat 248,435 248,435 248,435 248,435

Closed to livestock grazing (acres) 6,781 0 337,165 0

Closed for all classes of livestock grazing in PH n/a 0 230,716 0

Closed for all classes of livestock grazing in GH n/a 0 106,449 0

Available AUMs 103,806 69,408 0 69,408

Available AUMs in PH n/a 49,948 0 49,948

Available AUMs in GH n/a 19,460 0 19,460

Available AUMs in non-habitat 34,398 34,398 34,398 34,398

Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

Limited to existing routes for motorized and mechanized travel

(acres) 345,560 345,560 345,560 345,560

Lands and Realty (acres)

Right-of-way (ROW) exclusion areas 0 233,219 345,560 0

ROW exclusion areas in PH n/a 233,219 233,219 0

ROW exclusion areas in GH n/a 0 112,341 0
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-23

Table 2-3

Comparative Summary of Alternatives

Resources/Resource Uses Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C

Alternative D

(Agency 

Preferred)

ROW avoidance areas 9,708 112,341 0 240,464

ROW avoidance areas in PH n/a 0 0 233,219

ROW avoidance areas in GH n/a 112,341 0 7,245

Recommended for withdrawal 0 233,219 345,560 0

Coal1

Unsuitable for surface mining (acres) 0 385,693 639,927 0

Unsuitable in PH n/a 385,693 385,693 0

Unsuitable in GH n/a 0 254,234 0

Fluid Mineral Leasing

Existing fluid mineral leases (acres)

BLM surface/federal minerals 55,880 55,880 55,880 55,880

Private, state, or other surface/federal minerals 33,881 33,881 33,881 33,881

Locatable Minerals, Salables and Non-Energy Solid Leasable Minerals

BLM Surface/Federal Minerals (acres)

Withdrawn from Locatable Mineral Entry 2,538 2,538 2,538 2,538

Withdrawn from Locatable Mineral Entry in PH n/a 101 101 101

Withdrawn from Locatable Mineral Entry in GH n/a 2,437 2,437 2,437

Recommend for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry 0 233,219 345,560 0

Recommend for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry in 

PH 233,219 233,219 0

Recommend for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry in 

GH 0 112,341 0

 1 Coal development is not addressed in the Judith Resource Area Resource Management Plan Record of Decision (BLM 1994) because: there has been no 

federal coal mining in the last 70 years, there are no existing federal coal leases in the planning area, and no expression of interest for leasing or exchange have 

been identified; therefore, no acreage calculations will be created for the amendment.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

2-24 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 2-3

Comparative Summary of Alternatives

Resources/Resource Uses Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C

Alternative D

(Agency 

Preferred)

Closed to nonenergy leasable mineral exploration or 

development and saleable mineral disposal 0 233,219 345,560 0

Closed to nonenergy leasable mineral exploration or 

development and salable mineral disposal in PH 233,219 233,219 0

Closed to nonenergy leasable mineral exploration or 

development and salable mineral disposal in GH 0 112,341 0

Private, State, or Other Surface/Federal Minerals

Withdrawn from Locatable Mineral Entry (acres) 0 0 0 0

Withdrawn from Locatable Mineral Entry in PH 0 0 0

Withdrawn from Locatable Mineral Entry in GH 0 0 0

Recommend for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry (acres) 0 45,879 108,410 0

Recommend for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry in 

PH 45,879 45,879 0

Recommend for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry in 

GH 0 62,531 0

Closed to nonenergy leasable mineral exploration or 

development and salable mineral disposal (acres) 0 45,879 108,410 0

Closed to nonenergy leasable mineral exploration or 

development and salable mineral disposal in PH 45,879 45,879 0

Closed to nonenergy leasable mineral exploration or 

development and salable mineral disposal in GH 0 62,531 0

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

ACEC to protect GRSG (acres) 0 0 96,246 0

ACEC to protect GRSG in PH n/a 0 96,246 0

ACEC to protect GRSG in GH n/a 0 0 0
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-25

2.10.1 How to Read Table 2-4

The following describes how Table 2-4 is written and formatted to show the 

land use plan decisions proposed for each alternative.

In accordance with Appendix C (as amended) of the BLM Land Use Planning 

Handbook (H-1601-1), land use plan and plan amendment decisions are broadscale decisions that guide future land management actions and subsequent sitespecific implementation decisions (BLM 2005a). Land use plan decisions fall into 

two categories, which establish the base structure for Table 2-4: desired 

outcomes (goals and objectives) and allowable uses and actions to achieve 

outcomes.

• Goals are broad statements of desired outcomes that usually are 

not quantifiable.

• Objectives identify specific desired outcomes for resources. They

may be quantifiable and measurable and may have established 

timeframes for achievement, as appropriate.

• Allowable uses identify uses, or allocations, that are allowable, 

restricted, or prohibited on BLM-administered lands and mineral 

estate.

• Actions identify measures or criteria to achieve desired objectives, 

including actions to maintain, restore, or improve land health. 

The alternatives direction/management actions in Table 2-4 are organized by 

resource programs identified in the NTT report (A Report on National Greater 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures; NTT 2011). In general, only those resources 

and resource uses that have been identified as planning issues have notable 

differences between the alternatives in Table 2-4. Actions that are applicable to 

all alternatives are shown in one cell across a row. These particular objectives 

and actions would be implemented regardless of which alternative is ultimately

selected. Actions that are applicable to more than one but not all alternatives 

are indicated by either combining cells for the same alternatives or by denoting 

those objectives or actions as the “same as Alternative B,” for example.

Data from geographic information systems (GIS) have been used in developing 

acreage calculations and for generating many of the figures. Calculations in this 

EIS are rounded and are dependent upon the quality and availability of data. 

Data were collected from a variety of sources, including the BLM, collaborative 

partners, stakeholders, and cooperating agencies. Given the scale of the analysis, 

the compatibility constraints between datasets, and lack of data for some 

resources, all calculations are approximate and serve for comparison and 

analytic purposes only. Likewise, the figures are provided for illustrative 

purposes and subject to the limitations discussed above. The BLM may receive 

additional GIS data; therefore, the acreages may be recalculated and revised at a 

later date.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

2-26 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

This page intentionally left blank.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-27

Table 2-4

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

GOAL: Maintain and/or increase GRSG abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing, or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend, in cooperation with other conservation partners.

No similar objective. Objective:

• Protect PH from anthropogenic (human-caused) 

disturbances that would reduce distribution or abundance 

of GRSG

o Manage or restore priority areas so that at least 

70% of the land cover provides adequate 

sagebrush habitat to meet GRSG needs

o Manage PH so that discrete anthropogenic 

disturbances cover less than 3% of the total 

GRSG habitat

Objective:

• Protect PH and GH from anthropogenic disturbances 

that would reduce distribution or abundance of GRSG

Objective: 

• Protect PH from anthropogenic disturbances that would reduce 

distribution or abundance of GRSG

Habitat Delineation: No similar delineation. Habitat Delineation: Delineate PH to encompass the 75% 

breeding bird density map: 233,219 BLM surface acres (19% of 

total PH acres). See Figure 1-1 (Appendix A).

Habitat Delineation: Same as Alternative B. Habitat Delineation: Same as Alternative B.

Habitat Delineation: No similar delineation. Habitat Delineation: Delineate GH to encompass the 

remainder of the habitat presented in the 100% breeding bird 

density map: 112,341 BLM surface acres (11% of total GH 

acres). See Figure 1-1 (Appendix A).

Habitat Delineation: Same as Alternative B. Habitat Delineation: Same as Alternative B.

ALTERNATIVES DIRECTION

Travel and Transportation Management

Action: BLM-administered lands are designated limited 

yearlong for motorized wheeled vehicles (motorized 

wheeled cross-country travel is restricted to existing roads 

and trails) (BLM 2003b).

Action: In PH, limit motorized travel to existing roads, 

primitive roads, and trails, at a minimum, until such time as 

travel management planning is complete and routes are either 

designated or closed.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PH and 

GH.

Action: Same as Alternative A; in addition, implement a CTTM plan to 

designate roads and trails (when travel management plan is complete). 

Administrative off-road use for BLM personnel and BLM authorized 

activities would be allowed. BLM-implemented CTTM would not apply 

to private or other state or federal lands within the LFO.

No similar action. No similar action. Action: Prohibit new road construction within 4 miles of 

active GRSG leks, and avoid new road construction in PH and 

GH.

Action: On completion of site-specific projects, roads used for 

commercial or administrative access on BLM-administered lands would 

be reclaimed, unless the route would provide specific benefits for 

public access, would minimize impacts on the resources, and would be 

considered on a case-by-case basis.

Action: The BLM may close or restore unauthorized, user created 

roads and trails to prevent resource damage, including impacts on 

GRSG.

Action: The BLM would minimize or prevent road and trail 

development on crucial big game and upland bird habitat 

areas (BLM 1994).

Action: BLM regulations (43 CFR, Parts 8341.2 and 8364.1) 

allow for area, road, or trail closures where off-road vehicles 

are causing or would cause considerable adverse effects on 

wildlife and its habitat (BLM 2003b).

Action: In PH, travel management should evaluate the need for 

permanent or seasonal road or area closures.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PH and 

GH.

Action: During route designation and travel planning in PH, travel 

management would evaluate the need for permanent or seasonal road 

or area closures where vehicle use is causing or would cause 

considerable adverse effects on habitat.

Action: Through site-specific planning, the BLM would 

designate roads and trails for motorized use. Roads and trails 

would be inventoried, mapped, and analyzed to the degree 

necessary to evaluate and designate the roads and trails as 

open, seasonally open, or closed (BLM 2003b).

Action: In PH, complete activity level travel plans within 5

years of the ROD. During activity level planning, and where 

appropriate, designate routes in PH with current 

administrative/agency purpose or need for administrative 

access only.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH and 

GH.

Action: Same as Alternative A.

All CTTM planning should be completed within 5 years of the signing

of the ROD for the RMP. The CTTM planning would be conducted 

using an interdisciplinary team approach to address all resource uses, 

including administrative, recreation, commercial, and associated modes 

of travel (motorized, mechanized, and nonmotorized types; BLM –

Travel and Transportation Handbook [H-8342]).
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

2-28 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 2-4

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

No similar action. Action: In PH, limit route construction to realignments of 

existing designated routes if that realignment has a minimal 

impact on GRSG habitat, if it eliminates the need to construct 

a new road, or if it is necessary for motorist safety.

Action: In PH and GH, limit route construction to 

realignments of existing designated routes if that realignment 

would have a minimal impact on GRSG habitat, if it would 

eliminate the need to construct a new road, or if it is 

necessary for motorist safety. Mitigate any impacts with 

methods that have been demonstrated to be effective to 

offset the loss of GRSG habitat.

Action: In PH, during site-specific travel and transportation 

management planning, limit route construction to realignment of 

existing routes if that realignment has a minimal impact on GRSG

habitat, if it eliminates the need to construct a new road, or if it is 

necessary for motorist safety.

No similar action. Action: In PH, use existing roads, or realignments, as described 

above, to access valid existing rights that are not yet 

developed. If valid existing rights cannot be accessed via 

existing roads, then build any new road to the absolute 

minimum standard necessary and add the surface disturbance 

to the total disturbance in the priority area. If that disturbance 

exceeds 3% for that area, then evaluate and implement 

additional effective mitigation to offset the resulting loss of 

GRSG habitat (see Objectives).

Action: Same as Alternative B, using a 4-mile buffer from leks

to determine road route.

Action: In PH, during site-specific travel and transportation 

management planning, use existing roads or realignments, as described 

above, to access valid existing rights that are not yet developed. If valid 

existing rights cannot be accessed via existing roads, then build any 

new road to the absolute minimum standard necessary.

No similar action. Action: In PH, allow no upgrading of existing routes that would 

change route category (road, primitive road, or trail) or 

capacity unless the upgrading would have minimal impact on 

GRSG habitat, if it is necessary for motorist safety, or if it 

eliminates the need to construct a new road.

Action: In PH and GH, allow no upgrading of existing routes 

that would change route category (road, primitive road, or 

trail) or capacity unless it is necessary for motorist safety, or 

eliminates the need to construct a new road. Any impacts 

shall be mitigated with methods that have been demonstrated 

to be effective to offset the loss of GRSG habitat.

Action: In PH, during site-specific travel and transportation 

management planning, the upgrading of existing routes that would 

change route category (road, primitive road, or trail) or capacity may 

be allowed when there are minimal impacts on GRSG and GRSG

habitat, if it is necessary for motorist safety, or if it eliminates the need 

to construct a new road. All upgrades to existing routes would be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis and would be subject to valid existing 

rights (e.g., existing ROWs or easements).

No similar action. Action: In PH, restore roads, primitive roads, and trails not 

designated in travel management plans. This also includes 

primitive routes/roads that were not designated in WSAs that 

have been selected for protection in previous RMPs.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PH and 

GH.

Action: Same as Alternative B, when travel plans are complete (these 

will not be complete prior to this RMPA decision).

No similar action. Action: When reseeding roads, primitive roads, and trails in 

PH, use appropriate seed mixes and consider the use of 

transplanted sagebrush.

Action: When reseeding closed roads, primitive roads, and 

trails in PH and GH, use appropriate native seed mixes and 

require the use of transplanted sagebrush.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

Recreation

No similar action. Action: Allow SRPs only in PH that have neutral or beneficial 

effects on PH.

No similar action. Action: SRPs in PH may be allowed if they are neutral or beneficial for 

GRSG habitat.

Lands and Realty

Rights-of-Way

Action: ROWs outside of avoidance areas and WSAs would

be considered on a case-by-case basis, with appropriate 

stipulations from BLM Handbook H-2801-1 incorporated 

into the ROW grant (BLM 1994, page 27).

Action: Public land within identified exclusion areas would

not be available for utility and transportation corridor 

development (BLM 1984, page 15).

Action: There are no ROW exclusion areas within the Judith 

Resource Area Resource Management Plan for GRSG. There 

are two ROW avoidance areas in the decision area (30,193 

acres) (Acid Shale Pine Forest ACEC and Judith River 

Canyon). See Figure 2-1, Rights-of-Way Avoidance Areas -

Alternative A (Appendix A).

Action: Make PH exclusion areas for new ROWs (233,219 

acres). Consider the following exceptions:

• Within designated ROW corridors encumbered by 

existing ROW authorizations: new ROWs may be 

collocated only if the entire footprint of the proposed 

project (including construction and staging) can be 

completed within the existing disturbance associated with 

the authorized ROWs.

• Subject to valid existing rights, where new ROWs

associated with valid existing rights are required, collocate 

new ROWs within existing ROWs or where it best 

minimizes GRSG impacts. Use existing roads, or 

realignments as described above, to access valid existing 

rights that are not yet developed. If valid existing rights 

cannot be accessed via existing roads, then build any new 

Action: PH and GH areas shall be exclusion areas for new 

ROW (345,560 acres). Consider the following exceptions:

• Within designated ROW corridors encumbered by 

existing ROW authorizations, new ROWs may be 

collocated only if the entire footprint of the proposed 

project (including construction and staging) can be 

completed within the existing disturbance associated with 

the authorized ROWs.

• Subject to valid existing rights, where new ROWs

associated with valid existing rights are required, 

collocate new ROWs within existing ROWs or where it 

best minimizes GRSG impacts. Use existing roads, or 

realignments as described above, to access valid existing 

rights that are not yet developed. If valid existing rights 

cannot be accessed via existing roads, then build any new 

Action: PH would be managed as ROW avoidance areas (233,219 

acres).

• Where new ROWs are required, collocate new ROWs 

within existing ROWs or where it best minimizes impacts on 

GRSG and GRSG habitat.

Action: PH and GH would be managed as a wind energy ROW

avoidance area (345,560 acres). See Figure 2-4, Rights-of-Way 

Avoidance Areas - Alternative D (Appendix A).
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-29

Table 2-4

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

road to the absolute minimum standard necessary and add 

the surface disturbance to the total disturbance in the 

priority area. If that disturbance exceeds 3% for that area, 

then evaluate and implement additional effective mitigation 

on a case-by-case basis to offset the resulting loss of 

GRSG habitat. See Figure 2-2, Rights-of-Way Avoidance 

and Exclusion Areas - Alternative B (Appendix A).

road to the absolute minimum standard necessary and 

add the surface disturbance to the total disturbance in 

the priority area. If that disturbance exceeds 3% for that 

area, then make additional mitigation that has been 

demonstrated to be effective to offset the resulting loss 

of GRSG habitat. See Figure 2-3, Rights-of-Way 

Exclusion Areas - Alternative C (Appendix A).

No similar action. Action: Make GH avoidance areas for new ROWs (112,341 

acres). See Figure 2-2 (Appendix A).

Action: PH and GH areas should be exclusion areas for new 

ROW authorizations (345,560 acres). Consider the 

exceptions listed above. See Figure 2-3 (Appendix A).

Action: ROWs would be allowed in GH, with appropriate mitigation 

and conservation measures identified within the terms of the 

authorization to minimize surface-disturbing and disruptive activities.

Action: GH would be managed as a wind energy ROW avoidance area

(112,341 acres). See Figure 2-5, Rights-of-Way Wind Energy 

Avoidance Areas - Alternative D (Appendix A).

No similar action. Action: In PH, evaluate and take advantage of opportunities to 

remove, bury, or modify existing power lines within PH.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PH and 

GH.

Action: When addressing ROW authorizations in PH identify and 

evaluate opportunities to remove, bury, or modify power lines within 

PH. Financial and technical feasibility would be evaluated during the 

environmental analysis process.

Action: Current FLMPA ROWs have a stipulation that when 

the use has been discontinued or abandoned, the site must 

be reclaimed and restored by the grant holder (43 CFR, Part 

2807.19).

Action: In PH, where existing leases or ROWs have had some 

level of development (such as roads, fences, or wells) and are 

no longer in use, reclaim the site by removing these features 

and restoring the habitat.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PH and 

GH.

Action: Current FLPMA ROWs have a stipulation that when the use 

has been discontinued or abandoned, the site must be reclaimed and 

restored by the grant holder (43 CFR, Part 2807.19).

Action: As pre-FLPMA nonrenewable authorizations expire, grantees 

would be required to reclaim sites by removing authorized features 

and restoring habitat.

Action: Currently have policy to collocate ROWs, when 

possible.

Action: Where new ROWs are necessary in GH, collocate 

new ROWs within existing ROWs, where possible.

No similar action. Action: Same as Alternative B.

No similar action. No similar action. Action: ROWs would be amended to require features that 

enhance GRSG habitat security in PH and GH.

Action: Existing corridors in ACECs may be accessed for 

maintenance.

No similar action.

Action: Leases/permits (other than cabin site leasing) would

be considered on a case-by-case basis (BLM 1994, page 30).

No similar action. No similar action. Actions: Leases and permits (other than for cabin site leasing), which 

may be for agricultural, occupancy, and film production, would be 

considered on a case-by-case basis; however, PH would be ROW

avoidance areas. Leases and permits would be allowed in GH with 

appropriate mitigation and conservation measures identified within the 

terms of the authorization to minimize surface-disturbing and 

disruptive activities.

Action: The holder of a ROW shall be responsible for weed 

control on disturbed areas within the limits of the ROW. 

The holder shall be responsible for invasive weed control for 

the life of the ROW. ROW holder is responsible for weed 

control and monitoring for 3 years after reclamation has 

been completed. The holder would be responsible for 

consultation with the authorized officer and/or local 

authorities for acceptable weed control methods.

No similar action. No similar action. Action: Same as Alternative A.

Land Tenure Adjustment

Action: Land tenure adjustments in Judith Resource Area

planning area would be subject to disposal/acquisition criteria 

identified (BLM 1994).

Action: Retain public ownership of PH. Consider exceptions 

where:

• There is mixed ownership, and land exchanges would 

Action: Same as Alternative B, without exceptions for 

disposal to consolidate ownership that would be beneficial to 

GRSG (and applies to PH and GH).

Action: PH would be retained in public ownership, except when 

opportunities for land exchange would provide a greater benefit to 

GRSG habitat.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

2-30 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 2-4

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

Action: Land tenure adjustments in the Headwaters planning 

area would be subject to disposal/acquisition criteria 

identified (BLM 1984, page 20).

Action: Retain important wildlife habitat (one of the three 

main criteria for land tenure adjustments outlined in the 

Judith Resource Area Resource Management Plan) (BLM 

1994).

Action: Headwaters Resource Management Plan land 

ownership adjustment criteria include nesting/breeding 

habitat for game animals (BLM 1984, page 20).

allow for additional or more contiguous federal ownership 

patterns within PH.

• Under PH with minority federal ownership, include an 

additional, effective mitigation agreement for any disposal 

of federal land. As a final preservation measure, 

consideration should be given to pursuing a permanent 

conservation easement.

Action: Land exchanges, sales or other methods of 

acquisition (BLM 1994).

Action: There are no BLM-administered lands identified for 

disposal by sale within the planning area (BLM 1994, page 

30).

Action: Sale is the preferred method of disposal when 

exchange is not feasible (BLM 1984, page 21).

Action: Where suitable conservation actions cannot be 

achieved in PH, seek to acquire state and private lands with 

intact subsurface mineral estate by donation, purchase, or 

exchange in order to best conserve, enhance, or restore 

GRSG habitat.

Action: The BLM would strive to acquire important private 

lands in ACECs. Acquisition would be prioritized over 

easements.

Action: When offered, PH would be a priority in consideration of land 

acquisitions (refer to Appendix H, Land Pattern Review and Land 

Adjustment). Consider GRSG for all land tenure actions.

Recommend Land Withdrawals

Action: There are current withdrawals from minerals on 

BLM surface (2,862 acres).

Action: Recommend lands within PH for mineral withdrawal

(279,097 acres).

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to PH and GH

(453,969 acres).

Action: Same as Alternative A.

No similar action. Action: In PH, do not recommend withdrawal proposals not 

associated with mineral activity unless the land management is 

consistent with GRSG conservation measures. (For example, 

in a proposed withdrawal for a military training range buffer 

area, manage the buffer area with GRSG conservation 

measures.)

Action: In PH and GH, do not approve withdrawal proposals 

not associated with mineral activity unless the land

management is consistent with GRSG conservation measures. 

(For example, in a proposed withdrawal for a military training 

range buffer area, manage the buffer area with GRSG

conservation measures that have been demonstrated to be 

effective.)

Action: Same as Alternative B.

Range Management

Action: Livestock grazing would continue to be managed 

through development and monitoring of AMPs or similar 

grazing plans and supervision of grazing use. AMPs would be 

developed and maintained to achieve multiple-use objectives, 

in accordance with the Missouri Breaks Grazing 

Environmental Impact Statement as modified by the 

proposed Judith Resource Area Resource Management 

Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement. Methods and 

guidelines from these EISs would be followed to maintain or 

improve ecological condition, to enhance vegetation 

production, to maintain and enhance wildlife habitat, to 

protect watersheds, to reduce bare ground to the target soil 

vegetation cover by soil subgroups, and to minimize 

livestock/recreation conflicts. AMPs would implement some 

form of grazing method (for example, rest rotation, deferred 

rotation, seasonal, or other methods). Livestock grazing 

management methods would be implemented prior to land 

treatments (BLM 1984 and 1994). See Figure 2-6, Grazing 

Action: Within PH, incorporate GRSG habitat objectives and 

management considerations into all BLM grazing allotments

through AMPs or permit renewals. See Figure 2-7, Areas 

Opened and Closed Grazing Allotments Alternatives B and D 

(Appendix A).

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PH and 

GH. See Figure 2-8, Areas Opened and Closed Grazing 

Allotments Alternative C (Appendix A).

Action: GRSG habitat objectives would be considered when evaluating 

an allotment’s conformance with land health standards prior to 

renewing a grazing authorization.

Action: In PH, conduct land health evaluations and determinations that 

include (at a minimum) indicators and/or measurements of 

structure/condition/composition of vegetation specific to achieving 

GRSG habitat objectives. Management actions would be developed if 

land health determinations indicate that an allotment is not meeting 

standards due to current livestock grazing. Appendix B addresses 

mid-scale monitoring. State objectives would be used for fine scale 

analysis unless local objectives are developed at the field office level, in 

partnership with MFWP and USFWS. See Figure 2-7 (Appendix A).
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-31

Table 2-4

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

Allotments Alternative A (Appendix A).

Action: Livestock grazing would be allowed on all areas not 

specifically closed to grazing (570,112 acres would be open 

to grazing and 103,806 AUMS available). See Figure 2-6

(Appendix A).

Action: Livestock grazing would be allowed on all areas not 

specifically closed to grazing (570,112 acres would be open to 

grazing and 103,806 AUMS available). See Figure 2-7

(Appendix A).

Action: Livestock grazing would be removed on all grazing 

allotments within PH and GH (337,165 acres and 69, 408 

AUMs; 232,947 acres would remain open to grazing and 

there would be 34,398 AUMs available). See Figure 2-8

(Appendix A).

Action: Same as Alternative B.

No similar action. 

NOTE: This is currently being done on an allotment-specific basis 

over watershed areas.

Action: In PH, cooperate on integrated ranch planning within 

GRSG habitat so operations with deeded/BLM allotments can 

be planned as single units.

No similar action. Action: In PH, cooperate with ranchers and other agencies on 

integrated ranch planning so operations with intermingled land 

ownerships within BLM allotments can be planned as single units.

Action: Areas with Category I allotments are the highest 

priority for processing authorizations, managing uses, and 

monitoring achievement of land health standards (BLM IM 

2009-018, Process for Setting Priorities for Issuing Grazing 

Permits and Leases).

Action: Prioritize completion of land health assessments and 

processing grazing permits within PH. Focus this process on 

allotments that have the best opportunities for conserving, 

enhancing or restoring habitat for GRSG. Utilize BLM 

ecological site descriptions to conduct land health assessments 

to determine if standards of range-land health are being met.

No similar action. Action: Land health assessments and grazing permit renewals would be 

completed as they expire within watershed areas. Watershed areas in 

PH that contain expired or expiring grazing authorizations would be 

prioritized for renewal.

Action: Allotments that have the best opportunities for conserving, 

enhancing, or restoring habitat for GRSG would receive high priority 

for monitoring, evaluation, and management.

Ecological site descriptions, riparian proper functioning condition

(PFC) protocols, water quality data, and various types of appropriate 

vegetative, riparian, habitat, and any other applicable data would 

continue to be used as the basis in allotment evaluations to determine 

conformance to Standards for Land Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management.

Action: Site-specific ground cover objectives would be 

incorporated to supplement and support range condition 

objectives. Ground cover objectives would be consistent 

with the site potential by soil series or ecological site. 

Grazing management methods, water developments, land 

treatments and other practices would be designed to meet 

ground cover objectives. Monitoring and evaluation methods 

would be applied and management practices would be 

modified as needed to ensure these objectives are met (BLM 

1994).

Action: In PH, conduct land health assessments that include (at 

a minimum) indicators and measurements of 

structure/condition/composition of vegetation specific to 

achieving GRSG habitat objectives. If local/state seasonal 

habitat objectives are not available, use GRSG habitat 

recommendations from Connelly et al. (2000) and Hagen et al. 

(2007).

No similar action. Action: In PH, conduct land health evaluations and determinations that 

include (at a minimum) indicators and/or measurements of 

structure/condition/composition of vegetation specific to achieving 

GRSG habitat objectives. Management actions would be developed if 

land health determinations indicate that an allotment is not meeting 

standards due to current livestock grazing. Appendix B addresses 

mid-scale monitoring. State objectives would be used for fine scale 

analysis unless local objectives are developed at the field office level, in 

partnership with MFWP and USFWS.

Implementing Management Actions after Land Health Evaluations

Action: Allotments in predominantly fair ecological condition 

or with fair condition areas due to poor livestock 

distribution would have grazing methods applied to 

periodically defer grazing during critical growth periods (BLM 

1994).

No similar action. No similar action. Action: In PH, conduct land health evaluations and determinations that 

include (at a minimum) indicators and/or measurements of 

structure/condition/composition of vegetation specific to achieving 

GRSG habitat objectives. Management actions would be developed if 

land health determinations indicate that an allotment is not meeting 

standards due to livestock grazing. Appendix B addresses mid-scale 

monitoring. State objectives would be used for fine scale analysis 

unless local objectives are developed at the field office level, in 

partnership with MFWP and USFWS.

Action: Grazing systems would be implemented. The type of 

system to be implemented would be based on consideration 

of the following factors (BLM 1984):

• Allotment specific management objectives

• Resource characteristics, including vegetation 

potential and water availability

Action: In the NEPA document prepared for the permit 

renewal, develop specific objectives to conserve, enhance, or 

restore PH, based on ecological site descriptions and 

assessments (including within wetlands and riparian areas). If 

an effective grazing system that meets GRSG habitat 

requirements is not already in place, analyze at least one 

No similar action. Action: Conserve, enhance, or restore PH based on ecological site 

descriptions (including wetlands and riparian areas). If an effective 

grazing system that meets GRSG habitat objectives is not already in 

place, analyze at least one allotment-specific alternative within the 

watershed planning/permit renewal process that conserves, restores, 

or enhances PH.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

2-32 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 2-4

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

• Operator needs

• Implementation costs

alternative that conserves, restores, or enhances GRSG habitat 

in the NEPA document prepared for the permit renewal.

Action: Methods and guidelines from EISs would be followed 

to maintain or improve ecological condition, to enhance 

vegetation production, to maintain and enhance wildlife 

habitat, to protect watersheds, to reduce bare ground to the 

target soil vegetation cover by soil subgroups, and to 

minimize livestock/recreation conflicts (BLM 1984 and 1994).

Action: In PH, manage for vegetation composition and 

structure consistent with ecological site potential and within 

the reference state to achieve GRSG seasonal habitat 

objectives.

Action: In PH and GH, manage for vegetation composition 

and structure consistent with ecological site potential and 

within the reference state to achieve GRSG habitat 

objectives.

Action: In PH, manage for vegetation composition and structure 

consistent with ecological site potential within the reference state to 

achieve GRSG seasonal habitat objectives. Natural ecological processes

that impede localized site potential and that create a mosaic of habitat 

successional patterns would continue to occur.

Action: Livestock use adjustments would be most often 

made by changing one or more of the following: the kind or 

class of livestock grazing on an allotment, the season of use, 

the stocking rate, or the pattern of grazing. Monitoring 

would be used to measure the changes brought about by 

new livestock management practices and to evaluate the 

effectiveness of management changes in meeting stated 

objectives. Primarily, this would occur on “I “category 

allotments, which would include priority GRSG habitat (BLM 

1984).

Action: Allotments in predominantly fair ecological condition 

or with fair condition areas due to poor livestock 

distribution would have grazing methods applied to 

periodically defer grazing during critical growth periods (BLM 

1994).

Action: In PH, implement management actions (grazing 

decisions, AMP/conservation plan development, or other 

agreements) to modify grazing management to meet seasonal 

GRSG habitat requirements. Consider singly or in combination 

changes in the following:

• Season or timing of use

• Numbers of livestock (includes temporary non-use or 

livestock removal)

• Distribution of livestock use

• Intensity of use

• Type of livestock (e.g., cattle, sheep, horses, llamas, 

alpacas, and goats)

No similar action. Action: In PH, implement management actions within or outside of the 

watershed planning/permit renewal process to modify grazing 

management and to meet seasonal GRSG habitat objectives where 

allotment evaluations indicate land health assessments are not being 

met due to current livestock grazing management. Consider singly, or 

in combination, changes in:

• Season or timing of use

• Numbers of livestock (includes temporary non-use or 

livestock removal)

• Distribution of livestock use

• Intensity of use

• Type of livestock

Action: Efforts to manage public rangeland under drought 

conditions would be directed first to allotments with 

resource concerns such as “I” category allotments. Specific 

allotments in the “M” and “C” categories could also be 

considered high priority when resource values or conditions 

so require. Regardless of the category assigned to an 

allotment, operators should be aware of the procedures and 

flexibilities available for dealing with drought condition 

(Appendix I, Drought Policy).

Action: During droughts, prioritize evaluating effects of the 

drought in PH relative to their needs for food and cover. Since 

there is a lag in vegetation recovery following drought, ensure 

that post-drought management allows for vegetation recovery 

that meets GRSG needs in PH.

No similar action. Action: During drought periods, prioritize evaluating effects of the 

drought in PH, relative to their needs for food and cover. Drought 

management would continue to be in accordance with the 

Montana/Dakotas drought policy (Appendix I). Since there is a lag in

vegetation recovery following drought, post-drought management 

would be implemented to allow for vegetation recovery that meets 

GRSG needs in PH. In accordance with BLM grazing regulation 43 

CFR, Part 4130.3-3, consultation, cooperation, and coordination with 

owners or lessees having lands or managing resources within the area, 

the affected cooperative state grazing district, and interested public 

would be completed prior to adjusting post-drought livestock 

management. Implementation of adjustments would be initiated 

through documented agreement or by decision of the authorized 

officer.

Action: Allotments in predominantly fair ecological condition 

or with fair condition areas due to poor livestock 

distribution would have grazing methods applied to 

periodically defer grazing during critical growth periods (BLM 

1994).

No similar action. No similar action. Action: In PH, conduct land health evaluations and determinations that 

include (at a minimum) indicators and/or measurements of 

structure/condition/composition of vegetation specific to achieving 

GRSG habitat objectives. Management actions would be developed if 

land health determinations indicate that an allotment is not meeting 

standards due to current livestock grazing. Appendix B addresses 

mid-scale monitoring. State objectives would be used for fine scale 

analysis unless local objectives are developed at the field office level, in 

partnership with MFWP and USFWS.

Riparian Areas and Wet Meadows

Action: Riparian habitat condition would be improved from 

unsatisfactory to satisfactory on approximately 26 miles of 

stream bank (BLM 1994).

Action: Manage riparian areas and wet meadows for PFC

within PH. Within PH and GH, manage wet meadows to 

maintain a component of perennial forbs with diverse species 

Action: Manage riparian areas and wet meadows for PFC

within PH and GH. Within PH and GH, manage wet meadows 

to maintain a component of perennial forbs, with diverse 

Action: Riparian-wetland areas would be managed for PFC within the 

LFO. Within PH and GH, manage wet meadows to maintain a 

component of perennial forbs with diverse species richness relative to 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-33

Table 2-4

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

Action: The first objective will be to improve or maintain 

riparian-wetland areas to PFC (BLM 1994).

Action: Riparian and wetland areas are in PFC (Lewistown 

Standard #2, BLM 1997).

richness relative to site potential (e.g., reference state) to 

facilitate brood rearing. Also conserve or enhance these wet 

meadow complexes to maintain or increase amount of edge 

and cover within that edge to minimize elevated mortality 

during the late brood-rearing period.

species richness and productivity relative to site potential 

(e.g., reference state), to facilitate brood rearing. At least 6

inches of stubble height must remain on all riparian/meadow 

area herbaceous species at all times. Also conserve or 

enhance these wet meadow complexes to maintain or 

increase the amount of edge and cover within that edge to 

minimize elevated deaths during the late brood-rearing 

period.

site potential (e.g., reference state) to facilitate brood rearing. Also 

conserve or enhance these wet meadow complexes.

Action: The second objective would be to achieve or 

maintain the desired plant community to provide wildlife 

habitat, to increase waterfowl habitat by 30%, to improve 

watershed conditions, and to comply with the nonpoint 

source water pollution section of the Clean Water Act (BLM 

1994).

Action: In PH, where riparian areas and wet meadows meet 

PFC, strive to attain reference state vegetation relative to the 

ecological site description.

For example, within PH, reduce hot season grazing on riparian

and meadow complexes to promote recovery or maintenance 

of appropriate vegetation and water quality. Use 

fencing/herding techniques or seasonal use or livestock 

distribution changes to reduce pressure on riparian or wet 

meadow vegetation used by GRSG in the summer.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to PH and GH. Action: Riparian-wetland areas currently achieving PFC would be 

managed for desired future condition and the desired plant 

community, based on ecological site potential. Other values to be 

considered include important wildlife habitat, water quality impaired 

streams, fisheries, riparian woodland forest, and habitat for currently 

listed threatened, endangered, and sensitive species.

Action: Riparian-wetland areas with altered potential (i.e., those 

riparian-wetland areas that are incapable of reaching potential because 

of causes that are outside of the control of the BLM) would be 

managed for their capability.

Action: Human-made water developments, such as reservoirs and 

stock ponds, can develop riparian-wetland characteristics. Those that 

have the capability to support important wildlife values (such as GRSG

habitats and fisheries) would be managed for such to the extent 

practical, with greater consideration given to the purpose of the 

development. When constructing or modifying water developments in 

PH, use RDFs (Appendix D) to mitigate potential impacts from West 

Nile virus.

Action: Riparian habitat needs would be taken into 

consideration in developing livestock grazing systems and 

pasture designs. Some of the techniques that can be used to 

lessen impacts are changing class of stock from cow/calf pairs 

to herded sheep or yearlings; either eliminating hot season 

grazing or scheduling hot season grazing for only one year 

out of every 3; locating salt away from riparian zones; laying 

out pasture fences so that each pasture has as much riparian 

habitat as possible; locating fences so that they do not 

confine or concentrate livestock near the riparian zone; 

developing alternative sources of water to lessen the grazing 

pressure on the riparian habitat; and as a last resort, 

excluding livestock completely from riparian habitat by 

protective fencing (BLM 1984).

Action: Grazing methods to be implemented include 1) hot 

season grazing deferment, 2) creation of separate riparian

pastures, 3) changes in kind and class of livestock, 4) time 

control grazing, and 5) other range management practices, 

such as development of off-site water, salting, development 

of shade sources, herding, insect control, or early use 

pastures. A) All spring developments would be fenced if 

needed to protect associated riparian vegetation; B) salt and 

No similar action. No similar action. Action: Within PH, reduce hot season grazing on riparian and meadow 

complexes to promote recovery or maintenance of appropriate 

vegetation and water quality. Use fencing/herding techniques or 

seasonal use or livestock distribution changes to reduce pressure on 

riparian or wet meadow vegetation used by GRSG in summer. Hot 

season use of riparian and wet meadow complexes may be authorized 

where consistent with overall GRSG habitat objectives and where use 

is currently resulting in vegetative conditions that are in conformance 

with land health standards.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

2-34 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 2-4

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

mineral blocks and supplemental feeding would only be 

allowed at least 0.25 mile or farther from riparian-wetland

areas, where possible; C) water developments would be built 

away from stream riparian-wetland areas where possible; D) 

study exclosures would be put in place on key areas and 

areas representative of common riparian-wetland types and 

types about which there are questions, to compare 

management progress, to demonstrate the values of proper 

management, and to confirm potential and recovery rates

(BLM 1994).

No similar action. Action: Authorize new water development for diversion from 

spring or seep source only when PH would benefit from the 

development. This includes developing new water sources for 

livestock as part of an AMP/conservation plan to improve 

GRSG habitat.

Action: Authorize no new water developments for diversion 

from spring or seep sources within PH and GH.

Action: In PH, management emphasis would be placed on riparian and 

wetland potential associated with springs and seeps. Water from other 

sources would be prioritized to develop grazing management

infrastructure. New water development for diversion from spring or 

seeps would be authorized only when no other sources are available 

and where such considerations would be neutral or beneficial to 

GRSG.

Action: Human-made water developments, such as reservoirs and 

stock ponds, can develop riparian-wetland characteristics. Those that 

have the capability to support important wildlife values (such as GRSG

habitats and fisheries) would be managed for such to the extent 

practical, with greater consideration given to the purpose of the 

development. When constructing or modifying water developments in 

PH, use RDFs (Appendix D) to mitigate potential impacts from West 

Nile virus.

No similar action. Action: Analyze springs, seeps, and associated pipelines to 

determine if modifications are necessary to maintain the 

continuity of the predevelopment riparian area within PH.

Make modifications where necessary, considering impacts on 

other water uses when such considerations are neutral or 

beneficial to GRSG.

Action: Analyze springs, seeps, and associated water 

developments to determine if modifications are necessary to 

maintain the continuity of the predevelopment riparian area 

within PH and GH. Make modifications where necessary, 

including dismantling water developments.

Action: Analyze springs, seeps, and associated pipelines during the 

allotment evaluation and watershed planning process to determine if 

modifications are necessary to maintain the continuity of the 

predevelopment riparian area within PH. Make modifications, where

necessary, in accordance with Montana water law, considering impacts 

on other water uses, when such considerations are neutral or 

beneficial to GRSG.

Treatments to Increase Forage for Livestock/Wild Ungulates (Hoofed Animals)

No similar objective. No similar objective. Objective: Develop and implement methods for prioritizing 

and restoring sagebrush steppe invaded by nonnative plants.

Objective: Develop and implement (as budgets and workloads allow) 

methods for prioritizing and restoring sagebrush steppe invaded by 

nonnative plants.

No similar action. Action: Evaluate the role of existing seedings that are currently 

composed of primarily introduced perennial grasses in and 

adjacent to PH to determine if they should be restored to 

sagebrush or habitat of higher quality for GRSG. If these 

seedings are part of an AMP/conservation plan or if they 

provide value in conserving or enhancing the rest of the PH, 

then no restoration would be necessary. Assess the 

compatibility of these seedings for GRSG habitat or as a 

component of a grazing system during the land health 

assessments.

Action: Evaluate the role of existing seedings that are 

composed of primarily introduced perennial grasses in and 

adjacent to PH and GH to determine if they should be 

restored to sagebrush or habitat of higher quality for GRSG. 

If these seedings provide value in conserving or enhancing 

GRSG habitats, then no restoration would be necessary. 

Assess the compatibility of these seedings for GRSG habitat 

during the land health assessments.

Action: Evaluate the role of existing seedings that are currently 

composed of primarily introduced perennial grasses in and adjacent to 

PH to determine if they should be restored to sagebrush or habitat of 

higher quality for GRSG. If these seedings are part of a grazing 

management plan that is providing value in conserving or enhancing 

native rangelands in PH and other priority wildlife habitats, then no 

restoration would be necessary. Assess the compatibility of these 

seedings for GRSG habitat or as a component of a grazing system 

during land health assessments.

Action: Integrated vegetation management would be used to control, suppress, and eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive species, in accordance with BLM Handbook H-1740-2.

Action: Noxious weed control on affected grazing allotments

would be implemented through Weed Control Cooperative 

Range Improvement Project Agreements.

No similar action. No similar action. Action: Noxious weed control on affected grazing allotments would be 

implemented through Weed Control Cooperative Range Improvement 

Project Agreements.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-35

Table 2-4

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

Structural Range Improvements and Livestock Management Tools

Action: Range improvements generally would be designed to 

achieve both wildlife and range objectives. Existing fences 

may be modified and new fences would be built so as to 

allow wildlife passage (BLM 1984).

Action: In PH, design any new structural range improvements 

and location of supplements (salt or protein blocks) to

conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat through an 

improved grazing management system relative to GRSG

objectives. Structural range improvements, in this context, 

include cattle guards, fences, exclosures, corrals or other 

livestock handling structures; pipelines, troughs, storage tanks 

(including movable tanks used in livestock water hauling); 

windmills, ponds/reservoirs, solar panels; and spring 

developments. Potential for invasive species establishment or 

increase following construction must be considered in the 

project planning process and monitored and treated postconstruction.

No similar action. Action: In PH, site and design any new structural range improvements 

and location of supplements (salt or protein blocks) to conserve, 

enhance, or restore said habitat through an improved grazing 

management system relative to GRSG habitat objectives. Structural 

range improvements, in this context, include cattle guards, fences, 

exclosures, corrals, or other livestock handling structures; pipelines, 

troughs, storage tanks (including movable tanks used in livestock water 

hauling), windmills, ponds/reservoirs, solar panels, and spring 

developments.

Action: Potential for invasive species establishment or increase 

following construction would be considered in the project planning 

process and monitored and treated post-construction. Projects would 

be designed to the extent practical to reduce or eliminate the 

establishment of new two-track roads and trails that may be created 

during construction and maintenance.

No similar action. Action: When developing or modifying water developments in 

PH, use applicable RDFs (Appendix C) to mitigate potential 

impacts from West Nile virus.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PH and 

GH (Appendix C).

Action: Same as Alternative B (Appendix D).

No similar action. Action: In PH, evaluate existing structural range improvements 

and location of supplements (salt or protein blocks) to make 

sure they conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat.

• To reduce outright GRSG strikes and deaths, 

remove, modify, or mark fences in high risk areas 

within PH, based on proximity to lek, lek size, and 

topography.

• In PH, monitor for and treat invasive species 

associated with existing range improvements.

Action: In PH and GH, evaluate existing structural range 

improvements and location of supplements (salt or protein 

blocks) to make sure they conserve, enhance, or restore 

GRSG habitat.

• Remove, modify, or mark fences in areas of 

moderate or high risk of GRSG strikes within 

GRSG habitat, based on proximity to lek, lek size, 

and topography (Christiansen 2009; Stevens 2011).

• In PH, monitor for and treat invasive species 

associated with existing range improvements.

Action: During the allotment evaluation and watershed planning 

process (typically every 10 years), examine existing structural range 

improvements and location of supplements (salt or protein blocks) to 

ensure they conserve, enhance or restore PH.

• Identify and mark fences in high risk areas within PH, based 

on proximity to lek, lek size, and topography. During the 

allotment evaluation and watershed planning process, 

examine existing structural range improvements to ensure 

they conserve, enhance, or restore PH.

• In PH and GH, monitor for and treat invasive species 

associated with existing range improvements.

Action: A minimum rest period from livestock grazing of 2

growing seasons would be required after any major 

vegetative disturbance. More rest may be required, 

depending on the situation. Major disturbances are defined as 

mechanical manipulation of the range, such as chiseling and 

seeding. Requirements for rest following fire (wild or

prescribed) would depend on a variety of factors including 

the type of fuel, time of burn, accessibility of the burned area 

to livestock, and climatic factors post-burn. Specific timing 

and the type of rest would be determined at the site specific 

environmental assessment phase (BLM 1994).

No similar action. No similar action. Action: In PH and GH, site-specific requirements for resting or 

deferring areas from livestock grazing following fire would depend on a 

variety of factors, including resource objectives, the type of fuel, time 

and intensity of burn, accessibility of the burned area to livestock and 

post-burn climactic factors.

Retirement of Grazing Privileges

No similar action. Action: Maintain retirement of permitted grazing uses as an 

option in PH when the current permittee is willing to retire 

grazing on all or part of an allotment. Analyze the adverse 

impacts of no livestock use on wildfire and invasive species 

threats (Crawford et al. 2004) in evaluating retirement 

proposals.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PH and 

GH.

Action: In PH, when a current grazing permittee/lessee is willing to 

relinquish grazing preference on all or part of an allotment, the 

associated authorized use would become vacated from the base 

property.

Where allotments are not meeting standards for rangeland health due 

to current livestock, reductions of authorized use, temporary closures 

of allotments and modifications of terms and conditions would be 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

2-36 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 2-4

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

implemented as appropriate. If upon reevaluation of land health 

standards it is determined that they are still not met, consider making 

grazing preference unavailable through the land use planning process.

Any unavailability of grazing preference, in full or in part would be 

documented through the land use planning process after consultation, 

cooperation and coordination with owners or lessees having lands or 

managing resources within the allotment area, the affected cooperative 

state grazing district and interested public. Analyze the adverse impacts 

of no livestock use on wildfire, invasive species threats and socioeconomics in evaluating retirement proposals.

Fluid Minerals

Leased Federal Fluid Mineral Estate 

No similar action. Action: Allow geophysical exploration within PH to obtain 

exploratory information for areas outside of and adjacent to 

PH areas. Allow only geophysical operations by helicopter‐

portable drilling methods and in accordance with seasonal 

timing restrictions and other restrictions that may apply.

Action: Allow geophysical exploration within PH and GH

areas to obtain exploratory information for areas outside of 

and adjacent to GRSG habitat areas. Allow only geophysical 

operations by helicopter‐portable drilling methods and in 

accordance with seasonal timing restrictions or other 

restrictions that may apply. Geophysical exploration would be 

subject to seasonal restrictions that preclude activities in 

breeding, nesting, brood rearing, and winter habitats during 

GRSG season of use.

Action: No new geophysical exploration permits would be 

issued.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

No similar action in the RMP. Standard stipulations (see 

Appendix J, Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations) would apply 

existing leases.

Follow standards and guidelines found in Surface Operating 

Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development (The Gold Book 2007).

NOTE: COA means a site-specific requirement included in an 

approved application for permit to drill (APD) or Sundry Notice 

that may limit or amend the specific actions proposed by the 

operator. COAs minimize, mitigate, or prevent impacts on BLMadministered lands or other resources. BMPs may be incorporated 

as a COA (Source – Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 1, II. 

Definitions).

Action: In PH, apply the following 9 conservation measures 

through RMP implementation decisions (e.g., approval of an 

APD and Sundry Notice) and on completion of the 

environmental record of review (43 CFR, Part 3162.5), 

including appropriate documentation of compliance with 

NEPA. In this process evaluate, among other things: 

• Whether the conservation measure is “reasonable” 

(43 CFR, Part 3101.1‐2) with the valid existing rights 

and

• Whether the action is in conformance with the 

approved RMP

Provide the following 9 conservation measures as terms and 

conditions of the approved RMP:

1) Do not allow new surface occupancy on federal leases 

within PH; this includes winter concentration areas during 

any time of the year. Consider an exception: 

- If the lease is entirely within PH, apply a 4-mile no 

surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation around the lek

and limit permitted disturbances to one per section, 

with no more than 3% surface disturbance in that 

section.

- If the entire lease is within the 4-mile lek perimeter, 

limit permitted disturbances to one per section, with 

no more than 3% surface disturbances in that section. 

Require any development to be placed at the most 

Action: In PH and GH, apply the following conservation 

measures as COAs at the project and well permitting stages, 

and through RMP implementation decisions and on 

completion of the environmental record of review (43 CFR, 

Part 3162.5), including appropriate documentation of 

compliance with NEPA. In this process evaluate, among other 

things:

• Whether the conservation measure is “reasonable” 

(43 CFR, Part 3101.1‐2) with the valid existing rights 

and

• Whether the action is in conformance with the 

approved RMP

Provide the following 9 conservation measures as terms and 

conditions of the approved RMP:

1) Do not allow new surface occupancy on federal leases 

within PH and GH; this includes winter concentration 

areas during any time of the year. Consider an exception: 

- If the lease is entirely within PH, apply a 4-mile NSO

around the lek and limit permitted disturbances to 

one per section, with no more than 3% surface 

disturbance in that section.

- If the entire lease is within the 4-mile lek perimeter, 

limit permitted disturbances to one per section, with 

no more than 3% surface disturbances in that 

section. Require any development to be placed at 

Action: During implementation level review and decisions, (e.g., 

approval of an APD or Sundry Notice) and on completion of the 

environmental record of review (43 CFR, Part 3162.5), include 

appropriate documentation of compliance with NEPA. In this process 

evaluate, among other things:

• Whether the conservation measure is reasonable (43 CFR, 

Part 3101.1‐2) with the valid existing rights and

• Whether the action is in conformance with the approved 

RMP

The following operating constraints would be applied to existing leases

as COAs in PH and GH. 

Exceptions may be granted by the authorized officer if an 

environmental review demonstrates that effects could be mitigated to 

an acceptable level, if habitat for the species is not present in the area, 

or if portions of the area can be occupied without affecting GRSG. 

Exceptions may also be granted where the short-term effects on

GRSG within PH and GH are mitigated by the long-term benefits. The 

BLM may add additional site-specific restrictions as deemed necessary 

by further environmental analysis and as developed through 

coordination with other federal, state, and local regulatory and 

resource agencies.

1) Surface-disturbing/disruptive activities would avoid or minimize 

disturbance to GRSG or their habitat. Except as identified above 

or during emergency situations, activities would not compromise 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-37

Table 2-4

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

distal part of the lease from the lek, or, depending on 

topography and other habitat aspects, in an area that 

is less demonstrably harmful to GRSG.

2) Apply a seasonal restriction on exploratory drilling that 

prohibits surface-disturbing activities during the nesting 

and early brood-rearing season in all PH during this 

period.

3) The BLM would closely examine the applicability of 

categorical exclusions in PH. If extraordinary 

circumstances review is applicable, the BLM should 

determine whether those circumstances exist. 

4) Complete master development plans in lieu of application 

for APD-by-APD processing for all but wildcat wells.

5) When permitting APDs on existing leases that are not yet 

developed, the proposed surface disturbance cannot 

exceed 3% for that area. Consider an exception if:

- Additional, effective mitigation is demonstrated to 

offset the resulting loss of GRSG (see Objectives).

a. When necessary, conduct additional effective 

mitigation in PH or, less preferably, in GH

(depending on the area-specific ability to increase 

GRSG populations).

b. Conduct additional effective mitigation first 

within the same population area where the 

impact is realized; if not possible, conduct 

mitigation within the same management zone as 

the impact, in accordance with 2006 WAFWA 

Strategy (page 2-17).

6) Require unitization when deemed necessary for proper 

development and operation of an area (with strong 

oversight and monitoring) to minimize adverse impacts on 

GRSG according to the Federal Lease Form, 3100-11, 

Sections 4 and 6.

7) Identify areas where acquisitions (including subsurface 

mineral rights) or conservation easements would benefit 

GRSG habitat.

8) For future actions, require a full reclamation bond specific 

to the site, in accordance with 43 CFR, Parts 3104.2, 

3104.3, and 3104.5. Ensure that bonds are sufficient for 

costs relative to reclamation that would result in full 

restoration of the lands to their condition prior to 

disturbance. Base the reclamation costs on the assumption 

that contractors for the BLM would perform the work.

9) Make applicable RDFs (Appendix C) mandatory as 

COAs within PH. RDFs provided in Appendix C would 

be site-specific restrictions applied to permits to drill as 

COAs after the completion of site-specific NEPA analysis. 

Standard stipulations (see Appendix J) would apply 

existing leases.

the most distal part of the lease from the lek or, 

depending on topography and other habitat aspects, 

in an area that is less demonstrably harmful to 

GRSG.

2) Apply a seasonal restriction on exploratory drilling that 

prohibits surface-disturbing activities during the nesting 

and brood-rearing season in all PH during this period. 

This seasonal restriction shall also apply to related 

activities that are disruptive to GRSG, including vehicle 

traffic and other human presence.

3) The BLM should closely examine the applicability of 

categorical exclusions in PH. If extraordinary 

circumstances review is applicable, the BLM should 

determine whether those circumstances exist.

4) Complete master development plans in lieu of APD-byAPD processing for all but wildcat wells.

5) When permitting APDs on existing leases that are not 

yet developed, the proposed surface disturbance cannot 

exceed 3% per section for that area. Consider an 

exception if:

- Additional, effective mitigation is demonstrated to 

offset the resulting loss of GRSG (see Objectives).

a. When necessary, conduct additional effective 

mitigation in PH or, less preferably, GH

(depending on the area-specific ability to 

increase GRSG populations)

b. Conduct additional effective mitigation first 

within the same population area where the 

impact is realized, and, if not possible, then 

conduct mitigation within the same management 

zone as the impact, in accordance with 2006 

WAFWA Strategy, page 2-17.

6) Require unitization when deemed necessary for proper 

development and operation of an area (with strong 

oversight and monitoring) to minimize adverse impacts 

on GRSG, according to the Federal Lease Form, 3100-11, 

Sections 4 and 6.

7) Identify areas where acquisitions (including subsurface 

mineral rights) or conservation easements would benefit 

GRSG habitat.

8) For future actions, require a full reclamation bond 

specific to the site, in accordance with 43 CFR, Parts 

3104.2, 3104.3, and 3104.5. Ensure bonds are sufficient 

for costs relative to reclamation that would result in full 

restoration of the lands to their condition prior to 

disturbance. Base the reclamation costs on the 

assumption that contractors for the BLM would perform 

the work.

9) Make applicable RDFs (Appendix C) mandatory as 

COAs within PH and GH. RDFs provided in Appendix 

C would be site-specific restrictions applied to permits 

the functionality of the habitat.

2) Continuous noise (related to long-term operations or activities) 

would be no greater than 32 decibels at the perimeter of the lek

and important seasonal habitats.

3) Temporary noise (related to, for example, installation, 

maintenance, one-time use, and emergency operations) exceeding 

32 decibels at the perimeter of a lek or surface 

disturbing/disruptive activities may be allowed, but only from 9 

a.m. to 6 p.m., between March 15 and June 30. 

4) Manage water developments to reduce the spread of West Nile 

virus within GRSG habitat areas.

5) Site or minimize linear ROW to reduce disturbance to sagebrush 

habitats.

6) Maximize placement of new utility developments (such as power 

lines and pipelines) and transportation routes in existing utility or 

transportation corridors.

7) Power lines would be buried, eliminated, designed, or sited in a 

manner that does not impact GRSG. 

8) Placement of other high profile structures, exceeding 10 feet in 

height, would be eliminated, designed, or sited in a manner that 

does not impact GRSG.

9) Production facilities must be remotely monitored, and all permit 

applications must contain a plan to reduce the frequency of vehicle 

use.

10) Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long-term access 

roads and well pads, including reshaping, top-soiling, and 

revegetating cut and fill slopes. 

11) Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to pre-disturbance 

conditions or desired plant community.

12) Permanent (longer than two months) structures that create 

movement must be designed or sited to minimize impacts on 

GRSG.

13) Consider using off-site mitigation within the same PH (e.g., 

creating sagebrush habitat, improving brood rearing habitat, or 

purchasing conservation easements) with proponent dollars to 

offset habitat losses (Washington Office-IM 2008-204).

14) Consider creating a mitigation trust account when impacts cannot 

be avoided, minimized, or effectively mitigated through other 

means. If approved by the BLM, the proponent may contribute 

funding to maintain habitat function within the same PH based on 

the estimated cost of habitat treatments or other mitigation 

needed to maintain the functions of impacted habitats. Off-site 

mitigation should be considered only when no feasible options are 

available to adequately mitigate within and immediately adjacent to 

the impacted site, or when the off-site location would provide 

more effective mitigation of the impact than can be achieved onsite.

15) Make applicable RDFs (Appendix D) mandatory as COAs within 

PH and GH. RDFs provided in Appendix D would be site-specific 

restrictions applied to permits to drill as COAs after the 

completion of site- specific NEPA analysis. Standard stipulations 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

2-38 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 2-4

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

to drill as COAs after the completion of site-specific 

NEPA analysis. Standard stipulations (see Appendix J) 

would apply existing leases.

(see Appendix J) would apply existing leases.

Solid Minerals

Coal - There is no coal potential in the planning area.

Action: Surface occupancy generally would be prohibited 

within public road corridors, ROWs, floodplains, and key 

wildlife areas (BLM 1984).

Action: The planning area would be available for coal

exploration licenses. See Figure 2-9, Solid Leasable and 

Salable Minerals – Alternative A (Appendix A). Before

exploration licenses and licenses to mine are approved, a 

project-specific environmental review document would be 

prepared to assess impacts and develop mitigation measures.

Action: Prior to issuing coal leases, unsuitability criteria 

would apply and a plan amendment will be prepared (BLM 

1994).

Action: Surface mines: In PH, find unsuitable all coal surface 

mining under the criteria set forth in 43 CFR, Part 3461.5 

(385,693 acres). See Figure 2-10, Solid Leasable and Salable 

Minerals – Alternative B (Appendix A).

Action: Surface mines: In PH and GH, find unsuitable all coal

surface mining under the criteria set forth in 43 CFR, Part 

3461.5 (639,927 acres). See Figure 2-11, Solid Leasable and 

Salable Minerals – Alternative C (Appendix A).

Action: The planning area would be available for coal exploration 

licenses. See Figure 2-12, Solid Leasable and Salable Minerals –

Alternative D (Appendix A). Before exploration licenses and licenses 

to mine are approved, a project-specific environmental review 

document would be prepared to assess impacts and to develop 

mitigation measures through the BMPs set forth in Appendix D.

Action: On a case-by-case basis, unsuitability criteria would be applied, 

in accordance with 43 CFR, Part 3461.5, and a plan amendment would 

be prepared.

No similar action. Action: Subsurface mines—Grant no new mining leases unless 

all surface disturbances (appurtenant facilities) are placed 

outside of the PH.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PH and 

GH.

No similar action.

No existing coal leases. Action: For coal mining operations on existing leases:

Subsurface mining—In PH, place any new appurtenant facilities 

outside of PH. Where new appurtenant facilities associated 

with the existing lease cannot be located outside the PH, 

collocate new facilities within existing disturbed areas. If this is 

not possible, then build any new appurtenant facilities to the 

absolute minimum standard necessary.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PH and 

GH.

No similar action.

No similar action. Action: In GH, apply minimization of surface-disturbing or 

disrupting activities (including operations and maintenance) 

where needed to reduce the impacts of human activities on 

important seasonal GRSG habitats. Apply these measures 

during activity level planning.

Action: Use additional effective mitigation to offset impacts, as 

appropriate (determined by local options/needs).

No similar action. No similar action.

Locatable Minerals

Action: Analyze proposed action in Plan of Operations and 

apply mitigating measures needed to prevent unnecessary or 

undue degradation (BLM 1994)1

.

Action: Before the BLM approves a Plan of Operations on 

existing mining claims in areas withdrawn, it would conduct 

Action: In PH, recommend withdrawal from mineral entry

based on risk to the GRSG and its habitat from conflicting 

locatable mineral potential and development (279,097 acres). 

• Make any existing mining claims within the withdrawal

area subject to validity exams or buy out. In Plan of 

Operations required prior to any proposed surfaceAction: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PH and 

GH (453,969 acres). BMPS needed to prevent unnecessary or 

undue degradation would be applied (Appendix C).

See Figure 2-15, Withdrawals and Recommend for 

Withdrawal - Alternative C (Appendix A).

Action: Same as Alternative A. See Figure 2-16, Withdrawals and 

Recommend for Withdrawal - Alternative D (Appendix A).

Action: Locatable minerals exploration and development under the 

mining laws are not authorized under the discretion of the field 

manager but are reviewed (Notice and Plan of Operations) and 

 1 Unnecessary or undue degradation means conditions, activities, or practices that (43 CFR 3809.5): (1) Fail to comply with one or more of the following: the performance standards in Section 3809.420, the terms and conditions of an approved Plan of Operations, 

operations described in a complete notice, and other federal and state laws related to environmental protection and protection of cultural resources; (2) Are not “reasonably incident” to prospecting, mining, or processing operations as defined in Section 3715. 0-5 

of this chapter; or (3) Fail to attain a stated level of protection or reclamation required by specific laws in areas such as the California Desert Conservation Area, Wild and Scenic Rivers, BLM-administered portions of the National Wilderness System, and BLMadministered National Monuments and National Conservation Areas.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-39

Table 2-4

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

validity examinations. If the claims did not contain a 

discovery, within the meaning of the mining laws, the claims 

would be declared null and void and the Plan of Operations

would be denied. The BLM would consider purchasing valid 

claims where activities threaten the resource values 

protected by the withdrawal (BLM 1994).

Action: Analyze proposed action in Plan of Operations and 

apply mitigating measures needed to prevent unnecessary or 

undue degradation (BLM 1994).

Action: Screen Notices for impacts that constitute 

unnecessary or undue degradation (BLM 1994).

See Figure 2-13, Withdrawals and Recommend for 

Withdrawal - Alternative A (Appendix A).

disturbing activities, include the following:

o Additional, effective mitigation in perpetuity for 

conservation (in accordance with existing policy, 

Washington Office IM 2008-204). Example: purchase 

private land and mineral rights or severed subsurface 

mineral rights within the priority area and deed to the 

US Government).

o Consider seasonal restrictions if deemed effective.

o BMPS needed to prevent unnecessary or undue 

degradation would be applied (Appendix C).

See Figure 2-14, Withdrawals and Recommend for 

Withdrawal - Alternative B (Appendix A).

approved (Plan of Operations) to prevent unnecessary or undue 

degradation. Proposed actions under Plan of Operations would be 

analyzed on a case-by-case basis in coordination with Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality (MTDEQ), and BMPs

(Appendix D) would be suggested prevent unnecessary or undue 

degradation to GRSG habitat.

Action: At a minimum, annual compliance inspections would be 

conducted on each active Notice or Plan of Operations.

Nonenergy Leasable Minerals

No similar action. 

NOTE: Application of current BMP.

Action: Close PH to nonenergy leasable mineral leasing. This 

includes not permitting any new leases to expand an existing 

mine (279,097 acres).

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PH and 

GH (453,969 acres).

No similar action.

Action: Prospecting permits would be issued after 

appropriate environmental review to assess impacts and 

develop mitigating measures (BLM 1994).

Action: For existing nonenergy leasable mineral leases in PH, in 

addition to the solid minerals RDFs (Appendix C), follow the 

same RDFs applied to fluid minerals (Appendix C), when 

wells are used for solution mining.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PH and 

GH.

Action: In PH, prospecting permits may be issued after appropriate 

environmental review to assess impacts and to develop RDFs set forth 

in Appendix D. Prospecting permits are considered on a case-by-case 

basis and are issued at the discretion of the Montana BLM State Office. 

If activity under the permit application cannot be mitigated to prevent 

unnecessary or undue degradation to GRSG habitat, the field manager 

would not recommend issuing the permit.

Salable Minerals

Action: 2,437 acres within PGH and 101 acres within PPH

are closed to salable minerals disposal. See Figure 2-9

(Appendix A).

Action: Close PH to salable minerals disposal (279,097acres). 

See Figure 2-10 (Appendix A).

Action: Close PH and GH to salable minerals disposal 

(453,969 acres). See Figure 2-11 (Appendix A).

Action: Same as Alternative A. See Figure 2-9 (Appendix A).

Action: The BLM would issue sales contracts for salable 

minerals where disposal is deemed to be in the public 

interest (Figure 2-9, Appendix A), while providing for 

reclamation of mined lands and preventing unnecessary or 

undue impact on nonmineral resources. Salable minerals 

permits are considered on a case-by-case basis and are 

issued at the discretion of the area manager (BLM 1994).

Action: No similar action. Action: No similar action. Action: In PH, the BLM would issue permits for salable minerals where 

disposal is deemed to be in the public interest (Figure 2-9, 

Appendix A), while providing for reclamation of mined lands and 

preventing unnecessary or undue degradation (Appendix D). Salable 

mineral permits are considered on a case-by-case basis and are issued 

at the discretion of the field manager. If activity under the permit 

application cannot be mitigated to prevent unnecessary or undue 

degradation to GRSG habitat, the permit would not be issued.

Action: The BLM would issue sales contracts for salable 

minerals where disposal is deemed to be in the public 

interest, while providing for reclamation of mined lands and 

preventing unnecessary or undue impact on nonmineral 

resources (BLM 1994).

Action: In PH, restore salable mineral pits no longer in use to 

meet GRSG habitat conservation objectives.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PH and 

GH.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

Mineral Split Estate

The BLM manages 700 million acres of subsurface mineral 

estate nationwide, including approximately 58 million acres 

where the surface is privately owned. In many cases, the 

surface rights and mineral rights were severed under the 

terms of the nation’s homesteading laws. These and other 

federal laws, regulations, and BLM policy directives, some 

Action: Where the federal government owns the surface, and 

the mineral estate is not in federal ownership in PH, apply 

appropriate fluid mineral RDFs (Appendix C) to surface 

development.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PH and 

GH.

Action: Where the federal government owns the surface, and the 

mineral estate is not in federal ownership in PH, apply appropriate fluid 

mineral RDFs (Appendix D) to surface development.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

2-40 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 2-4

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

noted below, give managers the authority and direction for 

administering the development of federal oil and natural gas 

resources beneath privately owned surface.

Planning and Leasing

• Must involve the public when preparing land use 

plans and amendments

• Must notify the public when oil and gas lease sales 

have been scheduled

Permitting

• Encourages the lessee/operator to contact the 

surface owner as early as possible when operations 

are contemplated

• Requires the lessee/operator to certify that a good 

faith effort has been made to negotiate a surface use 

agreement with the surface owner

Drilling and Production

• Conducts compliance inspections, consults with 

surface owner as appropriate, and takes 

enforcement action when necessary to ensure 

permit compliance

Surface Reclamation

• Must carefully consider the surface owner’s views 

on reclamation requirements and seek concurrence 

that final reclamation is satisfactory

No similar action. Action: Where the federal government owns the mineral 

estate in PH, and the surface is not in federal ownership, apply 

the same conservation measures applied on BLM-administered

lands.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PH and 

GH.

Action: Where the federal government owns the mineral estate in PH

and the surface is not in federal ownership, apply the same 

conservation measures applied on BLM-administered lands when 

federal action (mineral exploration or development) occurs. See 

appropriate mineral section for more information.

Fire and Fuels Management

Fuels Management

Objective: Prescribed burning would continue to be used in 

support of resource management objectives (BLM 1984).

Objective: Prescribed fire may be used to meet resource 

objectives, such as restoring fire-adapted grass and 

shrublands, or increasing variation of age classes in 

shrublands. Treatments would be designed to achieve mosaic 

patterns, which would also reduce the potential of entire 

stands being destroyed by wildland fire. Most sagebrush 

treatments would be on mountain big sagebrush or silver 

sagebrush (BLM 2003a).

Objective: Within the analysis area, prescribed burning and various mechanical vegetation treatments may continue to be used to meet or support resource management objectives, given that special 

consideration for the protection and maintenance of sagebrush ecosystems is incorporated into the design and implementation of treatments.

Action: Land treatments would be designed to maintain 

sagebrush levels within the desired canopy cover range 15 to 

50% and to increase the amounts of succulent forbs. 

Controlled burning in conifer and sagebrush types would be 

done on an individual basis to improve wildlife habitat (BLM 

Action: In PH, design and implement fuels treatments with an 

emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. 

o Do not reduce sagebrush canopy cover to less than 15% 

unless a fuels management objective requires additional 

reduction in sagebrush cover to meet strategic protection 

Action: In PH and GH, design and implement fuels treatments 

with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush 

ecosystems. 

o Do not reduce sagebrush canopy cover to less than 

15%, unless a fuels management objective requires 

Action: In PH and GH, design and implement fuels treatments with an 

emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. 

o Do not reduce sagebrush canopy cover to less than 15%, unless a 

fuels management objective requires additional reduction in 

sagebrush cover to meet strategic protection of PH and conserve 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-41

Table 2-4

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

1994).

Action: Prescribed burning would be administered on an 

individual basis in grassland, sagebrush, and conifer types to 

improve wildlife habitat and vegetation production (BLM

1994).

Action: Burning would be done on a limited basis to improve 

wildlife and livestock forage in dense pine-juniper stands 

throughout the Missouri Breaks and to improve vegetation 

productivity on other upland sites, including sagebrush (BLM 

1994).

Action: Mechanical treatments and prescribed fire would 

primarily be used to remove encroaching conifers or open 

the canopy on dense, stagnant, and even-aged stands of 

sagebrush that are at risk of destruction by wildland fire. In 

shrublands where mechanical treatments and prescribed fire 

are used against conifer encroachment, the density and 

canopy of shrub stands would be reduced in treated areas. 

The duration of the reduction would depend on whether the 

shrubs sprout after fire and post-fire management actions, 

such as reseeding (BLM 2003a).

Action: Chemical weed treatments would be applied where 

other fuels treatments would create conditions favorable for 

noxious weeds or other undesirable invasive species to 

expand. For example, weeds are often present in areas of 

conifer encroachment. When the canopy is opened by 

mechanical treatments or prescribed burns, the conditions 

are favorable for the weeds or invasive species to expand. 

Nearly all of the weed treatments would be applied either 

before or after the area is treated with prescribed fire or 

mechanical methods (BLM 2003a).

Action: A minimum rest period from livestock grazing of 2

growing seasons would be required after any major 

vegetative disturbance. More rest may be required, 

depending on the situation. Major disturbances are defined as 

mechanical manipulation of the range, such as chiseling and 

seeding. Requirements for rest following wild or prescribed 

fire would depend on a variety of factors, including the type 

of fuel, time of burn, accessibility of the burned area to 

livestock, and climatic factors post-burn. Specific timing and 

the type of rest would be determined at the site-specific 

environmental assessment phase (BLM 1994).

of PH and conserve habitat quality for the species. Closely 

evaluate the benefits of the fuel break against the 

additional loss of sagebrush cover in future NEPA

documents.

o Apply appropriate seasonal restrictions for implementing 

fuels management treatments according to the type of 

seasonal habitats present in PH.

o Allow no treatments in known winter range unless the 

treatments are designed to strategically reduce wildfire 

risk around or in the winter range and would maintain 

winter range habitat quality.

o Do not use fire to treat sagebrush in less than 12-inch 

precipitation zones (e.g., Wyoming big sagebrush or other 

xeric sagebrush species). However, if as a last resort and 

after all other treatment opportunities have been 

explored and site-specific variables allow, the use of 

prescribed fire for fuel breaks that would disrupt the fuel 

continuity across the landscape could be considered, in 

stands where cheatgrass is a very minor component in the 

understory. 

o Monitor and control invasive vegetation post-treatment.

o Rest treated areas from grazing for two full growing 

seasons, unless vegetation recovery dictates otherwise.

o Require use of native seeds for fuels management 

treatment, based on availability, adaptation (site potential), 

and probability of success. Where probability of success 

or native seed availability is low, nonnative seeds may be 

used as long as they meet GRSG habitat objective.

o Design post fuels management projects to ensure longterm persistence of seeded or pretreatment native plants. 

This may require temporary or long-term changes in 

livestock grazing management, travel management, or 

other activities to achieve and maintain the desired 

condition of the fuels management project.

additional reduction in sagebrush cover to meet 

strategic protection of PH and GH and conserve 

habitat quality for the species. 

o Closely evaluate the benefits of the fuel break against 

the additional loss of sagebrush cover in the NEPA

process.

o Apply appropriate seasonal restrictions for 

implementing fuels management treatments according 

to the type of seasonal habitats present.

o Allow no fuels treatments in known winter range, 

unless the treatments are designed to strategically 

reduce wildfire risk around or in the winter range and 

would maintain winter range habitat quality.

o Do not use fire to treat sagebrush in less than 12-inch 

precipitation zones (e.g., Wyoming big sagebrush or 

other xeric sagebrush species). However, if as a last 

resort and after all other treatment opportunities have 

been explored and if site-specific variables allow, the 

use of prescribed fire for fuel breaks that would disrupt 

the fuel continuity across the landscape could be 

considered. This would be for stands where cheatgrass

is a very minor component in the understory.

o Design post fuels management projects to ensure longterm persistence of seeded or pretreatment native 

plants, including sagebrush. This may require temporary 

or long-term changes in livestock grazing management,

travel management, or other activities to achieve and 

maintain the desired condition of the fuels management 

project.

habitat quality for the species. Closely evaluate the benefits of the 

fuel break against the additional loss of sagebrush cover in the

NEPA process.

1) Sites should not be burned unless: 

a) Biological and physical limitations of the site and impact 

on GRSG are identified and determined to be neutral or 

beneficial to PH, including moisture regimes, soil texture, 

seed sources, and sagebrush recovery time,

b) Management objectives for the site, including those for 

wildlife, are clearly defined,

c) Potential for weed invasion and successional trends are 

well understood, and 

d) Capability exists to manage the post-burn site properly, 

including a funded monitoring schedule, to achieve a 

healthy sagebrush community. Manage grazing, weeds, 

reseeding, or other activities that potentially influence 

the outcome of rehabilitation or treatment in a manner 

that achieves the desired condition of the burned site.

o Apply appropriate seasonal restrictions for implementing fuels 

management treatments according to the type of seasonal habitats 

present in PH.

o Allow no fuels treatments in known GRSG winter range unless 

the treatments are designed to strategically reduce wildfire risk 

around or in the winter range and would maintain winter range 

habitat quality.

o Monitor and control invasive vegetation post-treatment.

o Requirements for resting or deferring areas from livestock grazing 

following fire would depend on a variety of factors, including 

resource objectives, the type of fuel, time and intensity of burn, 

accessibility of the burned area to livestock, and post-burn climatic 

factors.

No similar action. Action: Design fuels management projects in PH to 

strategically and effectively reduce wildfire threats in the 

greatest area. This may require fuels treatments implemented 

in a more linear versus block design.

No similar action. Action: Same as Alternative B.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

2-42 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 2-4

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

No similar action. Action: During fuels management project design, consider the 

utility of using livestock to strategically reduce fine fuels, and 

implement grazing management that would accomplish this 

objective. Consult with ecologists to minimize impacts on 

native perennial grasses.

No similar action. Action: During fuels management project design, consider the utility of 

using livestock to strategically reduce fine fuels and implement grazing 

management that would accomplish this Consult with an 

interdisciplinary team of resource specialists, as appropriate, to 

minimize impacts on native perennial grasses.

No similar action. No similar action. Action: Any vegetation treatment plan must include 

pretreatment data on wildlife and habitat condition, must 

establish nongrazing exclosures, and must include long-term 

monitoring where treated areas are monitored for at least 

three years before grazing returns. Continue monitoring for 

five years after livestock are returned to the area and 

compare to treated ungrazed exclosures, as well as untreated 

areas.

No similar action.

No similar action. Action: In PH, follow RDFs (Appendix C). Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PH and 

GH. Follow RDFs in Appendix C.

Action: Follow the most current RDFs for fire and fuels (Appendix 

D).

Fire Operations

Action: Intensive suppression would be applied to areas with 

high resource values, structures, improvements, oil and gas 

developments, commercial forest values, sagebrush and 

juniper areas, fire sensitive woody riparian areas (soil 

subgroups 6 and 17) and cultural values that require 

aggressive suppression (BLM 2003a).

Action: In PH, prioritize suppression, after life and property, to 

conserve the habitat. See Appendix K, GRSG Wildland Fire 

and Invasive Species Assessment, which would be completed 

to help further refine fire management actions once this plan is 

completed.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PH and 

GH. See Appendix K, which would be completed to help 

further refine fire management actions once this plan is 

completed.

Action: Same as Alternative B. See Appendix K, which would be 

completed to help further refine fire management actions once this 

plan is completed.

Action: Intensive suppression would be applied to areas with 

high resource values, structures, improvements, oil and gas 

developments, commercial forest values, sagebrush and 

juniper areas, fire sensitive woody riparian areas (soil 

subgroups 6 and 17), and cultural values that require 

aggressive suppression (BLM 2003a).

Action: In GH, prioritize suppression where wildfires threaten 

PH.

No similar action. Action: Same as Alternative B.

No similar action. Action: In PH, follow RDFs (Appendix C). Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PH and 

GH. Follow RDFs in Appendix C.

Action: Follow the most current RDFs for fire and fuels (Appendix 

D).

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation

No similar action. Action: In PH, prioritize native seed allocation for use in GRSG

habitat in years when preferred native seed is in short supply. 

This may require reallocating native seed from emergency 

stabilization and rehabilitation (ES&R) projects outside of PH

to those inside it. Use of native plant seeds for ES&R seedings 

is required, based on availability, adaptation (site potential), 

and probability of success. Where probability of success or 

native seed availability is low, nonnative seeds may be used, as 

long as they meet GRSG habitat conservation objectives. 

Reestablishing appropriate sagebrush species/subspecies and 

important understory plants, relative to site potential, should 

be the highest priority for rehabilitation.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PH and 

GH.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

No similar action. Action: In PH, design post-ES&R management to ensure longterm persistence of seeded or pre-burn native plants. This may 

require temporary or long-term changes in livestock grazing 

and travel management to achieve and maintain the desired 

condition of ES&R projects to benefit GRSG.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PH and 

GH.

Action: In PH, design post ES&R management to ensure long term 

persistence of seeded or pre-burn native plants. This could include 

changes in current resource management to achieve and maintain the 

desired condition of the restoration effort that benefits GRSG. 

Modifications to livestock grazing would be made in accordance with 

BLM grazing regulation 43 CFR 4130.3-3 and after consultation, 

cooperation and coordination with owners or lessees having lands or 

managing resources within the affected allotment(s), affected 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-43

Table 2-4

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

cooperative state grazing districts and the interested public. 

Temporary or long-term adjustments in post-restoration livestock use 

would be implemented by documented agreement or by the decision 

of the authorized officer.

No similar action. Action: In PH, consider potential changes in climate when 

proposing restoration seeding of native plants. Consider 

collection from the warmer component of the species’ current 

range when selecting native seed.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to PH and GH. Action: Same as Alternative B.

Action: Develop an appropriate seed mix for the location, based on 

current climatic data as well as soils/ecological site descriptions.

No similar action. No similar action. Action: Post-fire recovery must include establishing 

adequately sized exclosures (free of livestock grazing) that can 

be used to assess recovery.

Action: Appropriate pre and post treatment monitoring would be 

established to document impacts and success of the treatments.

No similar action. No similar action. Action: Livestock grazing should be excluded from burned 

areas until woody and herbaceous plants achieve GRSG

habitat objectives.

Action: Requirements for resting or deferring areas from livestock 

grazing following fire would depend on a variety of factors including 

resource objectives, the type of fuel, time and intensity of burn, 

accessibility of the burned area to livestock, and post-burn climatic 

factors. Compliance with land health standards would be considered 

when implementing post-fire grazing management.

No similar action. No similar action. Action: Where burned GRSG habitat cannot be fenced from 

other unburned habitat, the entire area (e.g., 

allotment/pasture) should be closed to grazing until 

recovered.

Action: Requirements for resting or deferring areas from livestock 

grazing following fire would depend on a variety of factors, including 

resource objectives, the type of fuel, time, and intensity of burn, 

accessibility of the burned area to livestock, and post-burn climatic 

factors. Compliance with land health standards would be considered 

when implementing post fire grazing management.

Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Objective: Grazing methods, land treatments, and other 

improvements would be designed and monitored to 

accomplish objectives. The BLM would continue to 

cooperate with MFWP to determine wildlife habitat needs.

Objective: Within the analysis area, vegetation treatments may continue to be used to meet or support resource management objectives, given special consideration for the protection and maintenance 

of sagebrush ecosystems is incorporated into the design and implementation of treatments. The BLM would continue to cooperate with the MFWP to determine wildlife habitat needs.

No similar action. Action: In PH, prioritize implementation of restoration 

projects based on environmental variables that improve 

chances for project success in areas most likely to benefit 

GRSG.

Action: Prioritize restoration in seasonal habitats that are 

thought to be limiting GRSG distribution or abundance.

Action: In PH and GH, prioritize implementation of 

restoration projects based on environmental variables that 

improve chances for project success in areas most likely to 

benefit GRSG.

Action: Prioritize restoration in seasonal habitats that are 

thought to be limiting GRSG distribution and abundance and 

where factors causing degradation have already been 

addressed (e.g., changes in livestock management).

Action: In PH, prioritize implementation of restoration projects based 

on environmental variables that improve chances for project success in 

areas most likely to benefit GRSG.

Action: In PH and GH, prioritize restoration in seasonal habitats that 

are thought to be limiting GRSG distribution or abundance.

Action: In PH and GH, consideration for other threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive species would be evaluated in addition to 

GRSG when prioritizing restoration projects.

No similar action. Action: Include GRSG habitat parameters, as defined by 

Connelly et al. (2000) and Hagen et al. (2007) or, if available, 

state GRSG conservation plans and appropriate local 

information in habitat restoration objectives. Make meeting 

these objectives within PH the highest restoration priority.

Action: Include GRSG habitat objectives in habitat restoration 

projects. Make meeting these objectives within PH and GH

the highest restoration priority.

Action: Manage for suitable GRSG habitat for restoration projects 

within PH.

Action: Surface-disturbing activities greater than 0.25 acre 

would require the initiating party to rehabilitate the 

disturbance. Native species in the site’s natural plant 

community would normally be seeded to revegetate all surface 

disturbances. Some reclamation may involve introduced 

species if these species are necessary to stabilize the site. 

Revegetation species would be determined during the sitespecific environmental assessment phase (BLM 1994, page 11).

Action: In PH, require use of native seeds for restoration, 

based on availability, adaptation (ecological site potential), and 

probability of success. Where probability of success or 

adapted seed availability is low, nonnative seeds may be used 

as long as they support GRSG habitat objectives.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to PH and GH. Action: In PH, require use of native seeds for restoration based on 

availability, adaptation (ecological site potential), and probability of 

success. Nonnative species would be considered when determined to 

be necessary for emergency stabilization and where required to 

facilitate natural succession of desired native vegetative communities.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

2-44 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 2-4

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

No similar action. Action: In PH, design post restoration management to ensure 

long-term persistence. This could include changes in livestock 

grazing management and travel management to achieve and 

maintain the desired condition of the restoration that benefits 

GRSG.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to PH and GH. Action: In PH, design post restoration management to ensure longterm persistence. This could include changes in current resource 

management to achieve and maintain the desired condition of the 

restoration that benefits GRSG. Modifications to livestock grazing 

would be made in accordance with BLM grazing regulation 43 CFR 

Part 4130.3-3, and after consultation, cooperation, and coordination 

with owners or lessees having lands or managing resources within the 

affected allotment(s), affected cooperative state grazing districts and 

the interested public. Temporary or long-term adjustments in postrestoration livestock use would be implemented by documented 

agreement or by the decision of the authorized officer.

No similar action. Action: In PH, consider potential changes in climate when 

proposing restoration seeding of native plants. Consider 

collection from the warmer component of the species’ current 

range when selecting native seed.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to PH and GH. Action: Same as Alternative B.

Action: Choose appropriate seed mix for the location.

Action: The BLM would manage for succulent vegetation, 

including a variety of forbs, and would maintain big and silver 

sage on GRSG wintering and nesting areas with a canopy 

coverage (line intercept) of 15 to 50% and an effective height 

of 12 inches (BLM 1994).

Action: In PH, restore native or desirable plants and create 

landscape patterns that most benefit GRSG.

Action: In PH and GH, exotic seedings would be rehabilitated, 

interseeded, and restored to recover sagebrush in areas to 

expand occupied habitats.

Action: In PH, restore native (or desirable) plants and create landscape 

patterns that most benefit GRSG. Consideration for other threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive species would be evaluated, in addition to 

GRSG, when creating landscape habitat patterns.

No similar action. Action: Make reestablishment of sagebrush cover and desirable 

understory plants (relative to ecological site potential) the 

highest priority for restoration in PH.

No similar action. Action: Make reestablishment of suitable GRSG habitat a high priority 

for restoration. Other restoration efforts within the field office may 

take precedence over sagebrush habitat projects, based on future 

threatened and endangered species listing decisions, funding sources 

and requirements, access to sites, landowner, and other agency 

cooperation, potential project success, as well as others. Decisions 

regarding restoration of habitats within the field office would remain at 

the discretion of the authorized officer.

No similar action. Action: In PH, in fire prone areas where sagebrush seed is 

required for GRSG habitat restoration, consider establishing 

seed harvest areas that are managed for seed production and 

are a priority for protection from outside disturbances.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to PH and GH. Action: In PH of increased fire frequency, where sagebrush seed is 

required for GRSG habitat restoration, consider establishing seed 

harvest areas that are managed for seed production that receive a 

priority for protection from outside disturbances.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

No similar action. No similar action. Action: As described in Appendix E, PH areas for GRSG

with at least 4,000 acres of contiguous BLM surface 

ownership would be designated as ACECs, totaling 96,246 

acres. See Figure 2-17, Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern – Alternative C, in Appendix A).

No similar action.

Action: BLM would continue to manage 2,463 acres as the 

Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC to protect its unique pine 

forest and shale landscape. 

Management actions are as follows:

• Limit motorized travel to existing routes and trails

• Manage as ROW avoidance area

• Prohibit timber harvest

• Close to fluid minerals leasing

Action: BLM would continue to manage 2,463 acres as the 

Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC to protect its unique pine forest 

and shale landscape.

Action: In addition to those management actions listed in 

Alternative A, management actions would include conservation 

measures consistent with the identified management actions 

and constraints identified for PH under this alternative.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

BLM 1984: Headwaters Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision

BLM 1994: Judith Resource Area Resource Management Plan

BLM 2003a: Fire/Fuels Management Plan Environmental Assessment/Plan Amendment for Montana and the Dakotas

BLM 2003b: Off-Highway Vehicle Record of Decision and Proposed Plan Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in Lewistown Field Office by Alternative)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-45

2.11 COMPARISON OF ALLEVIATED THREATS TO GRSG IN LEWISTOWN FIELD OFFICE BY ALTERNATIVE

Table 2-5, Summary of Impacts on GRSG, presents a comparison summary of impacts to GRSG from management 

actions proposed for the four management alternatives. Section 4.2, Greater Sage-Grouse, in Chapter 4 provides a 

more detailed impact analysis.

Table 2-5

Summary of Impacts on GRSG1

Resource/Resource Use2 Alternatives A – D

Summary of Impacts to

GRSG from Oil and Gas 

Development

Alternatives B, C, and D would apply RDFs (Appendix C for Alternatives B and C, and Appendix D for 

Alternative D) as COAs where appropriate and necessary to drilling permits for currently leased federal 

minerals. Standard lease stipulations would apply to the existing leases. No new leases would be issued in 

PPH and PGH or PH and GH under any alternative, based on an existing RMP protest resolution, which 

requires deferring nominated lease parcels if a special stipulation is required to protect important wildlife 

values. These conditions and limitations would provide the regulatory mechanisms needed (identified in the 

COT report [USFWS 2013]) to stop population decline and habitat loss. They would do this by eliminating 

activities known to negatively impact GRSG and their habitats, and by reducing the threat of habitat loss, 

degradation and fragmentation.

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from Infrastructure

Overall, Alternative A would have the least protections for GRSG and GRSG habitat from development of 

infrastructure. Alternative B would have more restrictions on route construction and upgrades, as well as 

ROWs, than Alternatives A and D, but fewer than Alternative C (some actions under Alternative D are the 

same as under Alternative B; see Table 2-4).

Alternatives B and C exclude PH from new ROWs. This responds directly to the need identified in the COT 

report (USFWS 2013) to stop population decline and habitat loss by eliminating activities known to 

negatively impact GRSG and their habitats. Beneficial impacts are from the reduction in the threat of habitat 

loss, degradation, and fragmentation on BLM-administered lands. Potential adverse indirect effects in GRSG 

habitat could increase if these activities were excluded from BLM-administered lands because they would still 

occur on private land without BLM RDFs or BMP guidance. Ownership patterns in LFO (highly fragmented, 

with public land comprising approximately 17% of the planning area) could substantially increase the length 

of infrastructure required to enclose BLM ROW exclusion areas. Alternative D would designate PH and GH

as ROW avoidance areas because most PH and GH within the planning area are on private lands. The 

 1 For a full disclosure of impacts to GRSG, refer to Section 4.2 in Chapter 4. 2 Resources/Resource Uses identified as threats to the LFO Populations of GRSG in the COT Report are identified with an asterisk*
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in Lewistown Field Office by Alternative)

2-46 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 2-5

Summary of Impacts on GRSG1

Resource/Resource Use2 Alternatives A – D

potential to concentrate infrastructure development where appropriate, and to use RDFs and BMPs, would 

increase direct beneficial effects from infrastructure on GRSG on BLM-administered lands; however, it 

would substantially reduce indirect adverse effects on a much greater area of adjacent land not administered 

by the BLM. The benefits of maintaining or improving habitat on most of the PH would exceed the costs on 

BLM-administered lands and would be more likely to perpetuate a viable GRSG population. Reducing 

impacts on more of the existing habitat within the planning area is a reason for the ROW avoidance areas 

rather than ROW exclusion areas in PH and GH under Alternative D. Each action alternative would require 

collocating new ROWs with existing ROWs in GH. Alternative D would require this of new ROWs in PH 

also because new ROWs are not excluded in PH.

The action alternatives are in agreement with the following conservation objectives/options identified in the 

COT report specific to infrastructure:

1. Avoid developing infrastructure within Priority Area for Conservation (PAC) (objective).

2. Avoid constructing these features in GRSG habitat, both within and outside of PACs (option).

3. Remove transmission lines and roads that are duplicative or are not functional (option).

4. Construct transmission line towers to severely reduce or eliminate nesting and perching by avian 

predators, most notably ravens, thereby reducing human subsidies to those species (option).

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from 

Agriculture/Urbanization

Although agriculture and urbanization have been identified as threats within the LFO planning area, including 

both the Yellowstone Watershed (Conversion) and Belt Mountain (Urbanization) populations, the BLM has 

no direct management authority over those types of activities. Under Alternatives B and D, the BLM would 

take advantage of opportunities to consolidate GRSG habitat through land exchange if the action would 

benefit GRSG. Alternative C would allow for no disposal of PH or GH, regardless of benefits to GRSG. The 

LFO may have limited indirect abilities to influence these threats through maintaining appropriate authorized 

uses (grazing, ROWs, recreation, energy development) of BLM-administered lands that allow for the 

maintenance of habitat objectives. One specific example is to maintain appropriate levels of livestock grazing, 

which should discourage the conversion of identified GRSG habitat on private land to improved (nonnative) 

pasture or cropland.

Regarding the following conservation objectives/options identified in the COT report specific to 

infrastructure:
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in Lewistown Field Office by Alternative)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-47

Table 2-5

Summary of Impacts on GRSG1

Resource/Resource Use2 Alternatives A – D

• Limit urban and exurban development in GRSG habitat and maintain intact native sagebrush plant 

communities (objective).

Acquire and manage GRSG habitat to maintain intact ecosystems (option).

Alternative D meets the objectives best because of its flexibility. Alternative B meets the objectives but its 

focus on ROW exclusion areas could lead to greater impacts on non-BLM-administered lands. Alternative C 

is in agreement with the first objective, but the consequences of its limitations on grazing, including 

increased fencing and reduced weed control, would not maintain intact GRSG habitat.

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from Grazing

GRSG habitat considerations within livestock grazing allotments would be similar across Alternatives B, C 

and D. Range improvement restrictions are the same under Alternatives B and D. Under Alternative C (no 

grazing), the need for increased fencing on BLM-administered land in order to prevent livestock trespass 

would result in indirect impacts on GRSG, including increased fragmentation, increased potential for wildfire 

from fine fuel buildup, increased collisions with fences, and increased raptor predation. Additionally, under 

Alternative C the BLM would lose the current or potential treatment of existing or new infestations of 

noxious weeds because these weeds are currently treated through agreements with permittees to spray,

under the terms and conditions of grazing permits or leases. Under Alternative A, grazing would be managed 

to achieve the standards of rangeland health, which would address GRSG habitat requirements under most 

scenarios. However, the potential for project infrastructure up to 0.25 mile of leks under Alternative A 

could cause fragmentation, raptor perches, and inappropriate fence locations and designs. Alternatives B and 

D, would also manage grazing to achieve the standards of rangeland health. These alternatives also put 

specific focus on GRSG habitat requirements in PH to preclude adverse impacts from livestock and project 

infrastructure. Because Alternative C closes PH and GH to grazing, fine fuels would increase and weed 

control would be reduced. In addition, actions taken on private land to compensate for loss of public grazing 

might affect GRSG habitat and could be substantial (for example, miles of fencing would likely be constructed 

to hold livestock on private lands).

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from Invasive Species

Due to climate conditions, invasive weeds do not currently threaten the planning area on a large scale. 

Under all alternatives, the spread of weeds would be managed using integrated vegetation management as 

resources allow. Under Alternative C, grazing would be eliminated in GRSG habitat, which would remove 

the lessee agreements on weed control and limit resources for addressing invasive weeds.

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from Wildfire and 

Fuels Treatment

Alternative A manages wildfire effectively but Alternatives B, C and D would provide additional protection 

to sagebrush habitat during fire management. Under all alternatives, anticipated threats from wildfire remain 

constant (estimated 2,000 acres burned over a decade).
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in Lewistown Field Office by Alternative)

2-48 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 2-5

Summary of Impacts on GRSG1

Resource/Resource Use2 Alternatives A – D

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from Solid Mineral 

Development

Alternatives B and C would be more protective of GRSG and habitat than Alternatives A and D, although 

Alternative D, in the case of reclamation of salable mineral pits, requires the same action as Alternative B. 

Effective mitigation for existing mining claims and salable mineral sites is similar across Alternatives B, C and 

D. Alternative D provides a greater number of BMPs to be considered as necessary and appropriate to 

mitigate impacts.

2.12 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table 2-6, Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D, presents a comparison summary 

of impacts from management actions proposed for the four management alternatives. Chapter 4 provides a more 

detailed impact analysis.

Table 2-6

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D1

Line # Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

(Agency Preferred)

1. GREATER SAGE-GROUSE

2. See Table 2-5 for summary of impacts on GRSG.

3. LANDS AND REALTY

4. No impacts, decision area 

would remain open to ROWs.

233,219 acres (PH) managed as 

ROW exclusion area and 

112,341 acres managed as 

ROW avoidance area would 

prohibit or restrict new ROW 

authorizations. Could extend 

processing time for renewals of 

existing ROW authorizations 

345,560 acres (PH and GH) 

managed as ROW exclusion 

area. In addition, prohibiting 

new road construction within 4 

miles of active leks would limit 

development to 21% of the 

decision area. Exclusion areas 

could potentially shift 

233,219 (PH) acres managed as 

ROW avoidance area would 

result in increased application 

processing time and costs due 

to the potential need to 

relocate facilities or due to 

greater design, mitigation, and 

siting requirements.

 1 For a full discussion of impacts for any of the resources, refer to the appropriate section in Chapter 4.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-49

Table 2-6

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D1

Line # Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

(Agency Preferred)

and make siting of new linear or 

block ROWs more difficult.

Exclusion areas could 

potentially shift development 

onto private land.

development onto private land.

5. VEGETATION (INCLUDING NOXIOUS WEEDS; RIPARIAN AND WETLANDS)

6. ROW development would 

continue to impact vegetation.

ROW exclusion areas in PH 

(233,219 acres) would preclude 

loss or alteration of vegetation, 

and spread of invasive weeds in 

these areas from development. 

ROW avoidance areas in GH 

(112,341 acres) would likely 

reduce these types of 

disturbances to vegetation in 

these areas. Potential indirect 

impacts on vegetation from 

developing on private lands.

ROW exclusion areas in PH and 

GH (345,560 acres) would 

preclude loss or alteration of 

vegetation, and spread of 

invasive weeds from 

development in these areas.

Indirect impacts on vegetation 

on private lands similar to 

Alternative B.

ROW avoidance areas in PH 

(233,219 acres) would reduce, 

but not eliminate loss or 

alteration of vegetation, and 

spread of invasive weeds from 

development in these areas.

7. Grazing practices may have 

negative, neutral, or positive 

effects on vegetation; land 

health assessments and other 

management evaluations would 

be intended to identify areas of 

concern to maintain or improve 

rangeland health, which would 

improve vegetation condition.

Incorporating GRSG habitat 

objectives and management 

considerations into livestock 

grazing management would 

reduce, but would not 

eliminate, impacts from grazing 

on vegetation communities.

Grazing would be eliminated in 

PH and GH (reducing available 

AUMs). Livestock use of

riparian zones would be limited 

to maintain PFC and benefit 

wildlife habitat. The reduction in 

grazing AUMs could ultimately 

reduce rangeland health by 

facilitating spread of weeds and 

fuel buildup.

Grazing management would be 

similar to Alternative B, with 

increased collaboration with 

stakeholders, guidance for 

prioritization of efforts, and 

increased tools available to 

improve flexibility in 

management.

8. Development of existing fluid RDFs required as COAs on RDFs required as COAs on Reduction of impacts from 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-50 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 2-6

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D1

Line # Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

(Agency Preferred)

mineral leases would continue 

to cause impacts on vegetation, 

including removal or 

degradation of vegetation and 

potential spread of invasive 

species.

existing fluid mineral leases in 

PH would reduce the impacts 

on vegetation compared to 

Alternative A.

existing fluid mineral leases in 

PH and GH would reduce the 

impacts on vegetation 

compared to Alternative A.

applying RDFs similar to 

Alternative B.

9. WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGY

10. Few restrictions on fire and 

fuels management would have 

the fewest impacts on fire. Due 

to the flexibility in management 

of prescribed and wildland fires, 

fire suppression costs are likely 

to be lower compared with all 

action alternatives

Restrictions in PH (233,219 

acres) could impact ability to 

efficiently manage fuels and 

could increase costs of 

vegetation management and fire 

suppression.

Impacts from seasonal closures 

and restrictions would be 

similar to Alternative B but 

would apply to both GH and PH 

(345,560 acres). The limitations 

would be more restrictive 

under this alternative, resulting 

in the greatest impacts on the 

fire and fuels management 

program.

Impacts would be similar to 

those described in Alternative 

C, with restrictions on fuels 

treatment options in both PH

and GH (345,560 acres). Fire 

suppression actions and related 

impacts would be the same as 

described under Alternative C.

11. Lack of restrictions on resource 

uses such as mineral 

development, ROW 

development, and recreation 

could mean greater risk of 

human-induced ignition which 

could result in an increased 

need for fire management.

Limitations on resource uses 

such as recreation, mineral 

development, and ROW

authorizations in PH would 

decrease the chance of human 

ignition and consequently 

decrease wildfire risk.

Limitations on resource uses 

such as recreation, mineral 

development, and ROW

authorizations would occur, but 

would include PH and GH;

therefore, the risk of human 

caused ignition would be 

decreased in both of these 

areas.

Impacts from recreation, 

mineral development, and 

ROW authorizations would be 

similar to Alternative B.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-51

Table 2-6

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D1

Line # Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

(Agency Preferred)

12. FLUID MINERALS

13. Existing oil and gas leases would 

continue to be developed 

according to their lease terms. 

COAs could be applied on a 

case-by-case basis.

All existing leases on federal oil 

and gas estate in PH (233,219 

acres) would be subject to 

RDFs and conservation 

measures applied as COAs. 

These COAs would place 

additional limits on siting, 

design, and operations of fluid 

mineral development.

Similar to Alternative B except 

that COAs would be applied to 

existing leases in PH and GH

(345,560 acres).

Similar to Alternative C, COAs 

would be applied to existing 

leases in PH and GH (345,560 

acres), except with greater 

flexibility for site-specific 

modifications.

14. SOLID LEASABLE MINERALS

15. Constraints and closures would 

cover the smallest area of any 

alternative; approximately 2,538 

acres (less than 1%) of the 

federal solid mineral estate 

would remain closed to solid 

minerals, precluding future 

leasing in these areas.

All PH (279,097 acres, or 61% 

of the solid minerals decision 

area) would be closed to 

nonenergy solid mineral leasing.

RDFs on existing nonenergy 

solid mineral leases in PH would 

place limitations on road design, 

construction, and use; restrict 

operations to minimize surface 

disturbance; limit construction; 

maximize reclamation efforts to 

meet GRSG habitat needs; and 

place other standards and 

restrictions on solid mineral 

operations.

Impacts would be similar to 

Alternative B except that more 

acres (453,969 acres, or 100%

of the solid minerals decision 

area) would be closed to 

nonenergy solid mineral leasing, 

and more acres with existing 

leases would be subject to the 

mandatory application of the 

solid mineral RDFs.

Management of solid leasable 

minerals would be similar to 

Alternative A, except that new 

prospecting permits would be 

subject to the RDFs.

16. SOLID MINERALS (LOCATABLE MINERALS)

17. Approximately 2,538 acres (less 

than 1% of the total federal solid 

BLM would recommend to 

withdrawal an additional 

BLM would recommend to 

withdrawal an additional 

Applying BMPs and 

conservation measures to any 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-52 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 2-6

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D1

Line # Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

(Agency Preferred)

mineral estate for locatable 

minerals) would remain 

withdrawn to the location of 

mining claims.

279,097 acres. However, there 

is no known locatable mineral

potential in GRSG habitat, so no 

effect on locatable minerals is 

anticipated.

Application of BMPs to any 

Notice or Plan of Operations

would impact locatable mineral

development by increasing its 

costs if it resulted in the 

application of additional 

requirements.

453,969 acres. However, there 

is no known locatable mineral

potential in GRSG habitat, so no 

effect on locatable minerals is 

anticipated.

Applying BMPs and conservation 

measures to any Notice or Plan 

of Operations would result in 

the same impacts as those 

described under Alternative B.

Notice or Plan of Operations 

would result in the same 

impacts as those described 

under Alternative B.

18. SOLID MINERALS (SALABLE MINERALS)

19. Constraints and closures would 

cover the smallest area of any 

alternative (2,538 acres closed 

to the disposition of saleable 

minerals and 0 acres managed as 

ROW exclusion area), resulting 

in the fewest restrictions on the 

disposition of salable minerals.

Construction of new roads in 

ROW exclusion and avoidance 

areas would likely decrease,

thereby decreasing demand for 

salable minerals needed for 

construction and maintenance.

Approximately 279,097 acres of 

federal mineral estate in PH

(61% of the solid minerals 

decision area) would be closed 

to salable mineral disposal.

Solid mineral RDFs would apply 

to existing salable mineral 

operations in PH and would 

place limitations on road design, 

construction, and use; restrict 

Because all PH and GH would 

be closed to salable minerals 

disposal, the ROW exclusion 

areas would not impact the 

salable minerals program.

Approximately 453,969 acres of 

federal mineral estate in PH and 

GH (100% of the solid minerals 

decision area) would be closed 

to salable mineral disposal, the 

most of any alternative.

Similar to Alternative B, RDFs

would be applied to salable 

mineral operations in PH and 

GH. Because more acres would 

be within PH and GH under 

Construction of new roads in 

ROW areas would likely 

decrease, thereby decreasing 

demand for salable minerals 

needed for construction and 

maintenance.

No additional lands would be 

closed to the disposition of 

salable minerals or managed as 

ROW exclusion area.

Impacts from RDFs placed on 

solid minerals would be the 

same as Alternative B.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-53

Table 2-6

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D1

Line # Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

(Agency Preferred)

operations to minimize surface 

disturbance; limit construction; 

maximize reclamation efforts to 

meet GRSG habitat needs; and 

place other standards and 

restrictions on solid mineral 

operations.

Alternative C, the impacts of 

applying these RDFs would 

increase.

20. COMPREHENSIVE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT

21. Existing travel opportunities for 

motorized travel would be 

maintained and there would be 

no impact on travel 

management.

Impacts on travel would be 

slightly greater than Alternative 

A because future enhancements 

to the route network would be 

limited.

Prohibiting new road 

construction within 4 miles of 

active GRSG leks would result 

in the closure of 274,435 acres 

(79% of the decision area) to 

new road construction. This 

action, along with limitations on 

route enhancements in PH and 

GH, would result in site-specific 

loss of access and diminished 

route network quality.

Impacts on travel under 

Alternative D would be similar 

to Alternative B. During route 

designation and travel planning, 

management would minimize 

impacts on travel and 

transportation management.

22. RECREATION

23. The planning area would be 

closed to cross-country 

motorized travel; therefore, 

limiting recreational OHV use 

to existing routes.

Impacts from CTTM would be 

slightly greater than Alternative 

A because future enhancements 

to the route network and 

impact motorized travel would 

be limited.

Limitations on new road 

construction within 4 miles of 

active leks, along with 

limitations on route 

enhancements in PH and GH,

would limit opportunities for 

increased recreational access.

Impacts from CTTM would be 

similar to Alternative B.

24. BLM would continue to manage 

for dispersed recreation 

Impacts from recreation 

management would be similar 

There would be no impacts 

from recreation management.

Impacts would be similar to 

Alternative B.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-54 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 2-6

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D1

Line # Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

(Agency Preferred)

activities. The BLM would 

continue to issue SRPs on a 

case-by-case basis.

to Alternative A, with the 

exception that in PH (233,219 

acres) the BLM would only 

allow SRPs that have a neutral 

or beneficial effect on PH. This 

could result in a reduction in 

the number or type of 

recreation opportunities in PH 

permitted through SRPs.

25. Potential impacts on recreation 

during construction and 

operation of facilities in ROWs.

A long-term reduction in the 

amount of acres dedicated to 

ROWs and above-ground linear 

features would improve 

recreation opportunities.

Managing areas as ROW

exclusion in PH and GH 

(345,560 acres), with the 

exception of 843 acres of 

unitized areas, would protect 

recreational opportunities in 

those areas and protect the 

desired settings in the Judith 

Valley Special Recreation 

Management Area (SRMA) and 

11 Extensive Recreation 

Management Areas (ERMAs).

Designation of PH (233,219 

acres) as a ROW avoidance 

area would benefit recreation 

activities in undeveloped 

settings. Limitations on ROW 

development would also 

preserve the existing 

recreation settings in each of 

the 11 ERMAs in PH.

26. Impacts on recreation users 

from mineral development 

would include activities and 

disturbance related to 

exploration, development, and 

operations.

Restrictions such as timing 

limitations on fluid mineral

development in PH (233,219 

acres) and closure of all PH 

areas to salable mineral disposal 

would decrease the potential 

for oil and gas development 

Impacts from mineral 

development would be similar 

to Alternative B, but would 

apply to both PH and GH 

(345,560 acres).

Impacts from minerals 

development would be similar 

to Alternative B.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-55

Table 2-6

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D1

Line # Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

(Agency Preferred)

conflicting with recreation 

users.

27. RANGE MANAGEMENT

28. Lands would be maintained and 

restored to maintain healthy 

ecological conditions, and

efforts to manage BLMadministered rangeland would 

be directed first to allotments 

not meeting rangeland health

standards due to current 

livestock grazing.

In general, Alternative A also 

has the fewest surface use 

restrictions that would limit 

range improvements and 

livestock management. As a 

result, permittees/lessees would 

have the greatest flexibility for 

management. Adjustments to 

grazing system, class of livestock 

and other lease/permit 

conditions would be made upon 

renewal of the grazing 

authorization as required by site 

specific conditions; therefore,

impacts would occur at this 

point.

Additional conservation 

measures specific to GRSG 

habitat would be incorporated 

consistent with management 

and constraints.

Completion of land health 

assessments during renewal of 

grazing permits/leases would be 

prioritized within PH. As a 

result, impacts on range 

management would be most 

likely to occur in these areas.

Structural range improvements 

would be allowed in PH but 

costs and time to construct 

these structures may be 

increased due to GRSG 

conservation measure 

requirements; full utilization of 

permitted AUMs may be 

impacted.

All PH and GH would be closed 

to grazing, resulting in a total 

closure of 337,165 acres and a 

reduction of 69,408 AUMs of 

forage available for grazing. 

Closure of the areas to grazing 

has the potential to result in 

economic impacts on

lessees/permittees. Closures 

would also impact the 

effectiveness of current seasonal 

grazing rotations or other 

management strategies that 

utilize both BLM-administered 

and private lands.

Impacts on grazing systems 

would be similar to those 

described in Alternative B.

Similar to Alternative B, the 

BLM would prioritize 

completion of land health 

assessments in PH.

29. There is some potential for Potential for disturbance or Impacts on livestock grazing Potential for disturbance or 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-56 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 2-6

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D1

Line # Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

(Agency Preferred)

disturbance or conflicts with 

livestock grazing from other 

resource uses, including 

recreational activities, ROW

development (limited 

disturbance in 9,708 acres of 

ROW avoidance area) and 

mineral development (45,012 

acres open to grazing and fluid 

mineral development).

conflicts with livestock grazing 

from other resource uses

would be reduced in this 

alternative as compared to 

Alternative A, including 

recreational activities, fire, 

ROW development (limited 

disturbance in 106,508 acres of 

ROW avoidance areas and 

230,501 of ROW exclusion 

areas) and mineral development 

(29,778 acres of existing fluid 

mineral development leases are 

open to livestock grazing in PH,

33% less than Alternative A).

from various resources and 

resource uses would be limited 

due to the closure of PH and 

GH to grazing. Impacts on

grazing in areas outside of PH 

and GH could be increased 

should grazing or development 

increase in intensity in these 

areas.

conflicts with livestock grazing 

from other resource uses 

would be similar to Alternative 

B, including recreational 

activities, fire, ROW

development (240,087 acres 

would be proposed as a ROW 

avoidance area within area 

open to livestock grazing in PH

or GH) and the same as 

Alternative B for mineral 

development.

30. AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

31. Impacts on values of the existing 

Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC

would continue from authorized 

land uses, including grazing, 

recreation, and motorized use. 

Managing the ACEC as ROW

avoidance area would protect 

the relevant and important 

values.

Impacts would be the same as 

Alternative A.

Management for the Acid ShalePine Forest ACEC would 

continue to be tailored to 

protect the relevant and 

important values for which the 

ACEC was originally designated.

Establishing a GRSG ACEC

would provide restrictions on 

authorized land uses within the 

new ACEC.

Impacts would be the same as 

Alternative B.

32. AIR QUALITY

33. No changes to visibility and 

human health would occur.

Fires would be less likely to 

occur, resulting in fewer 

Impacts from fire and fuels 

management would be the same 

Impacts would be similar to 

those described under 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-57

Table 2-6

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D1

Line # Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

(Agency Preferred)

impacts on air resources, 

including visibility and human 

health, compared with 

Alternative A.

as described under Alternative 

B, except restrictions on both 

resource use and fuels 

treatment options would be 

applied to PH and GH.

Alternative B. Placing an 

emphasis on improving habitat 

may reduce the risk of 

significant wildfires, resulting in 

fewer impacts on air resources, 

including visibility and human 

health.

34. No changes to criteria air 

pollutant or hazardous air 

pollutant emissions would 

occur.

Closing areas with 279,097 

acres of solid mineral potential 

to development would have the 

potential to result in fewer 

impacts on air resources, 

including visibility and human 

health.

Closing 453,969 acres to salable 

material disposal and nonenergy 

solid mineral leasing would have 

the potential to result in fewer 

impacts on air resources, 

including visibility and human 

health.

Impacts from solid minerals 

would be the same as 

Alternative A.

35. CLIMATE

36. No changes to greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions would occur.

Fires would be less likely to 

occur, resulting in fewer GHG 

emissions, because management 

actions would decrease the risk 

of human-caused ignitions and 

increase the level of fire 

suppression in PH (233,219 

acres).

Impacts from fire and fuels 

management would be the same 

as described under Alternative 

B, except restrictions on both 

resource use and fuels 

treatment options would be 

applied to PH and GH (345,560 

acres).

Impacts would be similar to 

those described under 

Alternative B. Placing an 

emphasis on improving habitat 

may reduce the risk of 

significant wildfires, resulting in 

fewer GHG emissions.

37. No changes to GHG emissions 

would occur.

Closing areas with 279,097 

acres of solid mineral potential 

to development would have the 

potential to result in fewer 

releases of GHGs.

Closing 453,969 acres to salable 

material disposal and nonenergy 

solid mineral leasing would have 

the potential to result in fewer 

emissions of GHGs.

Impacts from solid minerals 

would be the same as 

Alternative A.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-58 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 2-6

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D1

Line # Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

(Agency Preferred)

38. SOIL RESOURCES

39. Motorized use of existing roads 

and trails would result in the 

potential for disturbance and 

compaction of soils.

Some reduction in routes and 

limitations on new routes, as 

well as upgrades to existing 

routes, could result in the 

potential for reduction of 

disturbance and compaction of 

soils in PH (233,219 acres).

Impacts on soil resources would 

be similar to Alternative B, 

although impacts would be 

further reduced since 

protections would apply to both 

PH and GH (345,560 acres) and 

the BLM would apply additional 

mitigation requirements.

Impacts on soil resources from 

travel would be similar to 

Alternative B.

40. Soil conditions could continue 

to be degraded where land use 

authorizations were approved.

Managing 233,219 acres as 

ROW exclusion areas and 

122,341 acres as ROW 

avoidance areas would reduce 

impacts on soil resources from 

surface disturbing activities 

related to ROW development.

Managing 345,560 acres as 

ROW exclusion areas would 

reduce impacts on soil 

resources from surface 

disturbing activities related to 

ROW development.

Managing 233,219 acres as 

ROW avoidance areas would 

reduce impacts on soil 

resources from surface 

disturbing activities related to 

ROW development.

41. Grazing would continue to alter 

vegetative and biological soil 

crust communities.

Impacts from grazing would be 

similar to Alternative A with the 

addition of GRSG habitat 

objectives and management 

considerations incorporated 

into all BLM AMPs within PH

(233.219 acres), and the option 

of voluntary retirement of 

permitted grazing uses in PH, 

which could further reduce soil 

compaction, soil erosion, and 

vegetation loss.

Removal of grazing in PH and 

GH (345,560 acres) would 

provide the potential for soil 

health to improve in areas 

where Rangeland Health 

Standards are not met due to 

current livestock grazing.

Additional incorporation of 

GRSG habitat objectives into 

all AMPs, and the addition of 

GRSG management 

considerations into AMPs of 

allotments on PH (233,219 

acres), along with improving 

GH (112,341 acres) habitats 

for GRSG could improve soil 

conditions in these areas.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-59

Table 2-6

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D1

Line # Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

(Agency Preferred)

42. Impacts on soils associated with 

development of existing fluid 

mineral leases would continue.

RDFs and conservation 

measures applied as COAs on 

existing leases in PH (233, 219 

acres) would include surface use 

restrictions on existing federal 

leases, which would protect 

portions of the decision area 

from the soil impacts associated 

with oil and gas exploration,

development, and production.

RDFs and conservation 

measures applied as COAs on 

existing fluid mineral leases in 

PH and GH (345,560 acres), 

which would protect more 

areas from the soil impacts.

RDFs and conservation 

measures applied as COAs on 

existing leases in PH and GH

(345,560 acres) which would 

protect more areas from the 

soil impacts.

43. Impacts on soils associated with 

development of solid minerals 

would continue.

Impacts on soil resources from 

solid mineral development 

would be less than Alternative 

A with 279,097 acres closed to 

mineral entry. RDFs and BMPs

would place limitations on road 

design, construction, and use; 

restrict operations to minimize 

surface disturbance.

Impacts from solid minerals 

would be the least of all the 

alternatives with all GRSG 

habitat areas (345,560 acres) 

managed as closed to mineral 

entry. Salable mineral pits within 

PH (233,219, acres) would be 

restored, which would increase 

soil health more than 

Alternative A. RDFs and BMPs

would place limitations on road 

design, construction, and use; 

restrict operations to minimize 

surface disturbance.

Impacts on soil resources from 

solid mineral development 

would be less than Alternative 

A with 453,969 acres closed to 

mineral entry. RDFs and BMPs

would place limitations on road 

design, construction, and use; 

restrict operations to minimize 

surface disturbance.

44. WATER RESOURCES

45. Impacts from human-made 

runoff of soils and chemicals 

into waterways would continue 

as a result of ROW 

Impacts from human-made 

runoff of soils and chemicals 

into waterways would be less 

than Alternative A with 233,219 

acres (PH) managed as ROW

Impacts from human-made 

runoff of soils and chemicals 

into waterways from ROW 

development would be the least 

of all the alternatives with PH 

Impacts from ROW 

development would be similar 

to Alternative A.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-60 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 2-6

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D1

Line # Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

(Agency Preferred)

development. exclusion areas. and GH (345,560 acres) 

managed as ROW exclusion 

area.

46. The BLM would continue to 

maintain the PFC of riparian and 

wetland areas. Water sources 

would be developed where 

needed (as indicated by 

monitoring) to improve GRSG 

habitat. Waters used by GRSG 

that are adversely affected by 

uncontrolled livestock use 

would be fenced.

Incorporating GRSG habitat 

objectives and management 

considerations into livestock 

grazing management could 

reduce, but would not 

eliminate, impacts from grazing 

on water resources. Impacts 

would be similar to Alternative 

A.

Reduced grazing AUMs could 

increase the potential for 

cleaner surface flows into 

waterways and improve access 

to water sources.

Impacts would be similar to 

Alternative A but additional 

range improvements in PH 

could improve water 

resources.

47. Impacts from human-made 

runoff of soils and chemicals 

into waterways associated with 

development of existing fluid 

mineral leases would continue. 

Impacts from fluid mineral 

development would be less than 

Alternative A. All existing leases 

on federal oil and gas estate in 

PH (233,219 acres) would be 

subject to RDFs applied as 

COAs.

Impacts from fluid mineral

development would be the least 

of all the alternatives. All 

existing leases on federal oil and 

gas estate in PH and GH

(345,560 acres) would be 

subject to RDFs applied as 

COAs.

Impacts from implementing 

RDFs as COAs in PH and GH 

(345,560 acres) would be 

similar to Alternative C.

48. Impacts on water resources 

associated with development of 

solid minerals would continue.

Impacts on water resources 

from solid mineral development 

would be less than Alternative 

A with 279,097 acres closed to 

mineral entry. RDFs and BMPs

would place limitations on road 

design, construction, and use; 

restrict operations to minimize 

Impacts from solid minerals 

would be the least of all the 

alternatives with PH and GH

(345,560 acres) managed as 

closed to mineral entry. Salable 

mineral pits within PH (233,219 

acres) would be restored, which 

would increase soil health more 

Impacts on water resources 

from solid mineral 

development would be less 

than Alternative A with 

453,969 acres closed to 

mineral entry. RDFs and BMPs

would place limitations on road 

design, construction, and use; 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-61

Table 2-6

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D1

Line # Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

(Agency Preferred)

surface disturbance. than Alternative A. RDFs and 

BMPs would place limitations on 

road design, construction, and 

use; restrict operations to 

minimize surface disturbance.

restrict operations to minimize 

surface disturbance.

49. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES – OTHER SPECIES OF ISSUE

50. Travel may result in human 

disturbance, degradation of 

habitat, or mortality of special 

status species.

Route construction in PH

(233,219 acres) would be 

limited to realignments of 

existing roads, or built or 

upgraded to minimum standards 

necessary, which would reduce 

impacts from disturbance, 

changes to habitat, and 

mortality on special status 

species in these areas.

Additional restrictions on new 

road construction in PH and 

GH (345,560 acres) would 

reduce impacts from 

disturbance, changes to habitat, 

and mortality on special status 

species in these areas.

Impacts from travel would be 

similar to Alternative B, with 

increased management 

flexibility incorporated to 

improve management and 

target those areas that need 

most protection.

51. 9,708 acres of habitat would 

continue to be managed as 

ROW avoidance area which 

would protect special status 

species from human-related 

disturbance and habitat 

alteration.

ROW exclusion areas in PH 

(233,219 acres) would preclude 

future impacts from human 

disturbance and infrastructure

in these areas. Additionally, 

ROW avoidance areas (112,341 

acres) in GH would further 

reduce these impacts. However, 

due to the large aerial extent 

and variety of ownerships (nonBLM) within PH (974,735 acres) 

and GH (899,659 acres), 

impacts on special status species

would still continue to occur.

ROW exclusion areas in PH and 

GH (345,560 acres) would 

preclude future impacts from 

human disturbance and 

infrastructure in these areas.

Potential indirect impacts on

special status species from 

developing on private lands.

ROW avoidance areas in PH 

(233,219 acres) would reduce 

future impacts from human 

disturbance and infrastructure 

from development in these 

areas. Impacts from ROW 

development in GH (112,341 

acres) would be mitigated.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-62 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 2-6

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D1

Line # Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

(Agency Preferred)

Potential indirect impacts on

special status species from 

developing on private lands.

52. Livestock grazing practices 

could have negative, neutral or 

positive effects to special status 

species through development 

and monitoring of AMPs or 

similar grazing plans. Grazing 

systems would consider 

restricting livestock from 

riparian areas which would 

decrease impacts on riparian 

vegetation health and therefore 

increase the availability of 

wildlife special status species.

Incorporating GRSG habitat 

objectives and management 

considerations into livestock 

grazing management would 

reduce, but would not 

eliminate, impacts from grazing 

on vegetation communities. 

These efforts would also 

promote the health of potential 

habitats, including sagebrush 

steppe, riparian areas, and wet 

meadows.

Grazing would be removed

from 337,165 acres of grazing 

lands, which would include the 

removal of 69,408 AUMs. This 

action would likely reduce the 

impacts on special status species

from grazing. However, removal 

of grazing could allow for 

noxious weeds to spread and 

fuels to accumulate leading to 

an increase in wildfire risk. Also, 

these actions could further 

fragment the landscape with 

mixed land practices and water 

uses.

If an effective grazing system 

meeting GRSG habitat 

objectives is not in place, the 

permit renewal process would 

examine at least one 

alternative to restore this 

habitat. This could benefit 

special status species which 

occupy GRSG habitat.

53. Fluid mineral development of 

existing leases would continue 

to cause impacts on special 

status species related to surface 

disturbance and occupancy.

Applying RDFs as COAs to 

existing leases in PH (233,219 

acres) would reduce impacts on

special status species and their 

habitats from activities related 

to surface disturbance and 

occupancy.

Impacts from fluid minerals 

would be similar to Alternative 

B except that COAs would be 

applied to existing leases in both 

PH and GH (345,560 acres).

Impacts from fluid minerals 

would be the same as 

Alternative B.

54. WILDLIFE

55. Travel may result in human 

disturbance, degradation of 

habitat, or mortality of wildlife.

Route construction in PH would 

be limited to realignments of 

existing roads, or built or 

Additional restrictions on new 

road construction in PH and 

GH (345,560 acres) would 

Impacts from travel would be 

similar to Alternative B, with 

increased management 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-63

Table 2-6

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D1

Line # Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

(Agency Preferred)

upgraded to minimum standards 

necessary, which would reduce 

impacts from disturbance, 

changes to habitat, and 

mortality on wildlife in these 

areas.

reduce impacts from 

disturbance, changes to habitat, 

and mortality on wildlife in 

these areas.

flexibility incorporated to 

improve management and 

target those areas that need 

most protection.

56. 9,708 acres of habitat would 

continue to be managed as 

ROW avoidance area which 

would protect wildlife from 

human-related disturbance and 

habitat alteration.

ROW exclusion areas in PH 

(233,219 acres) would preclude 

future impacts from human 

disturbance and infrastructure

in these areas. Additionally, 

ROW avoidance areas (112,341 

acres) would be included for 

GH, further reducing these 

impacts. However, due to the 

large aerial extent and variety of 

ownerships (non-BLM) within 

PH (974,735 acres) and GH

(899,659 acres), impacts on

wildlife would still continue to 

occur. Potential indirect impacts 

on wildlife from developing on 

private lands.

ROW exclusion areas in PH and 

GH (345,560 acres) would 

preclude future impacts from 

human disturbance and 

infrastructure in these areas.

Potential indirect impacts on

wildlife from developing on 

private lands.

ROW avoidance areas in PH 

(233,219 acres) would reduce 

future impacts from human 

disturbance and infrastructure 

from development in these 

areas. Impacts from ROW 

development in GH (112,341 

acres) would be mitigated.

57. Livestock grazing practices 

could have negative, neutral or 

positive effects to wildlife 

through development and 

monitoring of AMPs or similar 

grazing plans. Grazing systems 

would consider restricting 

Incorporating GRSG habitat 

objectives and management 

considerations into livestock 

grazing management would 

reduce, but would not 

eliminate, impacts from grazing 

on vegetation communities. 

Grazing would be removed

from 337,165 acres of grazing 

lands, which would include the 

removal of 69,408 AUMs. This 

action would likely reduce the 

impacts on wildlife from grazing. 

However, removal of grazing 

If an effective grazing system 

meeting GRSG habitat 

objectives is not in place, the 

permit renewal process would 

examine at least one 

alternative to restore this 

habitat. This could benefit 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-64 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 2-6

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D1

Line # Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

(Agency Preferred)

livestock from riparian areas 

which would decrease impacts 

on riparian vegetation health 

and therefore increase the 

availability of wildlife habitat.

These efforts would also 

promote the health of potential 

habitats, including sagebrush 

steppe, riparian areas, and wet 

meadows.

could allow for noxious weeds 

to spread and fuels to 

accumulate leading to an 

increase in wildfire risk. Also, 

these actions could further 

fragment the landscape with 

mixed land practices and water 

uses.

wildlife which occupy GRSG 

habitat.

58. Fluid mineral development of 

existing leases would continue 

to cause impacts on wildlife 

related to surface disturbance 

and occupancy.

Applying RDFs as COAs to 

existing leases in PH (233,219 

acres) would reduce impacts on

wildlife and their habitats from 

activities related to surface 

disturbance and occupancy.

Impacts from fluid minerals 

would be similar to Alternative 

B except that COAs would be 

applied to existing leases in both 

PH and GH (345,560 acres).

Impacts from fluid minerals 

would be the same as 

Alternative B.

59. RENEWABLE ENERGY

60. Zero acres of lands with 

“Good” or better wind 

potential would be affected by 

ROW exclusion or avoidance 

areas. All lands with such 

potential would continue to be 

open for ROW applications on 

a case-by-case basis.

70% of lands with “Good” or 

better wind potential that are 

open for ROW applications 

under Alternative A would 

become ROW exclusion areas 

under Alternative B and would 

be closed.

5,595 fewer acres available for 

wind development without 

substantial restrictions. 9% of 

lands with “Good” or better 

wind potential available for 

ROW applications within the 

decision area would be subject 

79% of lands with “Good” or 

better wind potential that are 

open for ROW applications 

under Alternative A would 

become ROW exclusion areas

and would be closed.

79% of lands with “Good” or 

better wind potential that are 

open for ROW applications 

under Alternative A would 

become ROW avoidance areas 

and would be subject to 

substantial restrictions 

compared to Alternative A.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-65

Table 2-6

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D1

Line # Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

(Agency Preferred)

to substantial restrictions when 

compared with Alternative A.

61. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

62. Use of allocated forage on 

allotments in the planning area 

would generate an estimated 

201 total jobs (direct, indirect, 

and induced) and $2.8 million in 

labor income (direct, indirect, 

and induced) in the five county 

economic impact areas, which 

includes Chouteau, Fergus, 

Judith, Meagher and Petroleum 

counties. This figure includes 

direct contributions of 128 jobs, 

which equates to about 29% of 

employment in the agricultural 

economic sector for the area.

Land use authorizations would 

continue to support area 

communities and economies.

Economic contributions from 

recreation would continue at 

current levels; approximately 8 

jobs (direct, indirect, and 

induced) are associated with 

wildlife related recreation, and 

12 jobs (direct, indirect, and 

induced) are associated with 

It is anticipated that current 

economic contributions from 

allocated grazing on allotments 

covered under this RMPA 

would continue as described 

under Alternative A. Reductions 

in allotted grazing could, 

however, occur with voluntary 

retirement of allotments which 

would reduce economic 

contributions.

This alternative may limit new 

ROWs or energy development 

within the planning area 

(233,219 acres or 39% of the 

decision area would be 

designated as exclusion areas 

for new ROW permits) and 

would consequently support 

communities and economies 

less than under Alternative A.

If future SRP applications were 

denied (if not found to be 

neutral or beneficial to GRSG), 

there would be a less organized 

hunting opportunities on BLMAs a result of the reductions in 

allocated forage, estimated 

employment decrease from 201 

to 66 total jobs (direct, indirect, 

and induced) and labor income

would decrease from $2.8 

million to $931,000 (direct, 

indirect, and induced) on an 

average annual basis within the 

impact area economy. This 

estimate includes a direct 

employment decrease from 128 

jobs to 42 jobs, which would 

correspond to a decrease from

29% to 10% of employment in 

this sector. Decreases may not 

be as large predicted since 

actual use of allotments used in 

analysis of current conditions is 

below the permitted level of 

use. In addition, the decrease 

portrayed here could be less if 

alternative sources of forage is 

found for willing permittees.

This alternative may limit new 

ROWs or energy development 

within the planning area 

It is anticipated that current 

economic contributions from 

allocated grazing on allotments 

covered under this RMPA 

would continue as described 

under Alternative A.

Impacts from new ROWs or 

energy development within the 

planning area would be as 

described in Alternative B. 

Impacts on recreation would 

be the same as discussed under 

Alternative B.

Restoration projects associated 

with threatened and 

endangered species would be 

considered when prioritizing 

projects. As a result, well-being 

and non-market values 

associated with GRSG habitat 

would be less than Alternatives 

B and C. Due to uncertainty in 

how restoration projects are 

prioritized; a relative 

comparison to Alternative A 

cannot be made.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-66 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 2-6

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D1

Line # Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

(Agency Preferred)

non-wildlife related recreation 

in the five-county impact area; 

approximately 1% of 

employment in sectors 

specifically attributable to 

tourism and recreation.

Well-being and non-market 

values associated with GRSG 

habitat would continue at 

current levels, but are likely to 

be less than that of action 

alternatives.

administered land in the 

decision area as compared with 

Alternative A. As a result 

economic contributions could 

be less than current 

contributions depicted under 

Alternative A.

As a result of protective 

measures for GRSG habitat, 

well-being non-market values 

associated with GRSG habitat 

would be protected to a greater 

degree than Alternative A.

(345,560 acres of the decision 

area would be designated as 

exclusion for new ROW 

permits) and would 

consequently provide less 

support to communities and 

economies than under 

Alternative A.

If changes to recreation access 

occurred, there would be a 

reduction in recreation 

visitation on BLM-administered 

land in the decision area. As a 

result, economic contributions 

could be less than Alternative A.

Policies would promote 

expansion of GRSG habitat. As 

a result, well-being and nonmarket values associated with 

GRSG habitat would be 

protected to a greater degree 

than the other alternatives.

63. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

64. While minority and low-income populations may exist in the area, the alternatives are not expected to have a disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects on these communities. Impacts on local communities are expected to be negligible, 

and there is no reason to suspect that any impacts would disproportionately affect minority and low income populations.
CHAPTER 3

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-1

CHAPTER 3

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter documents the existing conditions and trends of resources in the 

planning area that may be affected by implementing any of the proposed 

alternatives described in Chapter 2. The affected environment provides the 

context for assessing potential impacts as described in Chapter 4.

The planning area for the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse

RMPA/EIS is composed of BLM; Forest Service; USFWS; US Department of 

Defense; State of Montana; and private lands (refer to Table 1-1) in Chouteau, 

Fergus, Judith Basin, Meagher, and Petroleum Counties in central Montana. A 

map of the planning area is provided as Figure 1-1 in Appendix A.

Though the planning area includes private lands, decisions are only made for 

BLM federal surface and federal minerals in this RMPA. Management direction 

and actions outlined in this EIS apply only to these BLM-administered lands in 

the planning area and to federal mineral estate under BLM jurisdiction that may 

lie beneath other surface ownership.

3.2 ORGANIZATION OF CHAPTER 3

This chapter contains sections describing the biological, physical, and human 

resources of the planning area affected by implementing the alternatives outlined 

in this EIS. The following critical elements of the human environment and 

resource programs are not present; do not have specific GRSG conservation 

goals, objectives, or management actions identified in the alternatives; or are not 

directly affected by the alternatives presented in this EIS:

• Visual Resources

• Cultural Resources

• Paleontological Resources
3. Affected Environment (Organization of Chapter 3)

3-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

• Tribal Interests

• National Historic Trails

• Wild and Scenic Rivers

Implementation of any of the alternatives would result in general and 

unquantifiable indirect beneficial effects for the above resource programs in 

terms of greater protection through new restrictions on surface and resource 

use resulting in reduced opportunities for surface disturbance or habitat 

disruption where they exist. For further information on the affected 

environment of these resources and programs, please refer to the Affected 

Environment sections of the Judith Resource Area Resource Management Plan

and the Headwaters Resource Management Plan being amended by this 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS.

The following critical elements of the human environment and resources are 

specifically addressed in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 of the Lewistown Field 

Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS.

• Greater Sage-Grouse

• Lands and Realty

• Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands)

• Wildland Fire Management and Ecology

• Fluid Minerals

• Solid Leasable Minerals

• Locatable Minerals

• Salable Minerals

• Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

• Recreation

• Range Management

• Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

• Air Resources

• Climate

• Soil Resources

• Water Resources

• Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue

• Fish and Wildlife

• Renewable Energy
3. Affected Environment (Organization of Chapter 3)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-3

• Social and Economic Conditions

• Environmental Justice

Each of the above resource sections in this chapter contains a discussion of 

existing conditions and trends:

• Existing conditions describe the location, extent, and current 

condition of the resource in the planning area in general and on 

BLM-administered lands. Conditions for a resource can vary, 

depending on the resource. For each resource, a general 

description of the existing conditions is provided for the planning 

area, regardless of land status. This is done to provide a regional 

context for the resource. Then, a more detailed description of the 

existing conditions is provided for the BLM-administered lands 

managed according to the Judith Resource Area Resource 

Management Plan and the Headwaters Resource Management Plan. 

This is done to provide an area-specific description of the existing 

conditions for the resource. When possible, greater emphasis is 

placed on describing the existing conditions of the resource as it 

pertains to GRSG and their habitat.

• Trends identify the degree and direction of resource change 

between the present and some point in the past. If there is change, 

the degree and direction of resource change is characterized as 

moving toward or away from the current desired condition based 

on the indicators, and the reasons for the change are identified. 

Trends can also be described in quantitative or qualitative terms. 

Identifying the trends is done to provide an understanding of how 

BLM management influences the desired condition of the resource 

over time. It can be difficult to analyze trends for certain resources, 

because changes to the resource often occur due to factors beyond 

the control of the BLM.

The BLM reviewed the Judith Resource Area Resource Management Plan, the 

Headwaters Resource Management Plan, and other relevant information 

sources (such as maps and state GRSG conservation assessments) for existing 

conditions and trends for the resources listed above with respect to GRSG and 

their habitat. This affected environment information is summarized below and, 

where appropriate, noted when the information is incorporated by reference.

Data from GIS have been used in developing acreage calculations and for 

generating many of the figures. Calculations in this EIS are rounded and are 

dependent upon the quality and availability of data. Data were collected from a 

variety of sources, including the BLM, collaborative partners, stakeholders, and 

cooperating agencies. Given the scale of the analysis, the compatibility 

constraints between datasets, and the lack of data for some resources, all 

calculations are approximate and serve for comparison and analytic purposes 
3. Affected Environment (Organization of Chapter 3)

3-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

only. Likewise, the figures are provided for illustrative purposes and subject to 

the limitations discussed above. The BLM may receive additional GIS data; 

therefore, the acreages may be recalculated and revised at a later date.

3.2.1 WAFWA Management Zone Data

To augment this planning document at a biologically meaningful scale for GRSG, 

a BER of GRSG was produced by USGS for the BLM (Manier et. al. 2013). The 

BER is a science support document that provides information to put planning 

units and issues into the context of the larger WAFWA Sage-Grouse 

management zones. The BER examines each threat identified in the USFWS’s 

listing decision published on March 15, 2010. For each threat, the report 

summarizes the current scientific understanding of various impacts on GRSG

populations and habitats. When available, patterns, thresholds, indicators, 

metrics, and measured responses that quantify the impacts of each specific 

threat are reported.

As described in Chapter 1, the planning area for the Lewistown Field Office

Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS is located in WAFWA MZs 1 and IV (Stiver et 

al. 2006). Data from the BER are presented throughout this chapter to 

illuminate the location (e.g., PPH and PGH), magnitude, and extent of the 

threats within WAFWA MZs I and IV that comprises the planning area. Because 

the BER focuses on threats to GRSG at the WAFWA management zone scale, it 

provides biologically meaningful data for larger scale analyses. The BER data 

provided in Chapter 3 is considered in the WAFWA MZs 1 and IV cumulative 

effects analysis for GRSG in Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts.

The data and information included from the BER was the most accurate 

available when the data was “frozen” in time for analysis purposes; however, 

these scenarios remain based in present knowledge. Spatial data informing the 

existing conditions were compiled to establish a consistent information base

across the entire region (GRSG Management Area), but, in order to attain this 

consistently across state, ownership, and management boundaries, some local 

data have been omitted. There may be inconsistencies between WAFWA-level 

and local planning-level data. As such, these data provide a regional baseline, 

suitable for guiding regional mid- to long-term analysis scenarios (Manier et al. 

2013).

Chapter 3 also presents data that is available at a finer scale than used in the 

BER. These fine-scale, local data are incorporated into the affected environment 

discussion to complement the BER’s biologically meaningful data, characterize 

the relative contributions of threats in the planning area as opposed to the 

WAFWA management zones, and to set the stage for the cumulative effects 

analysis for GRSG.

3.3 GREATER SAGE-GROUSE

Special status species are those species with populations that have declined to 

the point of substantial federal or state agency concern. These declines may 
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-5

result from habitat loss or modification, or from changes in competition, 

predation, disease, weather, or overharvest. Habitat loss and modification from 

human activities are the primary causes of declining populations, particularly for

species that are highly adapted to specific ecological niches. Such species may or 

may not be legally protected by federal or state agencies.

The BLM’s policy for special status species is to: 1) conserve and/or recover 

threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems on which they depend 

so that ESA protections are no longer needed, and 2) to initiate proactive 

conservation measures that reduce or eliminate threats to BLM-sensitive 

species to minimize the likelihood of and need for listing of these species under 

the ESA. The BLM 6840 Manual, Special Status Species Management (BLM 

2008c), sets policy for the management of candidate species and their habitat. 

Candidate species are considered BLM-sensitive species. The 6840 manual 

directs the BLM to conserve special status species and the ecosystems on which 

they depend on BLM-administered land, and reduce the likelihood and need for 

future listing under the ESA. The 6840 manual directs the BLM to undertake 

conservation actions for such species before listing is warranted and also to 

“work cooperatively with other agencies, organizations, governments, and 

interested parties for the conservation of sensitive species and their habitats to 

meet agreed on species and habitat management goals.”

Policy provided in the 6840 manual requires that when the BLM engages in the 

planning process, land use plans, and implementation plans, that strategies, 

restrictions, and management actions necessary to conserve and recover listed 

species, as well as provisions for the conservation of BLM-sensitive species, are 

identified. This policy also requires managers to determine to the extent 

practicable, the distribution, abundance, population condition, current threats, 

and habitat needs for sensitive species, and evaluate the significance of actions in 

conserving those species.

Historically, GRSG occurred in parts of 12 states within the western US and 

three Canadian provinces; populations have declined throughout much of their 

former range and have been extirpated from fringe areas. Across their range, 

GRSG currently occupy 56 percent, of their potential pre-settlement range, 

approximately 1,200,000 km2 (Schroeder et al. 2004).

The COT, a USFWS team of federal and state wildlife officials was tasked with 

developing conservation objectives by defining the degree to which the threats 

need to be ameliorated to conserve the GRSG, so that it no longer is warranted 

for listing under the ESA. The Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

Conservation Objectives: Final Report (COT Report; USFWS 2013) was 

developed by this team. The report discusses GRSG populations and subpopulations within each WAFWA management zone and describes the threats 

facing each population. The LFO is primarily located within WAFWA MZ 1, in 

the northwest portion of the Yellowstone Watershed Population. MZ I (the 
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

3-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Great Plains) also includes the Dakotas, northern Montana and the Powder 

River basin. A small amount of the LFO also occurs in the Belt Mountains 

Population in WAFWA MZ IV. The report was used to focus the analysis in 

Chapter 4 on the threats most likely to impact GRSG in the planning area.

The majority of the GRSG population in the planning area is part of the 

Yellowstone Watershed Population, a large population covering an expansive 

area south of the Missouri River, making up the majority of GRSG habitats in 

southeast and south-central Montana. Refer to Table 2-1 for a list of threats 

from the COT report applicable to the Yellowstone Watershed Population. The 

known threats to the Yellowstone Watershed Population that are present and 

widespread include agriculture conversion, weeds and annual grasses, energy, 

infrastructure, and grazing. Threats that are present but localized in the 

Yellowstone Watershed Population include elimination of sagebrush, fire, 

conifers, and recreation (USFWS 2013, Table 2, p. 17). Garton et al. (2011) 

reported a minimum male count of over 2,900 males, and considered the 

population only potentially at risk. Land ownership in the LFO is predominantly 

private with scattered tracts and blocks of public land. Livestock grazing and 

small grain farming are common, with scattered oil and gas developments across 

portions of this area. Extensive private lands have the potential for conversion 

of additional sagebrush habitats to farming, and cropland conversion continues 

to take place (USFWS 2013, p. 65).

The Belt Mountains Population inhabits 439 acres of BLM-administered lands in 

the planning area. This population is at high risk because it is isolated from other 

GRSG populations by 50 miles in all directions, and fewer than 100 males have 

been counted annually since 1984. Refer to Table 2-2 for a list of threats from 

the COT report applicable to the Belt Mountains Population. The known 

threats to the Belt Mountains Population that are present and widespread 

include isolated/small size population, agriculture conversion, weeds/annual 

grasses, and grazing. Threats that are present but localized in the Belt Mountains

Population include sagebrush elimination, fire, conifers, energy, infrastructure, 

recreation, and urbanization (USFWS 2013, pp.77-78).

In response to petitions, USFWS first evaluated GRSG for listing in 2005 and 

determined listing was not warranted. After a 2007 court order, the agency 

again considered the GRSG for listing and, in 2010, concluded that GRSG listing 

under the ESA was warranted range-wide but precluded by higher priority 

actions (USFWS 2010a, p.1).

The BER was produced by USGS, in cooperation with the BLM, to summarize 

the science, activities, programs, and policies influencing conservation of GRSG 

across their range (Manier et al. 2013). It summarizes the available primary 

literature on each of the threats and their impact on GRSG and provides tables 

of the overlap of threats, such as oil and gas leases with GRSG primary and 

general habitat.
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-7

The GRSG National Technical Team was established by the BLM to coordinate 

effective management actions based on best available science for GRSG

conservation and restoration. The NTT Conservation Measures/Planning 

Strategy Report (December 2011) includes a discussion of threats and 

recommended BLM management actions for each.

3.3.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

Availability of Sagebrush Habitat (Broad- and Mid-Scale Indicator)

The distribution of GRSG is closely aligned with the distribution of sagebrushdominated landscapes (Schroeder et al. 2004). GRSG require large, intact, and 

connected expanses of sagebrush shrubland to exist (Aldridge et al. 2008; 

Wisdom et al. 2011). The planning area occurs in WAFWA MZs I and IV (Stiver 

et al. 2006).

IM No. 2012-044 (BLM 2011a) directs the BLM to collaborate with state wildlife 

agencies to identify and map two categories of GRSG habitat:

• PPH: Areas that have been identified as having the highest 

conservation value to maintaining sustainable GRSG populations. 

These areas would include breeding, late brood-rearing, and winter 

concentration areas

• PGH: Areas of occupied seasonal or year-round habitat outside of 

priority habitat

In Montana, the BLM developed its PPH/PGH map (Figure 3-1, Greater SageGrouse Habitat, in Appendix A) based on data from MFWP. GRSG core areas 

are habitat associated with Montana’s highest densities of GRSG (25 percent 

quartile), based on male counts, and GRSG lek complexes and associated habitat 

important to GRSG distribution. Acres of PPH and PGH within the planning 

area are presented in Table 3-1, PPH and PGH Occurring on BLMAdministered Lands and Non-BLM Lands in the Planning Area.

Table 3-1

PPH and PGH Occurring on BLM-Administered Lands and Non-BLM Lands 

in the Planning Area

Lands PPH

(acres)

PGH

(acres)

Outside GRSG

Habitat

(acres)

BLM-administered lands 233,219 (19%) 112,341 (11%) 248,435 (4%)

Non-BLM-administered lands 974,775 (81%) 902,694 (89%) 6,717,524 (96%)

Total Planning Area 1,207,994 1,015,035 6,965,959

Source: BLM 2012a
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

3-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 3-2, Acres of PPH within Each Vegetation Type on BLM-Administered 

Lands and Non-BLM-Administered Lands in the Lewistown Field Office, and

Table 3-3, Acres of PGH within Each Vegetation Type on BLM-Administered 

Lands and Non-BLM-administered Lands within the Lewistown Field Office,

shows the Regional Gap Analysis Program (ReGAP) Tier III vegetation types for 

the LFO in PPH and PGH habitat. Sagebrush habitat in PPH on BLMadministered land in PPH covers 169,598 acres. Mixed-grass prairie, riparian and 

pine woodland are the next most common habitat types. In PGH, sagebrush in 

BLM-administered land covers 44,698 acres. Table 3-3 includes habitat in both 

MZ I and MZ IV (Belt Mountains); the Belt Mountain population area is only 439

acres, and no PPH is found in this area. Population areas are described in more 

detail below.

Leks are key spring activity areas for mating and are most often located in open 

areas surrounded by sagebrush cover. There are approximately 148 leks within 

the planning area, 77 of which were active in 2013. The greatest concentration 

of PPH is in the eastern portion of the planning area in Fergus and Petroleum 

counties. Smaller patches of PGH occur in the western portion of the planning 

area. See Figure 3-2, Greater Sage-Grouse Breeding Density, in Appendix A.

Connectivity of Habitat Patches (Mid-Scale Indicator)

While the amount of habitat available to GRSG is very important, habitat 

pattern is just as critical to long-term survival of the species. Fragmentation of 

habitat into smaller patches can result in extirpation of local GRSG populations 

when functional connectivity among patches is lost. Leks separated by distances 

greater than 11 miles could be isolated due to decreased probability of 

dispersals from neighboring leks (Connelly et al. 2000). Isolation and reduced 

connectivity increases the probability of loss of genetic diversity and extirpation 

from random events (Knick and Hanser 2011).

There is little information available regarding minimum sagebrush patch sizes 

required to support populations of GRSG. This is due in part to the migratory 

nature of some but not all GRSG populations, the lack of juxtaposition of 

seasonal habitats, and differences in local, regional, and range-wide ecological 

conditions that influence the distribution of sagebrush and associated 

understories. Where home ranges have been reported, they are extremely 

variable (2.5 to 382 square miles; Connelly et al. 2011a).

GRSG populations may be nonmigratory or migratory, moving between or 

among seasonal use areas (Connelly et al. 2011a). Recent research has shown 

that GRSG near Glasgow, Montana, migrate up to 150 miles between seasonal 

habitats, making frequent stopovers in suitable sagebrush rangelands (Smith 

2013). There is no indication or expectation that GRSG in the planning area may 

be similarly migratory.
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-9

Table 3-2

Acres of PPH within Each Vegetation Type on BLM-Administered Lands and Non-BLM-Administered Lands in the Lewistown 

Field Office

PPH Vegetation Description BLM Private State Other Total

Cultivated Cropland 2,301 68,536 1,357 184 72,378

Developed, Low Intensity 114 1,743 109 6 1,972

Developed, Medium Intensity 0 3 0 0 3

Developed, Open Space 173 2,716 188 2 3,079

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 169,598 463,132 57,751 2,226 692,707

Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 2,345 5,786 640 87 8,858

Introduced Upland Vegetation - Perennial Grassland and Forbland 4,807 114,626 4,571 112 124,116

North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 200 499 34 622 1,355

Northern Rocky Mountain Foothill Conifer Wooded Steppe 3,415 9,642 905 72 14,034

Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 0 23 0 0 23

Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane, Foothill and Valley Grassland 99 0 0 0 99

Northern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland and Savanna 0 12,333 1,552 0 13,885

Northwestern Great Plains - Black Hills Ponderosa Pine Woodland and Savanna 6,551 0 0 118 6,669

Northwestern Great Plains Floodplain 16 76 0 0 92

Northwestern Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie 30,839 134,166 15,930 723 181,658

Northwestern Great Plains Riparian 6,301 38,134 3,975 150 48,560

Northwestern Great Plains Shrubland 75 378 31 0 484

Open Water (Fresh) 203 1,085 77 4 1,369

Pasture/Hay 4 728 11 0 743

Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive Bedrock 5 0 0 0 5

Western Great Plains Badland 2,793 4,259 709 18 7,779

Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop 41 14 0 3 58

Western Great Plains Closed Depression Wetland 18 94 7 4 123

Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland 43 53 1 0 97

Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland 375 1,157 95 1,668 3,295

Western Great Plains Sand Prairie 2,548 17,125 2,480 0 22,153

Western Great Plains Wooded Draw and Ravine 355 1,847 164 17 2,383

Total 233,219 878,155 90,587 6,016 1,207,977

Source: BLM 2012a
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

3-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 3-3

Acres of PGH within Each Vegetation Type on BLM-Administered Lands and Non-BLM-administered Lands within the 

Lewistown Field Office

PGH Vegetation Description BLM Private State Other Total

Cultivated Cropland 1,623 87,145 2,990 12 91,770

Developed, Low Intensity 29 1,591 82 0 1,702

Developed, Medium Intensity 2 18 0 0 20

Developed, Open Space 69 8,406 909 3 9,387

Harvested Forest - Grass/Forb Regeneration 0 37 0 2 39

Harvested Forest - Northwestern Conifer Regeneration 0 38 0 2 40

Harvested forest-Shrub Regeneration 0 79 0 5 84

Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland 0 6 0 0 6

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 44,698 253,149 32,541 406 330,794

Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 1,747 6,410 903 23 9,083

Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 135 48,875 5,178 219 54,407

Introduced Upland Vegetation - Perennial Grassland and Forbland 1,757 75,068 4,652 39 81,516

Middle Rocky Mountain Montane Douglas-fir Forest and Woodland 31 7,196 653 624 8,504

North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 4 246 3 8 261

Northern Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest 26 0 0 0 26

Northern Rocky Mountain Foothill Conifer Wooded Steppe 9,423 19,891 1,435 0 30,749

Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 0 904 121 0 1,025

Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane, Foothill and Valley Grassland 120 31,389 9,684 25 41,218

Northern Rocky Mountain Montane-Foothill Deciduous Shrubland 2 748 63 7 820

Northern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland and Savanna 2 1,531 311 66 1,910

Northern Rocky Mountain Subalpine Deciduous Shrubland 0 3 2 0 5

Northern Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Upper Montane Grassland 0 181 5 10 196

Northwestern Great Plains - Black Hills Ponderosa Pine Woodland and Savanna 14,360 29,545 3,128 0 47,033

Northwestern Great Plains Floodplain 195 2,006 182 130 2,513

Northwestern Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie 8,377 96,424 8,808 19 113,628

Northwestern Great Plains Riparian 1,811 26,699 1,662 0 30,172

Northwestern Great Plains Shrubland 1,529 4,894 361 0 6,784

Open Water (Fresh) 132 1,137 49 424 1,742

Pasture/Hay 8 25,112 579 3 25,702

Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow 1 1,039 112 1 1,153
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-11

Table 3-3

Acres of PGH within Each Vegetation Type on BLM-Administered Lands and Non-BLM-administered Lands within the 

Lewistown Field Office

PGH Vegetation Description BLM Private State Other Total

Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 0 427 41 18 486

Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive Bedrock 99 30 5 0 134

Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper Woodland 0 571 271 0 842

Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest 4 845 108 105 1,062

Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 4 5,737 350 38 6,129

Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland 1 54 5 3 63

Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland 0 75 1 1 77

Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Mesic Meadow 21 23,670 1,393 93 25,177

Western Great Plains Badland 22,427 28,121 3,931 90 54,569

Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop 72 195 13 0 280

Western Great Plains Closed Depression Wetland 3 109 0 0 112

Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland 0 68 0 0 68

Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland 17 203 0 0 220

Western Great Plains Sand Prairie 2,992 24,084 2,696 0 29,772

Western Great Plains Wooded Draw and Ravine 606 2,628 182 2 3,418

Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe 0 64 24 0 88

Total 112,327 816,648 83,433 2,378 1,014,786

Source: BLM 2012a
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

3-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Landscape Matrix and Edge Effect (Mid-Scale Indicator)

GRSG typically occupy sagebrush vegetation but may also use a variety of other 

habitats (e.g., riparian meadows, agricultural lands) intermixed in a sagebrush 

dominated landscape. Aldridge and Boyce (2007) found GRSG selected large 

expanses of sagebrush and avoided anthropogenic edge during the breeding 

season. Thus, the viability of fragmented habitat for GRSG is dependent upon 

the juxtaposition of these habitats in relation to sagebrush and the hazards to 

birds using these areas (Connelly et al. 2011b). In addition, studies have found a 

positive relationship between quality of nesting cover and nesting success 

(Montana Sage Grouse Work Group 2005).

In Montana, GRSG prefer breeding habitats with a sagebrush canopy over 20 

percent, generally within the 6- to 12-inch height class. Most nesting is believed 

to occur within two miles of a lek in Montana, and GRSG exhibit high 

commitment to a nest-area. In the summer, GRSG broods in central Montana 

prefer relatively open stands of sagebrush, generally with a canopy ranging from 

one to 25 percent. More than half of all GRSG observations during August and

September were in alfalfa fields, greasewood in bottomlands, and borrow pits 

where succulent forbs remained relatively abundant. Increased use of higher 

density sagebrush in late September or October coincided with transition to a 

winter diet of sagebrush (Montana Sage Grouse Work Group 2005).

Conifer invasion and invasive weed spread cause habitat fragmentation by 

encroaching on existing sagebrush shrublands and making habitat less suitable 

for GRSG. A decline of shrubs is the most documented shift in understory 

vegetation following conifer encroachment. Mountain big sagebrush sites show 

20 to 25 percent declines in shrub cover in response to trees, reaching 50 

percent of the maximum site potential (Miller et al. 2000). Tree growth also 

provides attractive perches for GRSG predators, which further induces GRSG

to avoid these areas. In LFO, conifer encroachment is a localized threat which 

primarily occurs in the northeastern/eastern portion of PPH.

Crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) is the most prevalent introduced 

perennial grass in the planning area. Annual bromes, including cheatgrass

(Bromus tectorum) and Japanese brome (B. japonicus), occur throughout PPH at 

low densities, but their spread is restricted by climatic conditions. They are 

found in isolated non-contiguous patches (typically less than 10 acres) and do 

not currently pose a threat of invading vast areas of PPH or PGH. For more 

information, see Section 3.5, Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian

and Wetlands).

Wildfire is an additional source of impacts on GRSG habitat. Between 2000 and 

2012, four wildfires burned 1,938 acres (0.83 percent) in PPH. Over the same 

time period, eight wildfires burned 303 acres (0.27 percent) in BLM PGH. 

Increased wildfires and cheatgrass proliferation have not occurred in the LFO, 
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-13

much different than the Great Basin. For more information, see Section 3.6,

Wildland Fire Management and Ecology.

Landownership in the planning area is interspersed between federal and nonfederal lands (Table 3-4, Surface Ownership in PPH and PGH). Important 

GRSG habitat areas cross both BLM-administered and private lands (also see 

Table 3-2 and Table 3-3). BLM-administered lands constitute a minority of 

sagebrush habitat, which increases the risk of habitat fragmentation if federal 

actions are not coordinated with state and private actions. 

Anthropogenic Disturbances (Broad- and Mid-Scale Indicator)

Comparing environmental conditions and levels of human disturbance on areas 

of former range (extirpated range) with areas still occupied by GRSG (occupied 

range), Wisdom et al. (2011) identified five key factors most likely to lead to 

extirpation of local populations: sagebrush area, elevation, distance to 

transmission lines, distance to cellular towers, and land ownership. Land 

ownership was a surrogate for conversion of private lands to non-sagebrush 

land uses, most commonly agricultural cultivation, which have reduced habitat 

availability and fragmented remaining sagebrush habitat nearby. Lek

abandonment was most likely to occur in areas with over 25 percent cultivated 

cropland within 18 miles of the lek (Aldridge et al. 2008).

Table 3-4

Surface Ownership in PPH and PGH

Surface Ownership PPH

(acres)

PGH

(acres)

BLM-administered lands 233,219 (39%) 112,341 (19%)

Other federal lands 3,688 0.4%) 1,717 (0.2%)

State lands 90,587 (17%) 83,438 (16%)

Private 878,171 (17%) 816,869 (16%)

Water 2,329 (19%) 670 (6%)

Total 1,207,994 1,015,035

Source: BLM 2012a

Transmission lines, in addition to reducing habitat suitability and increasing 

fragmentation, can cause GRSG mortality through bird collisions with lines and 

facilitate raptor predation of GRSG. There are currently 800 acres of 

transmission lines in PGH and 2,600 acres in PPH on BLM-administered land in 

the planning area. For more information on land ownership and ROWs in the 

planning area, see Section 3.4, Lands and Realty.

Oil and gas developments within two to four miles of leks or nesting areas had 

deleterious effect on populations, with the effects increasing with higher well 
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

3-14 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

density (Lyon and Anderson 2003; Walker et al. 2007; Johnson et al. 2011). 

There are 45,400 acres currently leased and undeveloped for oil and gas on 

BLM-administered land (PPH and PGH) within the planning area. There are no 

new oil and gas leases in PPH or PGH, and there have been no new oil or gas 

wells on BLM-administered lands in the last decade.

Cat Creek oil field is located on 951 acres of PPH in the southeastern corner of 

Yellowstone Watershed and had 38 producing wells in 2011. In operation since 

the 1920s, the field is largely played out, with most wells plugged and 

abandoned. Leroy field lies mostly north of the planning area within the Upper 

Missouri River Breaks National Monument. None of the Leroy field is within 

PPH, and 3,133 acres are within PGH. In 2011, six producing wells in this field 

were within the planning area. Gas resources in this field have been depleted, 

and approximately half of the wells in the area are plugged and abandoned. In 

addition to activity within these fields, some exploration activity has occurred 

within the Heath oil shale play in the southern portion of Petroleum County, 

within PPH and PGH. The Montana Board of Oil and Gas has issued 17 drilling 

permits for the Heath shale in Petroleum County. Five of these permits have 

been issued since March 2011 (Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation 

2012). No permits have yet been issued for drilling on federal minerals in the 

Heath play.

There is potential for renewable energy (primarily wind), but, to date, all wind 

turbines in the planning area have occurred only on private lands. For more 

information on existing mineral leases in GRSG habitat, see Section 3.7, Fluid 

Minerals, Section 3.8, Solid Leasable Minerals, Section 3.9, Locatable 

Minerals, and Section 3.10, Salable Minerals.

There are still large high-viability habitat patches in the planning area. However, 

the degree of habitat fragmentation within the patch, in the form of roads, 

powerlines, corridors, energy sites, livestock watering pipeline systems, OHV

trails, mineral sites, canals, landfills, and other sources, affects habitat suitability 

of the patch for GRSG. In the LFO, roads (including paved, gravel dirt and twotrack) occur throughout PPH on both BLM (454 miles) and other lands (2,214 

miles). Powerline (62 miles BLM PPH) and telephone (42 miles BLM PPH) 

ROWs typically are adjacent to the main roadways and occur throughout the 

area. Fences are common and are primarily four strands of barbed wire. 

Motorized travel on all LFO BLM-administered lands is limited to existing roads 

and trails.

SRPs are currently issued to outfitters and guides for big game and upland game, 

including GRSG. Statewide GRSG harvest has decreased from approximately 

30,000 annually historically to approximately 3,200 in 2011. Peak recreational 

use occurs during the fall hunting season and is primarily to access big game 

hunting.
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-15

Current livestock grazing was a significant causal factor for not achieving land 

health standards in 78 (54 allotments within GRSG habitat) of the 526 

allotments within the planning area. For more information on grazing, see 

Section 3.13, Range Management.

The presence of anthropogenic features between patches also decreases 

linkages critical to GRSG habitat viability. Continuing pressures for conversion 

of sagebrush to cropland and for energy development in LFO pose increasing 

risks of habitat fragmentation, particularly given the mixed pattern of land 

ownership.

3.3.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

Acres of PPH and PGH on BLM-administered lands within the planning area are 

presented in Table 3-1. The conditions on BLM-administered lands are similar 

to those discussed in Section 3.3.1, Conditions of the Planning Area.

Yellowstone Watershed Population

The Yellowstone Watershed GRSG population is comprised of five PPH areas 

within the Billings, Miles City, and Lewistown BLM field offices. PPH within the 

LFO is made up of four areas: Yellow Water Triangle, War Horse, Crooked 

Creek and Winifred. Data on GRSG leks within one or more of these areas has 

been collected by MFWP and the BLM since 1952. Using the highest male 

counts from each lek annually the number of small (fewer than 10 males), 

medium (10 or more, but fewer than 25 males), or large (more than 25 males) 

leks were determined. Large leks have a greater chance at persistence and 

remaining viable over the long term; small leks are most susceptible to 

extirpation. In PPH, there were 60 and 72 active leks in 2012 and 2013,

respectively. Combining data for 2012 and 2013 yielded 83 active leks. The data

from these years were combined to establish a more complete picture than 

either year would allow individually. The differences between years were 

primarily survey efforts and weather factors (accessibility to leks) that influenced 

active lek data.

Diagram 3-1, GRSG Survey Effort, Active Leks and Average Male Counts per 

Active Lek Surveyed in PPH 1952 – 2013, shows the average number of males 

per active lek over the survey period from 1952 to 2013 in PPH (Yellow Water, 

War Horse, Crooked Creek and Winifred), along with the number of leks 

surveyed and the number of active leks (leks in which male GRSG were 

observed). The gap in the lines indicates years in the 1960s in which no lek 

count data were available.

Lek count data collection efforts over the years have varied widely, and 

systematic efforts were not begun until the 1990s; thus, the data must be 

interpreted with caution. The graph shows a substantial increase in surveying 

effort in recent years, which has resulted in a larger number of active leks being 

observed. However, the number of males observed per lek is variable and has 
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

3-16 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Diagram 3-1

GRSG Survey Effort, Active Leks and Average Male Counts per Active Lek Surveyed in 

PPH 1952 – 2013

declined from approximately 30 males per lek in 2006 to approximately 10 

males per lek. The 2013 average male count was at the lowest level since 

surveys began in 1952.

Diagram 3-2, Percentage of PPH Leks in each Size Class 1952 – 2013, shows 

the percentage of leks measured in the small, medium, and large categories from 

1952 to 2013. The number of small leks has increased, while the number of 

large leks has declined.

Diagram 3-2

Percentage of PPH Leks in each Size Class 1952 – 2013
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-17

Table 3-5, 2012/2013 Active Lek Sizes within Planning Area, shows the sizes of 

active leks in Yellowstone Watershed and Belt Mountains PPH and PGH in 

2012/2013.

Table 3-5

2012/2013 Active Lek Sizes within Planning Area

Area Large Medium Small Total

LFO PPH Yellowstone Watershed Population 11 26 46 83

LFO PGH Yellowstone Watershed Population 0 1 1 2

LFO Belt Mountains Population 0 4 1 5

Table 3-6, Land Ownership by Population Area in PPH, shows the percentage 

of land under BLM and state jurisdiction in each subpopulation in Yellowstone 

Watershed. In all areas, the percentage of BLM-administered land is less than 

half, indicating the importance of both federal and private actions for GRSG 

conservation.

Table 3-6

Land Ownership by Population Area in PPH

PPH % BLM % State Acres

Winifred 8 8 162,760

Crooked Creek 19 6 294,202

War Horse 23 7 504,,481

Yellow Water Triangle 31 5 137,645

The Winifred area contains the smallest percentage (eight percent) of BLMadministered lands, with much more agriculture (11percent cropland) and less 

sagebrush (43 percent) than any other area in PPH. Sagebrush remaining on 

private, state, and BLM-administered lands allows the 17 GRSG leks (two of

which are large) to persist. The two large leks in the Winifred area were just 

over the 25 threshold.

The Crooked Creek area had 20 leks with males in 2012/2013. The only lek in 

the large category had over 50 males in 2012. The eastern part of the area 

contains a large portion of BLM-administered land, and the remainder of the 

area is mostly private. Agriculture occurs on three percent of the land, while 

sagebrush is on 63 percent. All fires reported in PPH were located in the 

Crooked Creek area. Vehicle access for surveys is especially difficult in this area,

and there are likely additional leks that have not been discovered to date.
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

3-18 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

The War Horse area is the largest and contains the greatest amount of BLMadministered lands throughout. There were 35 active leks (six of which are

large) in 2012/2013. Cat Creek oil field, in operation since the 1920s, is located 

on 951 acres of PPH in the southeastern corner of the area. There were 38 

producing wells in 2011. The field is largely played out with most wells plugged 

and abandoned.

The Yellow Water Triangle area contains the largest percentage (31 percent) of 

BLM-administered lands. The area contains 11 active leks (two of which are

large) in 2012 /2013.

Yellowstone Watershed PGH Lek Information

There are no leks on BLM-administered lands in PGH. There is much less 

sagebrush habitat in PGH (38 percent), compared to PPH (57 percent) for all 

ownerships), and fewer active leks (two) in these areas compared to PPH.

Patterns of land ownership within these areas are smaller sized contiguous 

blocks and a lower proportion of BLM-administration in the area (11 percent

PGH on BLM-administered lands compared to 19 percent PPH on BLMadministered lands).

LFO Belt Mountains Population Lek Information

The Belt Mountains Population inhabits approximately 300,000 acres of PGH in 

the planning area (all ownerships), of which BLM administers 439 acres (0.1

percent). BLM habitat includes 310 acres of sagebrush and 36 acres of forested 

areas. Conifer encroachment on BLM-administered lands is occurring and 

impacts sagebrush habitats on and adjacent to BLM-administered lands. There 

were five active leks in 2013, and the closest to BLM was approximately 2.5 

miles.

3.3.3 Trends

As show in Diagram 3-1, lek counts (average males) in the planning area in 

2012/2013 were the lowest since counts began in the 1950s. Several land 

management factors could be contributing to the decline in GRSG population 

numbers in the planning area (USFWS 2013, p. 65). Intermingled private land in 

the traditional GRSG areas has been actively cultivated in recent years, causing a 

loss of habitat. Some parcels of BLM-administered land contain predominant or 

continuous stands of crested wheatgrass persisting from the Bankhead-Jones 

Land Utilization era. Many of these crested wheatgrass dominated lands exhibit 

little reinvasion of the native sagebrush community and comprise a monoculture 

with limited GRSG value. Oil and gas development in the LFO has been limited, 

so this development has minimally contributed to sagebrush habitat loss and 

fragmentation. Weather, in particular a harsh winter in 2010 followed by a cool, 

wet spring in 2011 and drought in 2012, was likely the cause for the lower male 

lek counts recently.
3. Affected Environment (Lands and Realty)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-19

3.4 LANDS AND REALTY

Lands and realty actions can be divided between land use authorizations, land 

tenure adjustments, and withdrawals. Land use authorizations consist of ROWs, 

communication sites, and other leases or permits, while land tenure adjustments 

focus primarily on land exchange, acquisition (including purchase and easement 

acquisition), and disposal. Management and adjustment of withdrawals focuses 

on the establishment, management, modification, and revocation of withdrawals.

Land Use Authorizations

A ROW is the most common form of authorization to permit uses of BLMadministered lands by commercial, private, or governmental entities. A ROW 

grant is an authorization to use a specific piece of public land for projects such 

as roads, pipelines, transmission lines, and communication sites. The ROW grant 

authorizes rights and privileges for a specific period of time.

The BLM's objective is to grant ROWs to any qualified individual, business, or 

government entity and to direct and control the use of ROWs on BLMadministered lands in a manner that:

• protects the natural resources associated with BLM-administered 

lands and adjacent lands, whether private or administered by a 

government entity

• prevents unnecessary or undue degradation to BLM-administered

lands

• promotes the use of ROWs in common, considering engineering 

and technological compatibility, national security, and area RMPs

• coordinates, to the fullest extent possible, all BLM actions with 

local, State, Native American Tribal, and other federal agencies; 

interested individuals; and appropriate quasi-public entities (43 CFR 

2801.2)

Some uses of BLM-administered lands are authorized through long-term land 

uses, while permits are used to authorize short-term uses. Private individuals 

and groups, as well as various businesses and government entities can hold these 

authorizations.

To the extent possible, linear ROWs (such as roads and pipelines) are routed 

where impacts would be least disturbing to environmental resources, taking into 

account point of origin, point of destination, and purpose and need of the 

project. The ROWs are issued with surface reclamation stipulations and other 

mitigation measures. Restrictions and mitigation measures may be modified on a 

case-by-case basis, depending upon impacts on resources. In general, the 

placement of major linear facilities depends upon meeting the following location 

criteria:
3. Affected Environment (Lands and Realty)

3-20 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

• concentrate linear facilities within, or contiguous to, existing 

corridors, where possible

• avoid locations that would take intensively managed forest land out 

of production

• avoid locations that would harass livestock or wildlife;

• avoid steep topography, poor soils, or other fragile areas (such as 

habitat for Threatened or Endangered species) 

• avoid cultural sites that are listed on, or are eligible for listing on, 

the National Register of Historic Places 

Land Tenure Adjustments

Land ownership (or land tenure) adjustment refers to those actions that result 

in the disposal, or the acquisition by the BLM of non-federal lands or interests in 

land. FLPMA requires that public land be retained in public ownership unless, as 

a result of land use planning, disposal of certain parcels is warranted and in the 

public interest. Tracts of land that are designated in BLM land use plans as 

potentially available for disposal can be conveyed out of federal ownership 

through an exchange rather than a sale. Acquisition of and interests in lands are 

important components of the BLM’s land tenure adjustment strategy.

Withdrawals

Withdrawals are used to preserve sensitive environmental values, protect major 

federal investments in facilities, support national security, and provide for public 

health and safety. A withdrawal is a formal action that accomplishes one or 

more of the following actions:

• Transfers total or partial jurisdiction of federal land between federal 

agencies

• Segregates (closes) federal lands to appropriation under public land 

laws including mineral laws

• Dedicates public land for a specific public purpose

There are three major categories of formal withdrawals: (1) congressional 

withdrawals, (2) administrative withdrawals, and (3) Federal Power Act or 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission withdrawals. Withdrawal segregates a 

portion of public lands and suspends certain operations of the public land laws, 

such as mining claims. Certain stock driveways are also withdrawn. Federal 

policy now restricts all withdrawals to the minimum time and acreage required 

to serve the public interest, maximizes the use of withdrawn lands consistent 

with their primary purpose, and eliminates all withdrawals that are no longer 

needed.
3. Affected Environment (Lands and Realty)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-21

3.4.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

The planning area contains lands owned or administered by the BLM, other 

federal agencies (e.g., Forest Service, the Bureau of Reclamation), various state 

agencies, and private land owners. Table 3-7, Surface Ownership within the 

Planning Area, shows the acreage and overall percentage of GRSG habitat for 

each land owner in the planning area. Also see Figure 3-1 in Appendix A.

Table 3-7

Surface Ownership within the Planning Area

Surface Ownership Planning Area 

(acres)

PPH

(acres)

PGH

(acres)

BLM-administered lands 593,995 233,219 (39%) 112,341 (19%)

Other federal lands 1,010,816 3,688 (0.4%) 1,717 (0.2%)

State lands 526,504 90,587 (17%) 83,438 (16%)

Private 5,168,165 878,171 (17%) 816,869 (16%)

Water 12,039 2,329 (19%) 670 (6%)

Total Planning Area 7,311,519 1,207,994 (17%) 1,015,035 (14%)

Source: BLM 2012a

WAFWA Management Zones 1 and 4

Table 3-8, GRSG Habitat within City Limits, through Table 3-11, Vertical 

Obstructions within GRSG Habitat, display data compiled in a BER produced by 

the USGS and BLM (Manier et al. 2013). In each table, acreages and mileages are 

presented by surface management agency and their occurrence within PGH and 

PPH in the planning area, and MZs I and IV. The data and information included 

from the BER was the most accurate available when the data was “frozen” in 

time for analysis purposes; however, these scenarios remain based in present 

knowledge. Spatial data informing the existing conditions were compiled to 

establish a consistent information base across the entire region (GRSG 

Management Area), but, in order to attain this consistently across state, 

ownership, and management boundaries, some local data have been omitted. 

There may be inconsistencies between WAFWA-level and local planning-level 

data. As such, these data provide a regional baseline, suitable for guiding regional 

mid- to long-term analysis scenarios (Manier et al. 2013).

There are no utility corridors or utility-scale wind energy developments in the 

planning area (Manier et al. 2013).
3. Affected Environment (Lands and Realty)

3-22 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 3-8

GRSG Habitat within City Limits

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 0 9,300 19,700 0 53 1,100

Forest Service 0 8 700 0 60 0

Tribal and Other 

Federal

0 200 100 0 0 0

Private 400 113,200 43,400 100 4,100 4,100

State 0 7,300 2,800 0 800 31

Other 0 0 38 0 6 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013, p. 32

Table 3-9

Transmission Lines within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres1 within PGH Acres1 within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 800 35,500 42,000 2,600 7,300 83,600

Forest Service 0 7,300 3,500 0 1,300 5,800

Tribal and Other 

Federal

0 56,300 4,700 0 700 10,700

Private 4,500 452,600 57,900 9,900 58,500 47,000

State 300 37,800 11,200 1,300 8,100 6,500

Other 0 600 900 0 20 2,800

Source: Manier et al. 2013, p. 41 1

Includes transmission lines greater than 115 kilovolts.

Table 3-10

Number of Communication Towers within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Number1 within PGH Number1 within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 0 108 163 0 20 182

Forest Service 0 36 36 0 1 22

Tribal and Other 

Federal

1 167 51 0 0 11
3. Affected Environment (Lands and Realty)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-23

Table 3-10

Number of Communication Towers within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Number1 within PGH Number1 within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

Private 13 2,161 199 18 149 162

State 0 108 23 0 14 17

Other 0 10 3 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013 1

Displays the number of Federal Communication Commission communication towers.

Table 3-11

Vertical Obstructions within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres1 within PGH Acres1 within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 0 0 12 0 0 17

Forest Service 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tribal and Other 

Federal

56 7 20 0 0 2

Private 733 230 17 1,015 0 17

State 0 17 7 0 0 0

Other 0 15 0 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013, p. 45 1

Derived from dataset containing Federal Communication Commission communication towers and 

Federal Aviation Administration vertical obstructions. Excludes wind towers. Assumes a buffer of 56.4 

meters (2.47 acres) around each obstruction.

3.4.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

Land Use Authorizations

Diagram 3-3, Land Use Authorizations, provides the number of land use 

authorizations on BLM-administered lands in Chouteau, Fergus, Judith Basin, 

Meagher, and Petroleum counties in the planning area between 2000 and 2013.

Within GRSG habitat, there are 643 acres of ROW authorizations in PPH and 

266 acres in PGH. Table 3-12, Active ROW Authorizations within GRSG

Habitat, provides a breakdown of ROW types, miles, and acres in each habitat 

type.
3. Affected Environment (Lands and Realty)

3-24 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Diagram 3-3

Land Use Authorizations

Table 3-12

Active ROW Authorizations within GRSG Habitat

ROW Type PPH (Miles) PGH (Miles)

Road/highway 20 10

Power/transmission line 42 15

Telephone 62 19

Water facilities 10 0

Pipeline or conduit 17 8

Railroad 0 1

Other 11 0

Total Miles 162 53

Total Acres 643 266

Source: BLM 2012a

ROW Avoidance and Exclusion Areas

ROWs are issued with surface reclamation stipulations and other mitigation 

measures. Areas closed to mineral leasing, having a NSO restriction, or 

otherwise identified as unsuitable for surface disturbance or occupancy are 
3. Affected Environment (Lands and Realty)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-25

generally identified as avoidance or exclusion areas for ROWs. Restrictions and 

mitigation measures could be modified on a case-by-case basis for avoidance 

areas, depending on impacts on resources, while exclusion areas are strictly 

prohibited from ROW development.

The Acid Shale Pine Forest ACEC (2,463 acres) is the only area identified as a 

ROW avoidance area in PPH. Judith River Canyon (7,383 acres) is also identified 

as a ROW avoidance area; 98 percent (7,245 acres) are located within PGH. 

There are no ROW exclusion areas in the planning area. See Table 3-13, 

ROW Avoidance Areas within the Planning Area.

Table 3-13

ROW Avoidance Areas within the Planning Area

Avoidance Area Total Acres PPH

(acres)

PGH

(acres)

Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC 2,463 2,463 (100%) 0

Judith Mountains 19,180 0 0

Judith River Canyon 7,383 0 7,245 (98%)

South Moccasin Mountain 1,167 0 0

Total 30,193 2,463 (8%) 7,245 (24%)

Source: BLM 2012a

ROW Corridors and Communication Sites

There are no ROW corridors in the planning area. Communication sites contain 

equipment for various public and private tenants, including phone companies; 

local utilities; and local, state, and other federal agencies. Communication site 

applications are granted through a realty lease authorization under the ROW 

regulations.

BLM-administered lands would continue to be available for multiple- and singleuse communication sites and road access ROWs on a case-by-case basis 

pursuant to Title V of FLPMA, and 43 CFR 2800 regulations. All ROW 

applications are reviewed using the criteria of following existing corridors 

wherever practical and avoiding the proliferation of separate ROW.

There are two communication sites on BLM-administered lands within the 

planning area; however, neither is located within PPH or PGH (see Table 3-14, 

Communication Sites within the Planning Area).
3. Affected Environment (Lands and Realty)

3-26 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 3-14

Communication Sites within the Planning Area

Site Location

Judith Mountain NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec 19 T 17 N R 20E MM

South Moccasin Mountain NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec 2 T 16 N R 17E MM

Source: BLM 2012a

Renewable Energy

Wind and solar resource facilities are authorized with ROWs through the lands 

and realty program. Geothermal resources are considered fluid leasable 

minerals. As a result, management actions related to the lands and realty 

program and leasable minerals could affect renewable energy resources. Special 

management designation areas such as ACECs could also affect the use of 

renewable energy resources by limiting the location of these facilities. There are 

no active renewable energy ROW authorizations within the planning area. 

Section 3.21, Renewable Energy, provides a description of renewable energy 

resources.

Land Tenure Adjustments

Disposal

There are no pending land sales within the planning area; however, there is one 

pending land exchange within PPH. Four hundred eighty (480) acres of surface 

lands are proposed to be exchanged: 240 acres would be moved from private 

ownership to BLM administration, and 240 acres would be moved from BLM to 

private ownership. The purpose of this exchange is to resolve a trespassing 

concern. The proposed exchange includes land containing a GRSG lek site that 

would be managed by the BLM after the exchange is completed. There are no 

pending land exchanges in PGH.

Withdrawal

There are seven withdrawals within GRSG habitat, all of which are held by the 

US Government. Of these withdrawals, 101 acres are located within PPH and 

2,436 are located with PGH (see Table 3-15, Withdrawal Lands within GRSG 

Habitat).

Table 3-15

Withdrawal Lands within GRSG Habitat

Withdrawal PPH (Acres) PGH (Acres)

EO Power Site 33 0 1,419

EO Power Site 56 0 119

PLO 2336 41 0
3. Affected Environment (Lands and Realty)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-27

Table 3-15

Withdrawal Lands within GRSG Habitat

Withdrawal PPH (Acres) PGH (Acres)

PLO 3633 20 0

Public Water Reserve 40 0

SO Power Site Class 301 0 240

SO Power Site Class 369 0 586

Total 101 2,436

Source: BLM 2012a

EO – Executive Order, PLO – Public Land Order, SO – Secretarial Order (all 

are held by the US Government)

Acquisitions

There are no proposed acquisitions in the planning area.

3.4.3 Trends

On average, there have been five land use authorizations per year between 2000 

and 2013 (see Diagram 3-3). Demand for land use authorizations in the 

planning area may increase due to possible oil and gas development in the area. 

There is some potential for land use authorizations for renewable energy

projects (wind, solar, and geothermal), although no requests have been 

submitted recently. It is anticipated that ROW authorizations for 

communication sties and utilities will remain at current levels. 

The BLM will process land exchanges, acquisitions, easements, and potential 

sales within the planning area on a case-by-case basis as staff and priority 

workload allow. As opportunities present themselves, each proposal will be 

reviewed and given careful consideration to management goals and public 

benefit. Currently, the land tenure program within the LFO receives very few 

land tenure adjustment requests per year; it is anticipated that this program will 

continue to experience low levels of activity.

3.5 VEGETATION (INCLUDING NOXIOUS WEEDS; RIPARIAN AND WETLANDS)

Vegetation serves multiple purposes on the landscape and provides many 

ecosystem services. Vegetation stabilizes soils, prevents erosion, uses carbon 

dioxide, releases oxygen, increases species diversity, and provides habitat and 

food for animals and products for human use. Many of the BLM’s land 

management policies are directed toward maintenance of healthy vegetation 

communities. Vegetation can be characterized generally by ecological provinces 

and more specifically by plant communities. The ecological provinces and plant 

communities discussed below are those that provide the most important land 

cover across the planning area.
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

3-28 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

3.5.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

All Vegetation

The planning area lies within two Level III Ecoregions: Northwestern Great 

Plains and Middle Rockies (EPA 2011a). Most of the planning area is within the 

Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion, which is characterized by semiarid rolling 

plains of shale, siltstone, and sandstone punctuated by occasional buttes and 

badlands. Rangeland is common, but crop and hay production also occur; native 

grasslands persist in areas of steep or broken topography. 

Rangeland vegetation consists of sagebrush grasslands, grasslands, and lightly 

vegetated badlands. Mixed shrub and deciduous tree communities are found in 

drainages throughout all of these vegetation types. Common grasses and grasslike species include bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), green 

needle-grass (Nasella viridula), needle and thread (Hesperostipa comata), western 

wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), prairie junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), blue 

grama (Bouteloua gracilis), prairie sandreed (Calamovilfa longifolia), Sandberg 

bluegrass (Poa secunda), and threadleaf sedge (Carex filifolia). Introduced grasses 

are found in some areas, either in pure stands or intermingled with native 

species.

Crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) is the most prevalent introduced 

perennial grass in the planning area, with stands occurring in localized areas in 

several allotments. Smooth brome (B. inermis) is also a non-native perennial 

grass. Introduced annual grasses include cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), and 

Japanese brome (B. japonicus). Although cheatgrass and several non-native 

brome species are present in the planning area, their spread is restricted by 

climatic conditions. They are found in isolated, non-contiguous patches and do 

not currently pose a threat of invading vast areas of PPH or PGH.

Common shrubs in the planning area include big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), 

silver sagebrush (A. cana), shrubby cinquefoil (Dasiphora fruticosa ssp. floribunda), 

wild rose (Rosa woodsii), saltbush (Atriplex spp.), greasewood (Sarcobatus 

vermiculatus), and rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa). Other common 

vegetation includes prickly pear cactus (Opuntia spp.), ponderosa pine (Pinus 

ponderosa), common juniper (Juniperus communis), western yarrow (Achillea 

millefolium var. occidentalis), wild onion (Allium spp.), pussytoes (Antennaria spp.), 

heartleaf arnica (Arnica cordifolia), cudweed sagewort (Artemisia ludoviciana), 

milkvetch (Astragalus spp.), arrowleaf balsamroot (Balsamorhiza sagittata), hairy 

goldenaster (Heterotheca villosa), purple prairie clover (Dalea purpurea), low 

larkspur (Delphinium bicolor), black Sampson (Echineacea angustifolia), sticky 

geranium (Geranium viscosissium), curlycup gumweed (Grindelia squarrosa var. 

quasiperennis), Rocky Mountain iris (Iris missouriensis), lupine (Lupinus spp.), 

yellow sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis), woolly Indian wheat (Plantago 

patagonica), Hoodʼs phlox (Phlox hoodii), dense clubmoss (Selaginella densa), 
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-29

scarlet globemallow (Sphaeralcea coccinea ssp. coccinea), and salsify (Tragopogon 

dubius) among others.

Forested vegetation types include ponderosa pine and ponderosa pine/Douglasfir. Both vegetation types are common on BLM-administered lands. Ponderosa 

pine is common on south slopes and ridges and the ponderosa pine/Douglas fir 

type is common on steep north facing slopes. Forested areas are generally 

patchy and disconnected because of the broken topography.

Riparian and Wetland

Riparian areas are defined as the green zones associated with lakes, reservoirs, 

estuaries, potholes, springs, bogs, wet meadows, and streams (ephemeral, 

intermittent, or perennial). Greasewood and silver sagebrush are common in 

alluvial flats in or near riparian areas. Woody riparian species found in the 

planning area include sandbar willow (Salix exigua), peachleaf willow (S.

amygdaloides), yellow willow (S. lutea), and plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides),

Snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), hawthorn 

(Crataegus spp.), wild rose, buffaloberry (Shepherdia spp.), and gooseberry (Ribes

spp.) are shrubs commonly found in coulees and woody draws. The riparian 

zone occurs between the upland zone and the aquatic zone. Riparian areas are 

characterized by water tables at or near the soil surface, and by vegetation 

requiring high water tables. See Figure 3-3, Wetland and Riparian Areas, in 

Appendix A.

The functioning condition of riparian and wetland areas is a result of the 

interaction of geology, soil, water, and vegetation (BLM 1998). 

Lotic Waters

Lotic waters are running water systems, such as rivers, streams, and springs. 

Riparian/wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, 

landform, or large woody debris is present to:

• Dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflows, thereby 

reducing erosion and improving water quality

• Filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development

• Improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge 

• Develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting 

action

• Develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the 

habitat, water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish 

production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses

• Support greater biodiversity
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

3-30 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Lentic waters

Lentic waters are standing water systems, such as lakes, ponds, seeps, bogs, and 

wet meadows. Woody sedge (Carex rosea) and three-square bulrush 

(Schoenoplectus americanus) are common obligate riparian-wetland plants found 

in central and eastern Montana. Lentic riparian/wetland areas are functioning 

properly when adequate vegetation, landform, or debris is present to:

• Dissipate energies associated with wind action, wave action, and 

overland flow from adjacent sites, thereby reducing erosion and 

improving water quality

• Filter sediment and aid floodplain development

• Improve flood water retention and groundwater recharge

• Develop root masses that stabilize islands and shoreline features 

against cutting action

• Restrict water percolation

• Develop diverse ponding characteristics to provide the habitat and 

water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish 

production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses

• Support greater biodiversity

Riparian/wetland areas are classified as functional-at-risk when they are in 

functional condition but an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes 

them susceptible to degradation. These areas are further distinguished based on 

whether or not they demonstrate an upward, static, or downward trend.

Riparian/wetland areas are classified as nonfunctional when they clearly are not 

providing adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris to dissipate 

stream energy associated with high flows, and thus are not reducing erosion, 

improving water quality, or providing other functions, as listed above.

Riparian/wetland areas are classified as being in unknown condition when the 

BLM lacks sufficient information to make a determination. PFC assessments 

completed on BLM-administered lands are described below in Section 3.5.2.

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species

A noxious weed is defined by Montana Law (MCA 7-22-2101) as, “any exotic 

plant species established or that may be introduced in the state that may render 

land unfit for agriculture, forestry, livestock, wildlife, or other beneficial uses or 

that may harm native plant communities.” A noxious weed is any unwanted nonnative plant with potential impact serious to the extent that it has been declared 

by the state of Montana that landowners must enter into an approved 

management program to keep it from spreading. (Montana Department of 

Agriculture 2010).
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-31

Noxious and invasive weeds compete with native vegetation for water, space, 

and nutrients and have the potential to displace desirable native vegetation to 

the point of altering the vegetative composition and structure present onsite.

Montana’s noxious weeds are placed into priorities based on how abundant and 

widespread the species is across the state. See Table 3-16, Montana Noxious 

Weed List, for a listing of noxious weeds by priority.

Invasive plants also occur within the planning area. These include not only 

noxious weeds, but also other plants that are not native to the US. The BLM 

considers plants invasive if they have been introduced into an environment 

where they did not evolve. As a result, they usually have no natural enemies to 

limit their reproduction and spread (Westbrooks 1998). Some invasive plants 

can produce significant changes to vegetation, composition, structure, or 

ecosystem function (Cronk and Fuller 1995).

Table 3-16

Montana Noxious Weed List

Priority

1A

These weeds are not present in Montana. Management criteria will require eradication 

if detected; education; and prevention.

- Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis)

Priority

1B

These weeds have limited presence in Montana. Management criteria will require 

eradication or containment and education.

- Dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria)

- Flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus)

- Japanese knotweed complex (Polygonum spp.)

- Purple loosestrife (Lythrum spp.)

- Rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea)

- Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum)

- Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius)

- Curlyleaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus)

Priority

2A

These weeds are common in isolated areas of Montana. Management criteria will 

require eradication or containment where less abundant. Management shall be 

prioritized by local weed districts.

- Tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea)

- Meadow hawkweed complex (Hieracium spp.)

- Orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum)

- Tall buttercup (Ranunculus acris)

- Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium)

- Yellowflag iris (Iris pseudacorus)

- Blueweed (Echium vulgare)

- Hoary alyssum (Berteroa incana)

Priority

2B

These weeds are abundant in Montana and widespread in many counties. Management 

criteria will require eradication or containment where less abundant. Management shall 

be prioritized by local weed districts.

- Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense)
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

3-32 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 3-16

Montana Noxious Weed List

- Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis)

- Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)

- Whitetop (Cardaria draba)

- Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens)

- Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe or C. maculosa)

- Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa)

- Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica)

- St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum)

- Sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta)

- Common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare)

- Oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum or Leucanthemum vulgare)

- Houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale)

- Yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris)

- Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.)

Priority

3

Regulated Plants: (NOT MONTANA LISTED NOXIOUS WEEDS)

These regulated plants have the potential to have significant negative impacts. The plant 

may not be intentionally spread or sold other than as a contaminant in agricultural 

products. The state recommends research, education and prevention to minimize the 

spread of the regulated plant.

- Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum)

- Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata)

- Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia)

Source: Montana Department of Agriculture 2010

WAFWA Management Zones 1 and 4

Table 3-17, Cheatgrass Potential within GRSG Habitat, and Table 3-18, 

Cropland within GRSG Habitat, display data compiled in a BER produced by the 

USGS and BLM (Manier et. al. 2013). In these tables, acres with cheatgrass 

potential and croplands are presented by surface management agency and their 

occurrence within PGH and PPH in the planning area, and MZs I and IV. The 

data and information included from the BER was the most accurate available 

when the data was “frozen” in time for analysis purposes; however, these 

scenarios remain based in present knowledge. Spatial data informing the existing 

conditions were compiled to establish a consistent information base across the 

entire region (GRSG Management Area), but, in order to attain this consistently 

across state, ownership, and management boundaries, some local data have 

been omitted. There may be inconsistencies between WAFWA-level and local 

planning-level data. As such, these data provide a regional baseline, suitable for 

guiding regional mid- to long-term analysis scenarios (Manier et al. 2013).

In Table 3-17, cheatgrass potential was not mapped for MZ 1. Although the 

distribution of cheatgrass has been documented in Montana, the currently 

available model was only parameterized for the Great Basin (MZs III, IV, and V).
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-33

Table 3-17

Cheatgrass Potential within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres1 within PGH Acres1 within PPH

Planning 

Area2 MZ 12 MZ IV Planning Area2 MZ 12 MZ IV

BLM n/a n/a 6,234,900 n/a n/a 13,995,500

Forest Service n/a n/a 1,086,900 n/a n/a 1,521,600

Tribal and Other 

Federal

n/a n/a 740,200 n/a n/a 974,100

Private n/a n/a 4,257,400 n/a n/a 5,643,800

State n/a n/a 945,500 n/a n/a 1,022,900

Other n/a n/a 54,900 n/a n/a 93,800

Source: Manier et al. 2013 1

Acreage comprised of areas with a high potential for cheatgrass occurrence. 2

Cheatgrass occurrence was mapped for MZs III, IV and V (i.e., the Great Basin region), but not for MZs 1, II or 

VII, including the planning area. Data for cheatgrass occurrence in MZ IV at the planning area-level was not 

available.

Table 3-18

Cropland within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres1 within PGH Acres1 within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 800 17,700 14,500 1,200 6,600 14,800

Forest Service 0 1,000 1,800 0 600 900

Tribal and Other 

Federal

100 534,900 1,800 0 1,300 500

Private 91,000 2,436,900 233,600 98,200 247,400 55,200

State 2,900 93,300 4,400 1,500 5,400 800

Other 0 300 1,300 0 0 200

Source: Manier et al. 2013 1

Based on data provided by the National Agricultural Statistics Service.

3.5.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

All Vegetation

Acres of vegetation types within GRSG habitat on BLM-administered lands 

within the planning area are presented in Table 3-19, Vegetation Communities 

within GRSG Habitat on BLM-Administered Lands. Sagebrush acreage is 

included under shrubland, steppe, and savanna systems.
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

3-34 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 3-19

Vegetation Communities within GRSG Habitat on BLM-Administered Lands

Vegetation Community PPH (acres) PGH (acres) Outside GRSG

Habitat (acres)

Human land use 2,592 1,732 582

Aquatic 203 132 75

Sparse and barren systems 2,838 22,597 40,515

Forest and woodland 

systems

6,906 15,031 91,458

Shrubland, steppe, and 

savanna systems

173,088 55,787 87,757

Grassland systems 33,485 11,510 20,804

Recently disturbed or 

modified

4,807 1,757 2,216

Riparian and wetland

systems

9,298 3,783 5,042

Source: USGS 2010

The BLM assesses rangeland health on a regular basis. Rangeland health is 

defined as the degree to which the integrity of the soil, vegetation, water, and 

air as well as the ecological process of the rangeland system is balanced and 

maintained (BLM Technical Reference 1734-6, BLM 2005c). Of the 526 

allotments on BLM-administered lands within the planning area, 316 are meeting 

land health standards.

Riparian and Wetland Vegetation

Wetland vegetation and associated freshwater habitat within the planning area 

are presented in Table 3-20, Wetland Vegetation and Aquatic Habitat within 

GRSG Habitat on BLM-Administered Lands.

Table 3-20

Wetland Vegetation and Aquatic Habitat within GRSG Habitat on BLMAdministered Lands

Vegetation/Habitat PPH (acres) PGH (acres) Outside GRSG

Habitat (acres)

Wetland 1,002 77 160

Freshwater pond and 

lacustrine

974 60 210

Source: USGS 2010
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-35

PFC assessments completed on BLM-administered lands within the planning area 

are presented in Table 3-21, PFC Assessments within GRSG Habitat on BLMAdministered Lands.

Table 3-21

PFC Assessments within GRSG Habitat on BLM-Administered Lands

PFC Rating 1,2 PPH (miles) PGH (miles) Outside GRSG Habitat 

(miles)

PFC 43.6 41.6 70.5

FARD 3.9 0.2 2.8

FARN 18.3 16.4 16.6

FARU 10.0 3.4 3.3

NF 12.0 3.3 7.0

Source: BLM 2012a 1 Dataset is provisional and some stream ratings are not current as of 2012 season

2 PFC – proper functioning condition; FARD – functional at risk with downward trend; FARN –

functional at risk with no trend; FARU – functional at risk with upward trend; NF – nonfunctional

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species

Infestations of noxious weeds are present on BLM-administered lands, with 

higher concentrations along the major drainages and their tributaries. Several 

weed species have been identified within the planning area; the largest areas of 

infestation are occupied by: 

• Leafy spurge

• Canada thistle

• Spotted knapweed

• Russian knapweed

• Field bindweed

• Dalmatian toadflax

• Whitetop (hoary cress)

• Houndstongue

• Salt cedar

• Black Henbane 

• Sulfur cinquefoil 

Introduced annual brome species, such as downy and Japanese brome, also 

occur within the planning area. While these species have impacted rangelands 

within the area, the scale of these impacts has been limited compared with the 
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

3-36 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

impacts from these species in the Great Basin and southwest, due to climactic 

conditions and vegetation types within the planning area. The BLM has been 

actively involved in an integrated weed control program within the planning area 

for several years and continues to monitor for new infestations of other 

noxious weeds.

3.5.3 Trends

All Vegetation

Continuing conversion of rangeland to cropland has caused the loss of shrubsteppe vegetation, including sagebrush. Development pressure on private lands 

for farmland and oil and gas developments will continue to cause decline of 

sagebrush ecosystems.

Conifer densities have been increasing in many forested areas. Pine seedlings 

and saplings are expanding into rangeland areas on forest margins. Heavy stand 

densities cause competition among conifers, with associated declines in forest 

health and decreased productivity of understory vegetation such as grasses, 

forbs, and shrubs. Drought has exacerbated the condition. Understory conifers 

contribute to fuel loadings that create a continuous fuel bed from the ground to 

the canopy. Wildland fire can be severe in these areas. The encroachment of 

ponderosa pine into open parks reduces biodiversity, crowds out 

sagebrush/grassland habitat and creates an increase threat of severe fires due to 

an increase in the continuity of fuels.

Riparian and Wetland

Riparian and wetland condition in many areas of the planning area are likely to 

be improved through adjustment and implementation of grazing systems. Based 

on land health assessments, the trend for many riparian and wetland areas is 

improving. Riparian-wetland areas in PFC are in an improving trend. As projects 

intended to meet Standards for Rangeland Health are implemented, conditions 

are expected to continue to improve.

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species

Weed infestations have grown appreciably during the past two decades. As a 

result of this expansion of weed infestations, control of noxious weeds within 

the planning area has become mostly permittee/lessee-based. Permittees and 

lessees are required to enter into a Cooperative Weed Control Range 

Improvement Agreement with the BLM for noxious weeds found on their 

grazing allotments as per terms and conditions on their permits and leases. 

Under the terms of the cooperative agreements, the BLM provides the chemical 

for control of the weed species and the permittee/lessee provides the labor for 

application. Application records and a map of the application are required by the 

BLM after spraying has been completed.

Biological control agents are also approved for use under the cooperative 

agreements. Biological control agents have shown promise controlling leafy 
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-37

spurge and spotted knapweed infestations, which have proven difficult to 

control on their own because of terrain. Established insect populations are 

monitored, collected, and dispersed by BLM personnel and permittees. Control 

agents for dalmation toadflax and Canada thistle have been released within the 

planning area with limited success. New biological control agents are released 

within the planning area as they become available and their success monitored.

3.6 WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGY

Wildland fire is a general term describing any non-structure fire that occurs in 

the vegetation and/or natural fuels. Wildland fires are categorized by two types; 

wildfires, which are unplanned ignitions or planned ignitions that have been 

declared wildfires, and prescribed fires, which are planned ignitions (Wildland

Fire Leadership Council 2009). Wildfire occurs in the planning area, particularly 

during times of drought.

National BLM fire policy requires that current and desired resource conditions 

related to fire management be described in terms of fire regime condition class 

(FRCC). The current condition of a vegetative community is a function of the 

degree of departure from historical fire regimes, resulting in alterations of key 

ecosystem components, such as species composition, structural stage, stand age, 

and canopy closure. This departure may have resulted from a number of factors, 

including fire exclusion or suppression, vegetation resources, grazing, 

introduction and establishment of exotic plant species, insects or disease 

(introduced or native), or other past management activities (Hann and Bunnell 

2001).

The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy was developed by the secretaries of 

the departments of Interior and Agriculture in 1995 in response to dramatic 

increases in the frequency, size, and catastrophic nature of wildland fires in the 

US. The 2001 review and update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management 

Policy (DOI et al. 2001) consists of findings, guiding principles, policy statements, 

and implementation actions, and replaces the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire 

Management Policy as the primary interagency wildland fire policy document. 

This document directs federal agencies to achieve a balance between fire 

suppression to protect life, property, and resources, and fire use to regulate 

fuels and maintain healthy ecosystems. Multiple updates have been provided in 

memorandum and current implementation direction has been provided in the 

February 2009 Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire 

Management Policy (USDA and DOI 2009). The BLM’s policies follow this plan 

and implementation guidelines.

Wildland fire has been a primary concern associated with GRSG habitat and 

population declines in the western portion of their range (Great Basin) due to 

an increase in fire frequency. Climate change may shift the range of invasive 

plants, potentially expanding the importance of this threat into other areas of 

the species’ range (USFWS 2013).
3. Affected Environment (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

3-38 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Spread of invasive weed species is another concern in fire management. Spread 

of invasive species can displace native species and decrease habitat quality for 

the GRSG.

3.6.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

GRSG largely inhabit the eastern part of the planning region, primarily in 

Petroleum County and Fergus County. Fires are frequent in the planning area, 

particularly near the Missouri and Musselshell River Breaks areas. Intense 

lightning storms occur in the planning region between July and September, often 

resulting in wildfires (BLM 1992). While cheatgrass is present in the planning 

area, its spread is restricted by climatic conditions. No large scale fire areas have 

been invaded by annual grasses; they are found in isolated, non-contiguous 

patches and do not currently pose a threat of invading vast areas of PPH or 

PGH.

WAFWA Management Zones 1 and 4

Table 3-22, Wildland Fire within GRSG Habitat, and Table 3-23, High 

Probability for Wildland Fire within GRSG Habitat, display data compiled in a 

BER produced by the USGS and BLM (Manier et al. 2013). In each table, acres 

are presented by surface management agency and their occurrence within PGH

and PPH in the planning area, and MZs I and IV. The data and information 

included from the BER was the most accurate available when the data was 

“frozen” in time for analysis purposes; however, these scenarios remain based in 

present knowledge. Spatial data informing the existing conditions were compiled 

to establish a consistent information base across the entire region (GRSG 

Management Area), but, in order to attain this consistently across state, 

ownership, and management boundaries, some local data have been omitted. 

There may be inconsistencies between WAFWA-level and local planning-level 

data. As such, these data provide a regional baseline, suitable for guiding regional 

mid- to long-term analysis scenarios (Manier et al. 2013).

Table 3-22 displays the total acres of land burned in wildland fire in the 

planning area and MZs I and IV between 2000 and 2012. The majority of fire 

occurred on tribal and other federal lands.

Table 3-22

Wildland Fire within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres1 within PGH Acres1 within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 6,700 74,300 965,900 500 22,000 1,809,400

Forest Service 0 6,400 161,500 0 1,800 33,900

Tribal and Other 

Federal

15,900 18,300 82,400 0 0 58,100

Private 2,200 446,600 190,300 600 81,000 417,400
3. Affected Environment (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-39

Table 3-22

Wildland Fire within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres1 within PGH Acres1 within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

State 1,900 35,600 30,900 0 10,600 53,100

Other 0 0 80 0 0 700

Source: Manier et al. 2013 1

Acres calculated from wildland fires occurring between 2000 and 2012.

Table 3-23 displays acres with high probability for wildland fire based on the 

Forest Service’s FSim data, a large fire simulator which develops fire probability 

data based on historical weather data and current land cover data.

Table 3-23

High Probability for Wildland Fire within GRSG Habitat

Surface

Management 

Agency

Acres1 within PGH Acres1 within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 134,600 718,800 4,438,100 24,100 299,200 11,904,200

Forest Service 0 208,800 621,400 0 124,900 1,163,200

Tribal and Other 

Federal

22,800 67,800 301,900 0 39,600 487,200

Private 68,400 4,621,600 2,268,400 47,200 1,271,600 4,068,100

State 14,400 523,700 649,700 3,100 185,800 738,700

Other 0 0 26,300 0 0 62,000

Source: Manier et al. 2013 1

Derived from Forest Service FSim Burn data

3.6.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

In 2004, the BLM developed the Lewistown Field Office Fire Management Plan 

for central Montana. The plan is currently under revision, with the final revised 

plan scheduled for release in the summer of 2013. The Fire Management Plan 

established five Fire Management Units (FMUs) for the LFO: The Big Open 

FMU, Breaks FMU, Prairie Forest FMU, Island Ranges FMU and the Front FMU.

Much of the BLM-administered land that is designated as PPH or PGH is 

included in the Breaks FMU and the Prairie Forest FMU.

The FRCC is an indicator of ecological departure from historical conditions 

such as that observed prior to Euro-American settlement. Departure is 

described as changes to one or more of the following ecological components:

vegetation characteristics, fuel composition, fire frequency, in combination with 
3. Affected Environment (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

3-40 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

changes to fire severity and pattern other associated disturbances (insects, 

disease, grazing, and drought).

The LANDFIRE project includes both a fire regime data layer and a vegetation 

departure data layer, which were used to estimate the degree of ecological 

departure for the different GRSG habitat types in the planning area. Class I 

represents a low degree of departure, and Class III a high degree of departure. 

Extreme departure from the historical conditions results in changes to one or 

more of the following ecological components: vegetation characteristics (species 

composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); 

fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated 

disturbances (e.g., insect and disease mortality, grazing, and drought). See 

Figure 3-4, Fire Regime Condition Class, in Appendix A, for the FRCC and 

LANDFIRE distribution in the planning area.

National vegetation condition class data is displayed below in Table 3-24, 

National Vegetation Condition Class on BLM-Administered Lands, the data 

provides an indication of the departure in PPH and PGH on BLM-administered 

lands in comparison to areas with non-habitat.

Table 3-24

National Vegetation Condition Class on BLM-Administered Lands

BLM-Administered 

Land Area Habitat Type Vegetation Condition Class Acreage

Judith Resource Area

Non Habitat

Class 1 19,871

Class II 54,128

Class III 165,959

PGH

Class I 35,270

Class II 27,286

Class III 48,677

PPH

Class I 7,502

Class II 96,242

Class III 127,882

Headwaters

Non Habitat

Class I 935

Class II 4,974

Class III 1,521

PGH

Class I 47

Class II 216

Class III 170

PPH

Class I N/A

Class II N/A

Class III N/A

Source: BLM 2012a

N/A = not applicable
3. Affected Environment (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-41

There is an average of only two human-caused fires every 10 years on BLMadministered land (BLM 2012a). Human-caused fires often occur as a result of 

debris burning or agricultural operations (BLM 2004a). Other fires on BLMadministered lands have been ignited during intense lightning storms that are 

common in the area. While the total acreage burned on BLM-administered lands 

over the past 10 years is relatively small, fires still result in impacts on GRSG

and their habitat.

No fire history data exists for the Headwaters Resource Management Plan area.

In the Judith Resource Area Resource Management Plan area, there have been 

12 fires over the past 10 years, burning approximately 33,440 acres total. Of 

this amount, approximately 31,200 acres burned were non-habitat lands, 290 

acres of PGH were burned, as were 1,950 acres of PPH. This data does not 

include all fire within the planning area. Table 3-25, Fires on BLM-Administered 

Lands within the Judith Resource Area RMP Area (1992-2012), displays 

information about fires on BLM-administered lands in the planning area.

Table 3-25

Fires on BLM-Administered Lands within the Judith Resource Area RMP Area 

(1992-2012)

Year Fire Name Fire Source No Habitat 

Acreage

PGH

Acreage

PPH

Acreage

1995 Lower Dunn Lightning 186.2

1996 Alkali Lightning 1,546.1

1999 377 Lightning 125

2000 Blood Lightning 539.0

2002 Browning Lightning 15.1

2003

Armells Lightning 4.8

Barrel Springs 3 Lightning 16.1

Tin Can Lightning 92.6

2005 McArthur Lightning 416.9

2006

Dovetail Lightning 2597.3

Drag Lightning 741.8

Soda Creek Lightning 6,163.3

2007

Chouteau Co 

Assist

Lightning 29.5

Fargo Coulee Lightning 0.0

Last Day Lightning 250.5

South Moccasin Human 48.9

Salt Creek Lightning 0 47.9

South McGinnis Lightning 23.2
3. Affected Environment (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

3-42 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 3-25

Fires on BLM-Administered Lands within the Judith Resource Area RMP Area 

(1992-2012)

Year Fire Name Fire Source No Habitat 

Acreage

PGH

Acreage

PPH

Acreage

2008

79 Trail Lightning 156.3

Blood Creek Lightning 14.3

Pickett Lightning 25.1

2009 Meissner Human 184.3 3.2

2010 Raven Rat Patch Lightning 6,653.7 477.4

2011 Blue Dunn Lightning 16.2

2012

15 Mile Lightning 860.7 193.6

Arrow 2 Lightning 9.9

Arrow Lightning 18.5

Boyce Lightning 5.1 201.3

Carol Lightning 2.1

Chain Buttes Lightning 3,000.2

First Time Lightning 12.7

Kingsbury Lightning 6.8

South Chain Lightning 737.9

Wolf Creek Lightning 6,880.7 1,244.4

Source: BLM 2012a

Fires that occur within PPH and PGH would pose the greatest threat to GRSG. 

Fires within PPH would be particularly damaging because these areas have been 

identified as having the highest conservation value to maintaining sustainable 

GRSG populations.

Wildland fire use will not be part of the LFO fire management strategy due to 

high winds, difficulties in maintaining pre-determined fire sizes, and the large 

amount of damage fire could do to grazing allotments (BLM 2004a). This could 

serve to prevent the spread of fire and protect GRSG habitat.

Of the five FMUs in the LFO, all are explicitly managed to protect sagebrush 

habitat or GRSG. This could also result in management actions that would 

protect GRSG habitat from impacts due to wildland fire.

3.6.3 Trends

Over the past 10 years, two human-caused fires have been reported as 

occurring on BLM-administered lands in the planning area. Wildland fire, 

typically caused by lightning, has historically occurred within the planning area 
3. Affected Environment (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-43

and tends to occur between July and September (BLM 1992). Fires will likely 

increase in the future as climate change causes irregular weather patterns, 

increases the likelihood of storms, and contributes to droughts that can increase 

the frequency of natural, unplanned ignitions. Management actions, such as 

implementing green strips and hazardous fuel reductions, can reduce the 

occurrences of such fires.

3.7 FLUID MINERALS

Fluid leasable minerals include oil, gas, and geothermal heat. In general, leasable 

minerals are governed by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, which 

authorized specific minerals to be disposed of through a leasing system. 

Geothermal heat is also considered a leasable mineral and is governed by the 

Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. There are no geothermal resources within the 

planning area; therefore, geothermal resources will not be discussed in 

Chapter 3 or Chapter 4.

The BLM reserves the right to require additional mitigation measures in the 

form of COAs after a lease is issued if doing so is necessary to fulfill the BLM’s 

multiple-use mandate.

3.7.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

This discussion focuses solely on oil and gas because those are the only fluid 

minerals that exist within the planning area.

In 2011, Chouteau County was the top gas-producing county in the planning 

area, producing over one million MCF (thousand cubic feet) of gas. However, 

only a portion of Chouteau County is within the planning area, and the gas fields 

in that county are outside the planning area. Fergus and Petroleum Counties are 

the only counties currently producing oil and gas within the planning area (see 

Figure 3-5, Fluid Minerals – Existing Leases, in Appendix A). Table 3-26, 

2011 County Drilling and Production Statistics, provides oil and gas activity in 

counties within the planning area.

The primary fields producing in the planning area are Cat Creek field in 

Petroleum County and Leroy field at the northern border of Fergus County.

Approximately 951 acres (91 percent) of the Cat Creek field lies within PPH. 

The other nine percent is within PGH.

The majority of the Leroy field lies north of the planning area within the Upper 

Missouri River Breaks National Monument. Of the 3,166 acres of the Leroy field 

within the planning area, 3,133 acres (99 percent) are within PGH. The other 

one percent of this field in the planning area is not within GRSG habitat.

Oil production from the Cat Creek field began in the 1920s. Since that time, 

wells in the field have produced over 24 million barrels of oil. A total of 215 

wells have been drilled in the field. In 2011, the 38 producing wells in the field 
3. Affected Environment (Fluid Minerals)

3-44 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 3-26

2011 County Drilling and Production Statistics

County

Production Well Completion

Oil 

Barrels

Associated

Gas 

(MCF)

Gas 

(MCF) Oil Gas Coalbed Methane Dry Service

Fergus 0 0 29,743 0 2 0 1 0

Petroleum 24,700 4,008 0 6 0 0 2 0

Chouteau1 0 0 1,066,261 0 2 0 2 1

Judith Basin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Meagher 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 24,700 4,008 1,096,004 6 4 0 5 1

Source: DNRC 2011 1

Production and wells within Chouteau County are not within the range-wide planning area.

produced 23,854 barrels of oil. Oil and gas resources in the field have largely 

played out, and most wells are plugged and abandoned (DNRC 2011 p. 16-10).

The Leroy Field contains gas resources, primarily in the Judith River and Eagle 

gas sands. Cumulative gas production from the field is nearly seven million MCF. 

In 2011, the 24 producing wells in the field produced 186,047 MCF of gas. Six of 

the producing wells in this field are within the planning area (DNRC 2011 p. 16-

30). These wells produced 27,966 MCF of gas in 2011(Montana Board of Oil 

and Gas Conservation 2012). Gas resources in this field have been depleted, and 

approximately half of the wells in the area are plugged and abandoned.

In addition to activity within these fields, some exploration activity has occurred 

within the Heath oil shale play in the southern portion of Petroleum County.

This play is within PPH and PGH. The Montana Board of Oil and Gas has issued 

17 drilling permits for the Heath shale in Petroleum County. Five of these 

permits have been issued since March 2011 (Montana Board of Oil and Gas 

Conservation 2012). No permits have been issued for drilling on federal 

minerals in the Heath play, and the economics of producing oil from this play 

are still uncertain.

There are 11 active wells in Fergus County (outside of the Leroy field). These 

are all shut-in gas wells on private or state minerals.

WAFWA Management Zones 1 and 4

Table 3-27, Open to Oil and Gas Leasing within GRSG Habitat, through Table 

3-31, Oil and Gas Wells within GRSG Habitat, display data compiled in a BER

produced by the USGS and BLM (Manier et. al. 2013). In each table, acres are 
3. Affected Environment (Fluid Minerals)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-45

Table 3-27

Open to Oil and Gas Leasing within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM1 273,800 3,970,400 4,662,800 225,100 2,792,800 12,348,100

Forest Service 0 484,100 240,200 0 284,300 234,200

Tribal and Other 

Federal

36,000 329,800 500 3,100 84,000 10,300

Private 157,200 6,510,600 173,100 148,600 2,071,900 275,900

State 900 98,800 8,600 1,800 82,200 20,400

Other 0 900 0 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013 1 There is an existing protest resolution decision affecting BLM-administered lands within the LFO that does not 

allow oil and gas leasing of nominated parcels that would require a special stipulation to protect important wildlife 

values, including leasing on PPH and PGH, or PH and GH. New leasing of areas with important wildlife values 

cannot occur until the BLM completes a plan amendment/EIS or a new/revised RMP/EIS, including oil and gas 

leasing decisions identified in a ROD. Because this RMPA only considers management actions for GRSG and does 

not address oil and gas leasing options for other wildlife resource values, oil and gas leasing will not be addressed 

in this RMPA/EIS. The information provided in this table is for establishing the baseline for cumulative effects 

analysis only.

Table 3-28

Closed to Oil and Gas Leasing within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM1 100 370,100 261,500 0 150,100 1,304,200

Forest Service 0 16,600 4,600 0 0 69,600

Tribal and Other 

Federal

0 1,594,400 442,300 0 1,400 637,300

Private 500 1,848,000 9,800 100 505,600 26,500

State 0 315,400 9,300 0 63,700 21,600

Other 0 0 45 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013 1 There is an existing protest resolution decision affecting BLM-administered lands within the LFO that does not allow 

oil and gas leasing of nominated parcels that would require a special stipulation to protect important wildlife values, 

including leasing on PPH and PGH, or PH and GH. New leasing of areas with important wildlife values cannot occur 

until the BLM completes a plan amendment/EIS or a new/revised RMP/EIS, including oil and gas leasing decisions 

identified in a ROD. Because this RMPA only considers management actions for GRSG and does not address oil and 

gas leasing options for other wildlife resource values, oil and gas leasing will not be addressed in this RMPA/EIS. The 

information provided in this table is for establishing the baseline for cumulative effects analysis only.
3. Affected Environment (Fluid Minerals)

3-46 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 3-29

Oil and Gas Leases within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 15,200 624,200 74,500 30,200 327,600 215,700

Forest Service 0 29,700 3,800 0 24,900 1,700

Tribal and Other 

Federal

0 5,000 900 0 0 0

Private 12,100 1,721,900 21,000 12,300 546,200 28,500

State 400 27,900 0 400 17,400 40

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013

Table 3-30

Oil and Gas Leases Held by Production within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 3,200 673,900 0 100 110,600 0

Forest Service 0 80,900 0 0 36,900 0

Tribal and Other 

Federal

0 19,500 0 0 0 0

Private 2,000 1,819,300 0 800 236,400 0

State 0 13,500 0 0 3,400 0

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013

Table 3-31

Oil and Gas Wells within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres1 within PGH Acres1 within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 100 26,200 25 200 4,600 100

Forest Service 0 2,100 6 0 1,500 3

Tribal and Other 

Federal

0 3,400 0 0 6 3

Private 700 140,400 100 1,300 21,400 100
3. Affected Environment (Fluid Minerals)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-47

Table 3-31

Oil and Gas Wells within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres1 within PGH Acres1 within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

State 100 15,400 8 0 2,500 6

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013 1

Assumes footprint of 62 square meters per well. Includes wells that are either not plugged and abandoned, or 

plugged and abandoned beginning October, 2001.

presented by surface management agency and their occurrence within PGH and 

PPH in the planning area, and MZs I and IV. The data and information included 

from the BER was the most accurate available when the data was “frozen” in 

time for analysis purposes; however, these scenarios remain based in present 

knowledge. Spatial data informing the existing conditions were compiled to 

establish a consistent information base across the entire region (GRSG 

Management Area), but, in order to attain this consistently across state, 

ownership, and management boundaries, some local data have been omitted. 

There may be inconsistencies between WAFWA-level and local planning-level 

data. As such, these data provide a regional baseline, suitable for guiding regional 

mid- to long-term analysis scenarios (Manier et al. 2013).

There are no oil shale leases in the planning area (Manier et al. 2013).

3.7.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

While the BLM administers 593,995 acres of surface within the planning area, 

the BLM also manages the subsurface minerals underlying 1,113,841 acres in the 

planning area (including federal subsurface beneath BLM-administered lands). 

Split-estate lands are lands on which the surface is owned or controlled by an 

entity other than the BLM and the subsurface is managed by the BLM. Table 3-

32, Federal Mineral Status in the Planning Area, provides the surface ownership 

above federal minerals in the planning area.

Table 3-32

Federal Mineral Status in the Planning Area

Land Status Acres

BLM Surface/Federal Minerals 593,995 (53%)

Private Surface/Federal Minerals 510,532 (46%)

State/Federal Minerals 9,311 (1%)

Total 1,113,841

Source: BLM 2012a
3. Affected Environment (Fluid Minerals)

3-48 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

There are 89,761 acres of existing oil and gas leases on federal minerals in the 

planning area. These leases cover eight percent of the federal mineral estate in 

the decision area. Table 3-33, Existing Oil and Gas Leases, breaks down 

existing leases within PPH and PGH. A total of 42,716 acres (48 percent) of 

existing leases in the decision area are within PPH.

Table 3-33

Existing Oil and Gas Leases

Habitat Type Acres Leased

Total Area

(BLM surface/federal minerals)

55,880 (100%)

Total Area

(Private or state surface/federal minerals)

33,881 (100%)

PPH

(BLM surface/federal minerals) 

29,922 (54%)

PPH

(Private or state surface/federal minerals)

12,794 (38%)

PGH

(BLM surface/federal minerals)

17,045 (31%)

PGH

(Private or state surface/federal minerals)

13,930 (41%)

Other Areas

(BLM surface/federal minerals)

8,606 (15%)

Other Areas

(Private or state surface/federal minerals)

6,112 (18%)

Source: BLM 2012a

The BLM manages surface and subsurface minerals in each of the main oil and 

gas fields in the planning area. While much of the historical development of the 

Cat Creek field has been on federal mineral estate, no new drilling activity in the 

field is occurring on federal minerals. The Cat Creek Field has 28 active wells on 

federal minerals: 15 producing oil wells, six shut-in oil wells, two water source 

wells, and five active injection wells for enhanced oil recovery. The portion of 

the Leroy field within the planning area currently has five active wells on federal 

mineral estate. They are all producing gas wells.

A protest resolution decision applicable to the LFO requires all nominated oil 

and gas lease parcels that would require a special stipulation to protect 

important wildlife values be deferred until an RMPA for oil and gas, or an RMP 

revision that includes an oil and gas leasing decision in the ROD is completed. 

All federal fluid mineral estate acres within PPH and PGH are deemed to 

require special wildlife stipulations and will be deferred from leasing. The 

boundaries of PPH and PGH are equal to PH and GH, respectively. As such, the 
3. Affected Environment (Fluid Minerals)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-49

deferral of nominated lease parcels would continue in PH and GH after the 

ROD for this amendment is signed.

3.7.3 Trends

Because the primary oil and gas fields within the planning area are largely played 

out, the level of activity on existing leases within the planning area is likely to 

remain relatively stable for the life of the Judith Resource Area and Headwaters 

Resource Management Plans. The one possible exception is the Heath shale 

play, where activity on leases is still in early stages. If this play proved to be 

economic, drilling and production in the vicinity of the play in southern 

Petroleum County could greatly increase.

Due to an existing protest resolution, the LFO will not issue oil and gas leases 

for parcels that provide important wildlife habitat, including PPH and PGH.

3.8 SOLID LEASABLE MINERALS

Solid leasable minerals are primarily governed under two acts: the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, and the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired 

Lands of 1947, as amended.

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 authorized specific minerals, including but not 

limited to coal, sodium, potash, and phosphate, to be disposed of through a 

leasing system. Coal is the only mineral governed by this Act that exists within 

the planning area, but no coal is being developed.

Pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, as amended, all 

minerals that qualify as locatable minerals in public domain lands may only be 

obtained through leasing on acquired lands. (Public domain lands have always 

been in federal ownership, while acquired lands were purchased by the 

government from private individuals.)

The BLM first issues a prospecting permit for exploration for nonenergy solid 

leasable minerals. A prospecting permit term is two years, but it may be 

extended by another four years with adequate justification. If, during the term of 

the permit, the permittee demonstrates discovery of a valuable deposit of the 

leasable mineral resource, the BLM may issue a lease to that permittee.

3.8.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

No coal mining is occurring within the planning area, although potential for coal 

resources does exist within the area. The Kootenai formation underlies the 

central portion of the planning area and contains the Lewistown and Great Falls 

coal fields (BLM 1992 p. 105). This formation is not within GRSG habitat.

Because leasing of hardrock minerals only occurs beneath BLM-administered 

lands, discussion of conditions of these resources occurs under Conditions on 

BLM-Administered Lands.
3. Affected Environment (Solid Leasable Minerals)

3-50 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

3.8.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

The BLM administers 820,108 acres of federal mineral estate (593,995 acres of 

BLM-administered land with federal minerals and 226,113 acres of split-estate) 

in the planning area. Within GRSG habitat, the BLM administers 345,560 acres 

(16 percent) of surface over federal minerals and another 108,410 acres (five

percent) of split-estate.

The BLM has not issued leases for development of federal coal resources in the 

planning area. There are no known federal coal resources within GRSG habitat.

Over the last 10 years, the BLM has issued 14 prospecting permits for 

nonenergy solid minerals on acquired lands in the planning area. Generally, 

three to four prospecting permits are authorized at any given time. As of 

December 2012, one prospecting permit is currently valid. All prospecting 

permits in the planning area have been issued within PPH in Petroleum County. 

Most have been issued along the southwestern border of Petroleum County. 

Others have been issued along the southeastern border of the county near the

Musselshell River or further north along the western border of the county. The 

primary minerals of interest for prospecting permits are diamonds and gems.

3.8.3 Trends

Based on the nature and depth of the coal beds in area, the most likely location

for development within the planning area would be the Lewistown and Great 

Falls coal fields in the Kootenai Formation. Neither of these coal fields lies 

within PPH or PGH.

Although no mineral development potential was identified in the 1992 Hardrock 

Mineral Resources Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for the Judith

Resource Area, the acquired lands overlying hardrock minerals likely have low 

to medium development potential for hardrock minerals based on the 

exploration activity in recent years. Hardrock mineral prospecting is anticipated 

to continue at the current rate of three to four active prospecting permits per 

year throughout the life of Judith Resource Area and Headwaters Resource 

Management Plans.

3.9 LOCATABLE MINERALS

Locatable minerals are minerals for which the right to explore or develop the 

mineral resource on federal land is established by the location (or staking) of 

mining claims and is authorized under the General Mining Law of 1872.

Locatable minerals include metallic minerals (such as gold, silver, copper, lead, 

zinc, molybdenum, uranium) and non-metallic minerals (such as gypsum).

3.9.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

Locatable mineral development potential exists within Fergus and Judith Basin 

Counties. In Fergus County, development potential exists in the Judith 

Mountains and the North and South Moccasin Mountains. The Judith and 

Moccasin Mountains range from low to high potential with gold and silver as the 
3. Affected Environment (Locatable Minerals)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-51

primary minerals of interest. Mining and exploration have occurred and 

continue in each of these areas (BLM 1992 Map K, p. 105–107, 324).

In Judith Basin County, development potential exists in the Little Belt Mountains 

and Yogo Gulch area. Locatable mineral development potential in this area 

ranges from low to high, with sapphires as the primary mineral of interest. 

Historic mining for lead, zinc, silver, and gold ores has also occurred in this area 

(BLM 1992 Map K, p. 107, 327, 331).

None of the areas identified having locatable mineral development potential in 

the planning area is within PPH or PGH.

3.9.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

The BLM administers 820,108 acres of federal mineral estate (593,995 acres of 

BLM-administered land with federal minerals and 226,113 acres of split-estate) 

in the planning area. Within GRSG habitat, the BLM administers 345,560 acres 

(16 percent) of surface over federal minerals and another 108,410 acres (five 

percent) of split-estate.

A total of 101 acres (less than one percent) of federal mineral estate PPH is

withdrawn from locatable mineral entry and therefore cannot be developed. 

Additionally, 2,437 acres (one percent) of federal mineral estate in PGH are 

withdrawn from locatable mineral entry.

3.9.3 Trends

While locatable mineral exploration and development is likely to continue to 

occur within the planning area, no locatable mineral development is anticipated 

within GRSG habitat over the life of the Judith Resource Area and Headwaters 

Resource Management Plans.

3.10 SALABLE MINERALS

Salable minerals include common varieties of construction materials and 

aggregates, such as sand, gravel, cinders, roadbed, and ballast material. Salable 

minerals are sold or permitted under the Mineral Materials Sale Act of 1947.

Sand and gravel, as construction aggregate, is an extremely important resource. 

The extraction of the resource varies directly with the amount of development 

nearby – road building and maintenance and urban development – as sand and 

gravel is necessary for that infrastructure development. Even more so than 

other resources; however, the proximity of both transportation and markets 

are key elements in the development of a deposit.

3.10.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

Much of the surface geology in the planning area is dominated by late 

Cretaceous shale and sandstone layers, deposited during transgression and 

regression of the inland sea. These rocks are source to building materials and 

clays. In more recent times, erosion has dissected the landscape to its present 
3. Affected Environment (Salable Minerals)

3-52 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

form. Alluvial material derived from erosion of exposed bedrock or reworking 

of glacial deposits is the primary source of sand and gravel.

WAFWA Management Zones 1 and 4

Table 3-34, Salable Material Disposal Sites within GRSG Habitat, displays data 

compiled in a BER produced by the USGS and BLM (Manier et al. 2013). Acres 

are presented by surface management agency and their occurrence within PGH

and PPH in the planning area, and MZs I and IV. The data and information 

included from the BER was the most accurate available when the data was 

“frozen” in time for analysis purposes; however, these scenarios remain based in 

present knowledge. Spatial data informing the existing conditions were compiled 

to establish a consistent information base across the entire region (GRSG 

Management Area), but, in order to attain this consistently across state, 

ownership, and management boundaries, some local data have been omitted. 

There may be inconsistencies between WAFWA-level and local planning-level 

data. As such, these data provide a regional baseline, suitable for guiding regional 

mid- to long-term analysis scenarios (Manier et al. 2013).

Table 3-34

Salable Material Disposal Sites within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 200 64,500 189,900 100 65,000 462,100

Forest Service 0 1,200 56,500 0 0 113,700

Tribal and Other 

Federal

0 0 400 0 0 500

Private 0 430,500 80,200 1,200 49,000 139,200

State 0 7,800 3,400 0 8,900 3,600

Other 0 0 45 0 0 39

Source: Manier et al. 2013

3.10.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

The BLM administers 820,108 acres of federal mineral estate (593,995 acres of 

BLM-administered land with federal minerals and 226,113 acres of split-estate) 

in the planning area. Within GRSG habitat, the BLM administers 345,560 acres 

(16 percent) of surface over federal minerals and another 108,410 acres (five

percent) of split-estate.

The salable minerals program on BLM-administered lands within the planning 

area is based on the use of sand and gravel for construction and road surfacing 

(BLM 1992 p. 110).
3. Affected Environment (Salable Minerals)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-53

Most salable minerals permits issued within the planning area have been free use 

permits issued to the county or state governments for road construction or 

maintenance. Several other small sales have been made to local contractors for 

maintenance of Air Force missile roads (BLM 1992 p. 111).

There are four active sand and gravel pits on federal minerals within the 

planning area. Two of these are within PPH, and one is within PGH. Each pit is 

less than five acres.

Within PPH, 101 acres (less than one percent) of federal mineral estate are 

closed to the disposal of salable minerals. Within PGH, 2,437 acres (one

percent) of federal mineral estate are closed to the disposal of salable minerals.

3.10.3 Trends

Future demand for salable minerals will vary depending upon market conditions, 

which differ according to economic conditions and construction activity. It is 

expected that salable mineral activity will continue at roughly the same level for 

the life of the Judith Resource Area and Headwaters Resource Management 

Plans.

3.11 COMPREHENSIVE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT

The transportation system throughout the planning area consists of seven major 

highways, numerous paved and unpaved local roads, as well as unpaved primitive 

OHV roads and trails. Where roads cross BLM-administered land, ROW

authorizations are required to maintain the road on federal land. A more 

detailed inventory of the existing transportation network will be conducted as 

part of a future LFO RMP revision.

3.11.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

Transportation routes in the planning area reflect the region’s low population 

density and challenging topography. Throughout the planning area there are 

approximately 4,390 total miles of roads and trails. Major highways (such as US 

Highways 87, 191, and 89 and State Route 19) provide arterial connections to 

population centers mainly outside the planning area. Smaller local paved and 

unpaved roads, primitive roads, and trails account for the remainder of the 

transportation network in the planning area. Local roads mainly provide access 

to large private ranchlands.

WAFWA Management Zones 1 and 4

Table 3-35, Miles of Roads within GRSG Habitat, through Table 3-37, Miles 

of Railroads within GRSG Habitat, display data compiled in a BER produced by 

the USGS and BLM (Manier et. al. 2013). In each table, acres and miles are 

presented by surface management agency and their occurrence within PGH and 

PPH in the planning area, and MZs I and IV. The data and information included 

from the BER was the most accurate available when the data was “frozen” in 

time for analysis purposes; however, these scenarios remain based in present 
3. Affected Environment (Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management)

3-54 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 3-35

Miles of Roads within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 319 7,400 6,500 454 4,700 18,900

Forest Service 0 1,200 1,200 0 700 1,900

Tribal and Other 

Federal

124 5,800 700 10 300 1,000

Private 1,447 59,700 7,200 2,036 16,600 8,700

State 121 5,200 1,300 168 1,900 1,800

Other 0 0 79 0 0 100

Source: Manier et al. 2013

Table 3-36

Acres of Roads within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres within PGH1 Acres within PPH1

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 3,200 79,600 68,500 4,500 48,200 199,400

Forest Service 0 12,300 12,900 0 7,200 20,100

Tribal and Other 

Federal

1,300 61,500 8,000 100 3,300 11,200

Private 14,800 675,000 83,500 20,800 176,200 100,900

State 1,200 58,600 14,100 1,700 20,300 18,800

Other 0 300 800 0 0 1,200

Source: Manier et al. 2013, p. 35 1

Assumes footprint of 73.2 meters for interstate highways, 25.6 meters for primary and secondary highways, and 

12.4 meters for other roads.

Table 3-37

Miles of Railroads within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Miles within PGH Miles within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 0 50 100 0 9 100

Forest Service 0 28 1 0 0 8
3. Affected Environment (Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-55

Table 3-37

Miles of Railroads within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Miles within PGH Miles within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

Tribal and Other 

Federal

0 83 14 0 0 19

Private 41 1,200 300 0 146 100

State 1 90 12 0 10 12

Other 0 1 0 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013

knowledge. Spatial data informing the existing conditions were compiled to 

establish a consistent information base across the entire region (GRSG 

Management Area), but, in order to attain this consistently across state, 

ownership, and management boundaries, some local data have been omitted. 

There may be inconsistencies between WAFWA-level and local planning-level 

data. As such, these data provide a regional baseline, suitable for guiding regional 

mid- to long-term analysis scenarios (Manier et al. 2013).

Off-Highway Vehicles

OHVs are used primarily as a mode of transportation for accessing areas to 

participate in other recreation activities such as hunting, camping, or fishing. 

OHVs are also used throughout the planning area to manage livestock grazing. 

In accordance with Off-Highway Vehicle Record of Decision and Proposed Plan 

Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota, 

motorized cross-country travel is prohibited in all three states. OHVs must 

therefore remain on existing travel routes at all times unless travel is 

administrative use or an exception as described in the OHV ROD (BLM 2003b).

3.11.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

Transportation routes on BLM-administered lands in the planning area are 

limited due to the dispersed nature of BLM parcels. The combined length of all 

roads and trails on BLM-administered lands in PPH areas is 467 miles, while 

PGH areas contain 128 miles of roads and trails. Travel routes on BLMadministered lands are primarily a mixture of publically-maintained paved and 

unpaved roads and privately-maintained unpaved roads. Local and agricultural 

traffic is the primary use of these roadways. Additionally, based on data from 

Recreation Management Information System, there are approximately 20,100 

visits to the 15 ERMAs located in PPH. Due to the popularity of the ERMAs, 

which are all reservoirs, the use of access roads to the ERMAs increases travel 

in the area, especially during popular recreation seasons.
3. Affected Environment (Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management)

3-56 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

3.11.3 Trends

Use of the existing transportation network in the planning area is expected to 

steadily increase over time as adjacent areas become more urbanized and 

national demand for outdoor recreation opportunities, such as hunting, fishing, 

and camping increase. OHV use is expected to continue as a means to support 

hunting opportunities and the maintenance of grazing rights.

3.12 RECREATION

Recreation opportunities in the planning area are abundant. Most recreation 

users participate in dispersed recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, 

camping, biking, hiking, horseback riding, boating on area lakes and rivers, 

pleasure driving, and wildlife viewing. Users often participate in these activities 

individually or in small groups.

3.12.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

PPH and PGH areas, which are dispersed mainly throughout the eastern portion 

of the planning area, cover 2,223,029 acres. PPH is confined to Fergus and 

Petroleum counties, while PGH occurs within Chouteau, Judith Basin, Meagher, 

Fergus, and Petroleum counties. ERMAs are located only within PPH, and 

SRMAs are only located within PGH.

Recreation opportunities in these areas are mainly of a dispersed nature with 

hunting and fishing being the primary activities. Within the planning area, 76 

percent of the surface land area is privately owned. The scattered distribution of 

BLM-administered land limits the extent of public recreation opportunities 

throughout the planning area.

Since hunting is one of the primary recreation uses in the planning area, fall is 

the most popular season for recreation activity. Summer activities are largely 

concentrated around water bodies and include fishing, camping, hiking, 

sightseeing, and wildlife viewing. Winter recreation activities include ice fishing, 

hiking, and trapping.

Hunting

Big game hunting is a popular recreation activity in the planning area. The 

MFWP issues hunting licenses for deer, pronghorn antelope, and Rocky 

Mountain elk. The MFWP places restrictions on the time of year, location, 

method of take, and daily bag and possession limits. Statewide, annual harvest of 

elk averaged 16,182 between 2004 and 2011. During the same period, the 

annual harvest of deer averaged 49,583, while antelope harvest averaged 16,854 

(MFWP 2011).

The MFWP also permits the hunting of a number of smaller upland bird species, 

including GRSG. The GRSG hunting season is from September 1 through 

November 1 east of the continental divide. GRSG may be hunted using a ten 

gauge or smaller shotgun or by bow and arrow. The daily bag limit is two, and 

the possession limit is four.
3. Affected Environment (Recreation)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-57

Statewide, annual harvest of GRSG has averaged 29,700 birds between 1958 and 

2011. Between 1997 and 2001, the annual harvest averaged less than 7,000 

(MFWP 2004). In 2011, the MFWP estimated the harvest to be less than 3,200 

(MFWP 2011).

Nez Perce Historic Trail

Approximately two miles of the Nez Perce Historic Trail, a part of the National 

Historic Trail System, crosses through the planning area north of Winifred. 

However, within the planning area there are limited opportunities for historic 

or cultural interpretation since much of the historic trail location is on private 

land.

3.12.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

The BLM manages 593,995 acres within the planning area, and 345,560 acres are 

located in PPH and PGH areas. Recreation activities on BLM-administered lands 

are comparable to those that occur in the broader planning area; however, 

BLM-administered lands within the planning area are widely distributed and 

largely noncontiguous. This distribution limits recreation opportunities on BLMadministered land. The most popular recreation activity on BLM-administered 

land in the planning area is hunting, which accounts for the majority of all 

recreation activities and takes place predominately during the autumn months. 

Other popular activities include fishing, hiking, and camping.

There are three SRMAs in the planning area: Judith Mountains, Judith River, and 

Snowy Mountains (see Figure 3-6, Recreation Management Areas, in 

Appendix A). Table 3-38, Designated SRMAs in the Planning Area, 

summarizes the acreage of SRMAs that overlap PPH and PGH.

Table 3-38

Designated SRMAs in the Planning Area

SRMA Size (acres) Area in PPH

(acres)

Area in PGH

(acres)

Judith Mountains 19,180 0 0

Judith River 10,079 0 9,763 (97%)

Snowy Mountains 75 0 0

Total 29,334 0 9,763 (33%)

Source: BLM 2012a

Judith River Special Recreation Management Area

The Judith River SRMA is comprised of scattered BLM-administered lands 

straddling a 27-mile stretch of the Judith River along the northern border of 

Fergus County. Due to its pristine qualities, this river segment was found to be 

eligible as part of the Wild and Scenic River System. However, a determination 

of non-suitability was made in the Judith Resource Area RMP (Appendix I, page 
3. Affected Environment (Recreation)

3-58 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

377; BLM 1994). Judith River SRMA is the only SRMA in GRSG habitat; 

therefore, will be the only SRMA analyzed in this RMPA/EIS.

BLM-administered lands associated with the Judith River SRMA are scattered 

and represent a fraction of the land area studied as part of the Wild and Scenic 

River evaluation. The remaining land in the study area is privately owned. 

Noncontiguous public lands prevent any significant recreational opportunities on 

BLM-administered land and present recreation management challenges. Most 

recreation activities in the SRMA are dispersed and occur either on the river 

(boating and fishing) or directly adjacent to the river (hunting, camping, 

sightseeing). There are no BLM-administered trails in the SRMA and the

scattered distribution of BLM parcels limits public access to the river. Public 

access to the river is possible at Anderson Bridge via Judith River Road. While 

the bridge and roadway are public within a public ROW, the properties 

surrounding the bridge are private. Anderson Bridge is located approximately 10 

miles west of Winifred, Montana.

Extensive Recreation Management Areas

There are 15 ERMAs in the planning area. Of these 15, there are two ERMAs 

outside GRSG habitat and two others identified in the existing RMPs that are no 

longer located on BLM-administered lands. All 11 ERMAs located in GRSG

habitat within the decision area are in PPH. No ERMAs are located in PGH. 

ERMAs generally correspond with small reservoirs and provide mainly waterbased recreation activities such as fishing, canoeing, and swimming. Each ERMA 

boundary corresponds with the high water line of the applicable reservoir. 

Payola Reservoir ERMA is the only ERMA with recreation facilities. At Payola 

Reservoir, recreation users have access to a cabana, picnic tables, and two fire 

pits. Table 3-39, Designated ERMAs in the Planning Area, summarizes the 

acreage of ERMAs in the planning area. All ERMAs are located in either PPH or 

outside the planning area.

Table 3-39

Designated ERMAs in the Planning Area

ERMA Outside Habitat 

(acres)

Area in PPH

(acres)

Area in PGH

(acres)

Box Elder/Vogel Reservoir 0 12 0

Buffalo Wallow Reservoir 0 15 0

Crooked Creek Reservoir 0 7 0

Drag Creek Reservoir 36 0 0

Dry Blood Reservoir 0 12 0

Fritzner Reservoir 3 1 0

Holland Reservoir 0 10 0

Jakes Reservoir 0 17 0
3. Affected Environment (Recreation)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-59

Table 3-39

Designated ERMAs in the Planning Area

ERMA Outside Habitat 

(acres)

Area in PPH

(acres)

Area in PGH

(acres)

Lower Dry Wolf Reservoir 0 6 0

Mauland Reservoir 1 0 0

Payola Reservoir 0 20 0

South Fork Dry Blood 

Reservoir

0 10 0

Upper Dry Wolf Reservoir 0 5 0

*Hopalong Reservoir 0 0 0

*Yellow Water Reservoir 0 0 0

Total 40 115 0

Source: BLM 2012a

*Identified as ERMA in Judith Resource Area RMP, but currently no BLM ownership.

Off-Highway Vehicles

OHVs are used primarily as a mode of transportation for accessing areas to 

participate in other recreation activities such as hunting, camping, or fishing. In 

accordance with the Off-Highway Vehicle Record of Decision and Proposed 

Plan Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota, 

motorized cross-country travel is prohibited in all three states (BLM 2003b). 

OHVs must therefore remain on existing travel routes at all times.

Special Recreation Permits

The BLM uses SRPs to authorize certain commercial, competitive, and group 

recreation events and activities on BLM-administered lands and related waters. 

BLM field offices issue SRPs on a discretionary basis. SRPs are one of many tools 

used by the BLM to implement land use plans, achieve the goals and objectives 

of the field office’s recreation program, manage visitor use, protect resources, 

and help ensure the health and safety of the visiting public (BLM IM 2011-019, 

BLM 2010a).

The BLM authorizes SRPs for big game hunting and upland bird hunting in the 

planning area. These recreation activities are provided by recreation outfitters 

throughout the LFO. The BLM currently issues seven SRPs in the planning area. 

Of these, six permits are for big game hunting, and one is for upland bird 

hunting.

3.12.3 Trends

Recreation use in the planning area is expected to continue to increase over 

time. In particular, more dispersed recreation activities (e.g., hunting, fishing, and 

hiking) are likely to increase because of the region’s rural landscape, clean air, 
3. Affected Environment (Recreation)

3-60 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

increasing national population and increasing number of local employment 

opportunities in the energy sector. The number of SRPs issued on an annual 

basis is expected to remain steady, or increase slightly. Additional factors 

expected to increase demand for recreation on GRSG habitats in central 

Montana include:

• Increasing popularity of outdoor recreation as a family-oriented 

activity

• Increasingly active retired population with more disposable time and 

income

• Displacement from other recreation areas due to decreasing 

opportunities or changes in management in those areas

• Increasing importance of recreation as a component of the local 

economy

• Increasing importance of natural-resource recreation as other areas 

of the country become more urbanized

• Treatment of noxious/invasive weeds

3.13 RANGE MANAGEMENT

The primary laws that govern livestock grazing on public lands are the Taylor 

Grazing Act of 1934, FLPMA, and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 

1978. In addition, the BLM manages grazing lands under 43 CFR Part 4100 and 

applicable policy.

In accordance with 43 CFR 4180, the BLM is required to meet or make 

progress towards meeting standards defined in the Lewistown District 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management (BLM 1997) (see Appendix F). Standards are statements of 

physical and biological condition or degree of function required for healthy 

sustainable rangelands. Guidelines are preferred or advisable grazing 

management approaches to maintaining or ensuring progress towards achieving 

land health standards. These standards and guidelines were developed with 

public input through the processes established by the NEPA. The Judith 

Resource Area and Headwaters Resource Management Plans were amended by 

this document upon its approval by the Secretary of the Interior in August 1997.

Adherence to the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock 

Grazing Management is also a requirement of BLM grazing regulations as set 

forth by 43 CFR Section 4180.

The BLM is required to make changes where an allotment is not meeting 

standards due to current livestock grazing. The LFO assesses grazing allotments 

in conjunction with the grazing permit/lease renewal process, which occurs 

every 10 years. An interdisciplinary team of BLM specialists complete the 

allotment assessments in coordination with the permittees/lessees using the 
3. Affected Environment (Range Management)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-61

Interpreting Indicators for Rangeland Health Process, which has been 

scientifically reviewed through the USGS peer-review process (BLM 2005c).

When the grazing allotment assessment process has been completed, the 

interdisciplinary team completes and allotment evaluation and, if the evaluation 

indicates that an allotment is not achieving the Standards for Rangeland Health, a 

determination of what is causing the allotment to not achieve the standards is 

completed. When it is determined that current livestock grazing management is 

a causal factor in the allotment on achieving the standards, a change in the 

grazing management must be initiated within one year in order to allow the 

grazing allotment to achieve or make significant progress towards achieving the 

standards.

Changes to allotment management, include, but are not limited to:

• increasing length of rest periods between grazing periods

• changing season of use

• altering livestock turnout location

• changing grazing intensity

• changing grazing duration

• improving livestock distribution

Improved livestock distribution could be achieved through construction of 

water developments and fences, selective salt and mineral placement, and 

changes to livestock turnout location and season of use. In some cases, fencing 

may be used to protect upland and/or riparian areas.

A grazing permit is the document which authorizes livestock grazing use of 

BLM-administered lands within an established grazing district, whereas a grazing 

lease is the document which authorizes livestock grazing use of public lands 

outside an established grazing district as defined by the Taylor Grazing Act (43 

CFR 4100.0-5). The kind and number of livestock, the period of use (seasonal), 

the allotment to be used, and the amount of use in AUMs are mandatory terms 

and conditions of every grazing permit or lease (43 CFR 4130.3). An AUM is the 

amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow or its equivalent for 

one month and an allotment is an area of land designated and managed for 

grazing of livestock (43 CFR 4100.0-5).

3.13.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

Grazing is permitted throughout the majority of the planning area. Rangeland 

vegetation in the planning area consists primarily of sagebrush grasslands, 

grasslands, and lightly vegetated badlands. Mixed shrub communities are 

common in coulees and benches throughout all of these vegetation types.
3. Affected Environment (Range Management)

3-62 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Within the planning area, many ranches have grazing leases on state lands that 

are intermingled with private and public land. Public lands cover approximately 

eight percent of the planning area.

WAFWA Management Zones 1 and 4

Table 3-40, Grazing Allotments within GRSG Habitat, through Table 3-42, 

Fences within GRSG Habitat, display data compiled in a BER produced by the 

USGS and BLM (Manier et. al. 2013). In each table, acres and miles are 

presented by surface management agency and their occurrence within PGH and 

PPH in the planning area, and MZs I and IV. The data and information included 

from the BER was the most accurate available when the data was “frozen” in 

time for analysis purposes; however, these scenarios remain based in present 

knowledge. Spatial data informing the existing conditions were compiled to 

establish a consistent information base across the entire region (GRSG 

Management Area), but, in order to attain this consistently across state, 

ownership, and management boundaries, some local data have been omitted. 

There may be inconsistencies between WAFWA-level and local planning-level 

data. As such, these data provide a regional baseline, suitable for guiding regional 

mid- to long-term analysis scenarios (Manier et al. 2013).

On lands of all surface management, there are 1,189,200 acres of grazing 

allotments, with 609,700 in PGH and 579,500 in PPH as displayed in Table 3-40.

Table 3-40

Grazing Allotments within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 277,900 4,443,000 4,670,700 229,600 2,982,200 13,408,800

Forest Service 0 510,300 1,050,800 0 291,000 1,566,700

Tribal and Other 

Federal

78,800 137,200 153,800 3,600 10,600 266,200

Private 218,700 11,338,100 1,201,300 309,800 4,619,800 3,044,600

State 34,300 1,194,300 257,900 36,500 681,000 693,600

Other 0 3,100 400 0 300 1,500

Source: Manier et al. 2013

Current livestock grazing was a significant causal factor for not achieving land 

health standards in 78 (54 allotments within GRSG habitat) of the 526 

allotments within the planning area (Table 3-41, Allotments Not Meeting Land 

Health Standards within GRSG Habitat). See Section 3.13.2, Conditions on 

BLM-Administered Lands, for a detailed description of land health assessments 

in the LFO.
3. Affected Environment (Range Management)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-63

Table 3-41

Allotments Not Meeting Land Health Standards within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres1 within PGH Acres1 within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 23,800 52,100 968,900 81,900 82,500 2,617,200

Source: Manier et al. 2013 1

Only includes allotments not meeting Land Health Standards with grazing as the causal factor

Structural range improvements may present a risk to GRSG, particularly fences, 

which when not designed with special provisions for GRSG, can cause fence 

collisions or provide hunting raptors a place to perch. In the planning area, there 

are approximately 3,900 miles of fence; 1,800 in PGH and 1,900 in PPH (Table 

3-42).

Table 3-42

Fences within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Miles within PGH1 Miles within PPH1

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 700 11,300 7,200 700 18,700 16,100

Forest Service 0 900 1,900 0 6,100 2,800

Tribal and Other 

Federal

100 500 400 0 500 400

Private 900 32,100 3,900 1,100 100 7,400

State 100 3,300 500 100 10,700 1,200

Other 0 0 13 0 1,400 26

Source: Manier et al. 2013 1

Derived from a dataset that identifies pasture and allotment borders on BLM and Forest Service land as potential 

fences.

3.13.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

Within the planning area the majority of BLM-administered acreage is open to 

grazing (570,067 acres, 96.0 percent) (see Table 3-43, Lewistown Field Office 

Planning Area – Grazing Allocation). Approximately 6,780 acres (1.1 percent) of 

BLM-administered lands within the planning area, all within the Judith Resource 

Area, are closed to grazing for protection of other resources, including area 

within Judith Mountains and Square Butte. Approximately 17,148 acres (2.8 

percent) of the BLM-administered lands in planning area is unallocated for 

grazing (BLM 2012a).
3. Affected Environment (Range Management)

3-64 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 3-43

Lewistown Field Office Planning Area – Grazing Allocation

RMP Type

Acres in Non 

GRSG

Habitat

Acres in PPH Acres in PGH Total 

Acres

Judith Resource 

Area RMP

Open to 

grazing

225,716 (40%) 230,716 (41%) 106,089 (19%) 562,521

Closed to 

grazing

6,780 (100%) 0 0 6,780

Headwaters 

RMP

Open to 

grazing

7,186 (95%) n/a 360 (5%) 7,546

Closed to 

grazing

0 0 0 0

Planning Area 

Total

Open to 

grazing

232,902 (41%) 230,716 (40%) 106,449 (19%) 570,067

Closed to 

grazing

6,780 (100%) 0 0 6,780

Source: BLM 2012a

Currently the BLM manages grazing on 526 grazing allotments in the planning 

area. Cattle are the most prevalent class of livestock. On GRSG habitat (PPH

and PGH), there are all or portions of 207 and 107 allotments respectively

(Table 3-44, Lewistown Field Office Planning Area – Summary of Allotments 

and AUMs by Habitat Type).

Table 3-44

Lewistown Field Office Planning Area – Summary of Allotments and AUMs by 

Habitat Type

Non GRSG

Habitat

(acres)

PGH

(acres)

PPH

(acres) Total 

Number of 

Active AUMS

34,398 (33%) 19,460 (19%) 49,948 (48%) 103,806

Number of 

Allotments

212 (40%) 107 (21%) 207 (39%) 526

Source: BLM 2012a

A wide range of management approaches are practiced among the 

permittees/lessees that graze livestock. Some grazing permits/leases are held by 

producers that are primarily involved in farming. In these cases, livestock are 

often grazed on BLM-administered land during the summer and on private land 

stubble fields in the fall and winter. In most cases, isolated tracts of BLMadministered land are grazed in conjunction with private land because the 

intermingled land ownership pattern and terrain make it difficult to manage the 

BLM-administered land separately from private land. In other cases, large blocks 
3. Affected Environment (Range Management)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-65

of BLM-administered land are authorized to producers that are primarily 

involved in ranching. The allotments with significant acreages of isolated tracts 

and larger contiguous blocks of BLM-administered lands are usually managed 

under grazing prescriptions and/or rotations that are outlined in a watershed

plan or an AMP that includes private, state, and BLM-administered land.

Many allotments have range improvements such as fences, stock ponds, 

pipelines, springs, windmills, seedings, wells, and access roads for livestock 

management purposes. 

Over the past decade, the BLM undertook a field office-wide planning effort, 

focused on implementing decisions in the 1994 Judith Resource Area Resource 

Management Plan. As part of this effort, grazing allotments were assessed as to 

whether or not Range Land Health Standards were being achieved and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management were being followed.

Environmental assessments were prepared for the following plans relevant to 

the planning area:

• Petrolia Watershed Plan Environmental Assessment (BLM 2007b)

• North-East Fergus Watershed Area Plan Environmental Assessment 

(BLM 2009b)

• Musselshell Breaks Watershed Plan Environmental Assessment

(BLM 2005d)

• Upper Arrow Creek Watershed Area Plan Environmental 

Assessment (BLM 2008d)

• Great Falls Area Grazing Lease Renewal Environmental Assessment

(BLM 2011b)

• Snowies/Little Belts Grazing Lease Renewal Environmental 

Assessment and Permit Renewal EA (BLM 2009c)

• Forest Health and Vegetation Management for the Judith and 

Moccasin Mountains (BLM 2006)

Details for each watershed area are provided in the applicable environmental 

assessment (EA) and summarized in Table 3-45, Lewistown Field Office 

Planning Area – Land Health Assessment, below. An assessment of rangeland 

health standards and guidelines has been made on all allotments in the planning 

area. Allotments have been assessed for adherence to the Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public 

Lands Administered by the BLM for Montana and the Dakotas (Appendix F).
3. Affected Environment (Range Management)

3-66 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 3-45

Lewistown Field Office Planning Area – Land Health Assessment

Type

Acres 

(Allotments)

in Non 

GRSG

Habitat

Acres 

(Allotments) 

in PGH

Acres

(Allotments)

in PPH

Total Acres

(Allotments)

Total assessed for land health 

standards

232,902 (212) 230,716 (207) 106,449 (107) 570,067 (526)

Meeting land health standards 159,052 (121) 105,836 (124) 68,736 (78) 333,625 (323)

Not meeting land health 

standards

73,848 (91) 124,881 (83) 37,713 (29) 236,427 (203)

Not meeting land health 

standards due to livestock 

grazing

38,418 (24) 91,878 (48) 13,559 (6) 143,856 (78)

Not meeting land health 

standards due to livestock; 

appropriate action taken to 

ensure significant progress 

toward meeting the standards

38,418 (24) 91,878 (48) 13,559 (6) 143,856 (78)

Not assessed 0 0 0 0

Source: BLM 2012a

Current livestock grazing was a significant causal factor for not achieving land 

health standards in 78 (54 allotments within GRSG habitat) of the 526 

allotments within the planning area.. On 92,571 acres, current livestock grazing 

was not a causal factor for failing to achieve all standards and guidelines. For all 

allotments determined to not be achieving standards due to current livestock 

grazing management, changes in livestock grazing management were 

implemented through changes in the mandatory and/or other terms and 

conditions of the grazing permits or leases by grazing decision in accordance 

with BLM grazing regulations (43 CFR 4160) and analyzed in the EAs listed 

above. The management changes implemented included, but were not limited 

to, vegetative treatments (including the treatment of noxious weeds), 

construction of range improvement projects (i.e., fences, water developments, 

including pipelines, reservoirs/pits, and spring developments), the 

implementation of grazing rotations, reductions in authorized AUMs, and

suspension of authorized AUMs. The effectiveness of the management changes 

implemented will be evaluated on a 10-year cycle, based on the dates of the 

watershed plans listed above. As of the current time, none of the allotments 

have been reassessed to determine if the changes implemented have resulted in 

allotments that were not achieving standards to meet or make significant 

progress.
3. Affected Environment (Range Management)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-67

The LFO renews term grazing permits and leases through the completion of 

sub-landscape level NEPA analysis in the form of EAs. The EAs are undertaken 

after land health evaluations and as necessary land health determinations have 

been completed, in accordance with BLM policy and regulation. Figure 3-7, 

Resource Activity Plans – Grazing Authorization Renewal Areas, in Appendix 

A illustrates the sub-landscape level resource activity planning areas that are 

used to renew grazing authorizations (permits and leases) as well as analyze 

other actions and projects that may be completed to achieve BLM priorities and 

mission goals associated with other programs. These planning areas have been 

delineated based on BLM administrative, Cooperative State Grazing District

(CSGD) and watersheds boundaries, as well as other factors that allow LFO to 

meet the requirement of BLM grazing regulations 43 CFR 4160, 4180 and policy 

as it relates to grazing authorization renewal, land health standards and most 

efficiently complete BLM’s mission based on LFO staffing levels.

The list below shows the priority order for grazing authorization renewal for 

the planning units within LFO; the renewal process for the Crooked Creek Plan 

will be completed in 2013 and therefore has been moved to the bottom of the 

priority list. The land health assessment process for the Crooked Creek Plan 

will be completed in 2013 in accordance with Washington Office IMs WO2012-043 and 044, which provide guidance on GRSG management and 

conservation. The remaining planning units would be completed as listed by 

priority by 2023. The planning units listed below contain PPH and PGH unless 

noted otherwise.

• Judith

• Lower Missouri

• Petrolia

• SE Fergus County

• Upper Missouri

• Section 15 (no PPH)

• Great Falls (no PPH)

• Crooked Creek

3.13.3 Trends

Permitted use levels have been assessed in watershed EAs and grazing 

management changes recommended as needed to work towards achieving 

livestock grazing standards. In some cases, permitted AUMs for individual 

allotments have been reduced. Actual use of allotments has decreased in many 

areas over the past decade as a result of drought. Changes in land use on 

private and public lands, such as increased use for recreational purposes, have 

also influenced livestock grazing. 
3. Affected Environment (Range Management)

3-68 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Drought has influenced the condition of vegetation in some areas. Noxious 

weeds are a serious threat to the planning area. Within the Petrolia Watershed

Area, where the majority of PPH is located, higher concentrations of weed 

infestations are present along the major drainages and their tributaries, including 

Ford’s Creek, Box Elder Creek, Pike Creek, Buffalo Creek, Duck Creek, and 

the Musselshell River. The largest areas of infestation noted within PPH and 

PGH are Leafy spurge, spotted knapweed, Russian knapweed, Whitetop (Hoary 

cress), and Houndstongue. Many invasive weed species are unpalatable to 

livestock, which may over time decrease total productivity or result in the need 

to alter grazing management practices.

One program underway to restore vegetation for livestock and GRSG use on 

private lands is the West-wide National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)

Sage-Grouse Initiative (SGI), which is cooperatively working with ranchers to 

boost both livestock and grouse productivity (NRCS 2011).

Recently, land sales for recreational purposes have increased, primarily for 

private hunting. This trend often results in the private lands associated with 

ranches being sub-divided into smaller properties that may or may not have 

BLM grazing privileges. The new owners often sub-lease the newly divided 

ranch, including BLM-administered grazing privileges for grazing, and recreate on 

the ranch property. The trend of recreational land sales is likely to increase as 

long as the economy remains relatively stable and may result in changes to 

administration needs by the BLM if the number of grazing permits/leases 

changes. 

3.14 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

ACECs are defined in FLPMA and in 43 USC 1702(a) and 43 CFR 1601.0-5(a) as 

areas where special management attention is required to protect and prevent 

irreversible damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and 

wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and 

safety from natural hazards. The intent of Congress in mandating the designation 

of ACECs was to give priority to the designation and protection of areas 

containing unique and significant resource values. ACECs are areas within BLMadministered lands where special management attention is required to protect 

or to prevent irreparable damage to relevant values. These values identified in 

the ACEC nomination process must meet a set of importance criteria (BLM 

1988). The value, resource, process or natural system, or hazard present must 

have one or more of the following:

• More than locally significant qualities which give it special worth, 

consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern

• Qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, 

irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, or 

vulnerable to adverse change
3. Affected Environment (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-69

• Recognition as warranting protection in order to satisfy national 

priority concerns or to carry out mandates of FLPMA

• Qualities that warrant highlighting in order to satisfy public or 

management concerns about safety and public welfare

• Qualities that pose a significant threat to human life and safety or to 

property

An ACEC must also require special management attention to protect the 

identified relevant and important values. Special management attention refers to 

management prescriptions that are developed during preparation of an RMP or 

RMPA expressly to protect relevant and important values of an area from the 

potential effects of actions permitted by the RMP. These are management 

measures that would not be necessary and prescribed if the critical and 

important features were not present (BLM 1988). ACECs are areas where 

natural processes are allowed to predominate and that are preserved for the 

primary purposes of research and education.

3.14.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

The Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC is the only ACEC in the Lewistown Field 

Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS planning area that is also within GRSG

habitat. The ACEC comprises 2,463 acres on two separate BLM tracts: 1,646 

acres in the Briggs Coulee tract and 817 acres in the War Horse tract. The 

ACEC is generally located northeast of the community of Grass Range; its

boundary is entirely within PPH (see Figure 3-8, Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern, in Appendix A).

The Square Butte ACEC, Judith Mountains Scenic Area ACEC, and Collar Gulch 

ACEC are also located in the planning area, but are located outside GRSG

habitat.

3.14.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC

Designation of the Acid Shale-Pine Forest as an ACEC/Research Natural Area 

signified the need to research the effects of grazing, fire, and other activities on 

the landscape and to protect unique resources in the area from potentially 

harmful activities. The Acid Shale-Pine Forest’s fragile shale landscape is 

vulnerable to erosion from man-made surface disturbances and natural weather 

events such as heavy rain storms. The BLM management objectives for the Acid 

Shale-Pine Forest ACEC are intended to protect the area’s unique pine forest 

and shale landscape. Vegetation in the ACEC is limited mostly to slow-growing 

ponderosa pine trees, with a sparse distribution of juniper bushes and grasses in 

the understory. Dense clay soil beneath the pine trees prevents a more robust 

understory vegetative community from becoming established. The vegetative 

communities that comprise shale-pine forest landscapes are unique and appear 

to be confined to central and eastern Montana.
3. Affected Environment (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern)

3-70 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Due to the lack of low-lying vegetative cover and fragile soil conditions, wind 

and water soil erosion is common in shale-pine forest landscapes. Where the 

topography becomes steep, deep gullies carve into the landscape. Any improper 

surface-disturbing activities, such as grazing, mineral exploration, motorized 

vehicle use, or recreation, would exacerbate soil erosion. The geology

composition may make the ACEC attractive for oil and gas exploration.

PPH is found within the entire Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC. Although shrub 

and grass vegetation more typical of GRSG habitat is generally sparse within the 

ACEC, openings between pine trees provide more opportunities for shrubs, 

forbs, and grasses to become established. These areas provide food and shelter 

for wildlife and, in some cases, provide the proper landscape for species 

reproductive activities (BLM 1992 p135-136).

Motorized travel in the ACEC is limited to existing routes and trails. In addition, 

the ACEC is managed as a ROW avoidance area. Timber harvest is prohibited, 

and the ACEC is closed to fluid minerals leasing.

3.14.3 Trends

The BLM would continue to analyze and consider designating BLM-administered 

lands as ACECs where special management attention is required to protect or 

to prevent irreparable damage to relevant values, as necessary.

3.15 AIR RESOURCES

Air resources include air quality and air quality related values. As part of the 

planning and decision-making process, the BLM considers and analyzes the 

potential effects of BLM and BLM-authorized activities on air resources.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the primary responsibility 

for regulating air quality, including criteria air pollutants subject to National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Pollutants regulated under NAAQS 

include carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone, particulate 

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

matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and sulfur 

dioxide (SO2). Two additional pollutants, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic 

compounds are regulated because they form ozone in the atmosphere. Air 

quality is determined by pollutant emissions and emission characteristics, 

atmospheric chemistry, dispersion meteorology, and terrain. Air quality related 

values include effects on soil and water, such as sulfur and nitrogen deposition 

and lake acidification, and aesthetic effects, such as visibility.

In addition to EPA federal regulations, air quality is regulated by the MTDEQ. 

This agency develops state-specific regulations and issues air quality permits to 

emission sources.
3. Affected Environment (Air Resources)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-71

3.15.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

There are no state-operated ambient air quality monitors in the planning area. 

Consequently, data used in this analysis are data from monitors east and west of 

the planning area.

The closest monitoring station to the planning area is in Cascade County; 

however, this station only has three years of monitoring data for CO and one 

year of monitoring data for PM2.5. The closest monitoring stations with three 

years of data are located in Lewis and Clark County, west of the planning area, 

and Richland County, east of the planning area. Based on available data collected 

from these monitoring sites between 2009 and 2011, all monitored criteria 

pollutant values were below the NAAQS, except values for PM2.5. High 

particulate concentrations in Lewis and Clark County are attributed to wood 

burning in Helena during the winter. A study conducted by the University of 

Montana found wood burning to be responsible for nearly two-thirds of winter 

particulate pollution (Ward 2008). However, the data from the Richland County 

monitor outside of Sidney, Montana, is more representative of PM10 and PM2.5

concentrations within GRSG habitat areas than the Helena data from Lewis and 

Clark County.

Table 3-46, Air Quality Monitor Values Near the Planning Area (2009-2011)*,

shows the concentrations of monitored pollutants in the latest three years for 

which data has been finalized in Richland, Lewis and Clark, and Cascade Counties.

Table 3-46

Air Quality Monitor Values Near the Planning Area (2009-2011)*

Criteria 

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time 20091 20101 20111 3-year average NAAQS % of NAAQS

Richland County

NO2 1 hour 10 9 9 9.3 100 ppb 9.3%

CO3 1 hour - - - - 35 ppm -

Ozone 8 hours 0.058 0.057 0.052 0.056 0.075 ppm 75%

SO2 1 hour - 6 6 - 75 ppb 8%

PM2.52 24 hours 12 15 15 14 35 μg/m3 40%

PM102 24 hours 100 85 102 95.6 150 μg/m3 64%

Lewis and Clark County

CO 1 hour - - 0.5 - 35 ppm 1.4%

Ozone 8 hours - - 0.057 - 0.075 ppm 76%

SO2 1 hour - - 1 - 75 ppb 1.3%

PM2.52 24 hours 19, 21, 34 54 10, 41 - 35 μg/m3 119%4

Cascade County 

PM2.52 24 hours 14 - - - - -
3. Affected Environment (Air Resources)

3-72 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 3-46

Air Quality Monitor Values Near the Planning Area (2009-2011)*

Criteria 

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time 20091 20101 20111 3-year average NAAQS % of NAAQS

CO 1 hour 11.7 11.7 1.9 8.4 35 ppm 24%

CO 8 hours 2.8 2.8 0.9 9 ppm 24%

Source: EPA 2012a

* Exceptional events data included.

1

Monitored concentrations are the maximum second highest for 24-hour PM10; 4th highest daily maximum for 8-

hour O3; 98th percentile for 24-hour PM2.5 and 1-hour NO2; 99th percentile for 1-hour SO2; and maximum 

arithmetic mean for annual PM2.5. 2 Data from multiple monitoring stations.

3 Pollutant not monitored at this station.

4 Average values monitored for each year to determine 3-year average.

The EPA classifies areas of the US according to whether they meet the NAAQS. 

Areas that violate air quality standards are designated as nonattainment areas 

for the relevant criteria air pollutants. Areas that comply with air quality 

standards are designated as attainment areas for the relevant criteria air 

pollutants. Areas that have been redesignated from nonattainment to attainment 

are considered maintenance areas. The planning area is in attainment for all of 

the NAAQS (MTDEQ 2011).

Air quality also may be assessed using the EPA’s air quality index (AQI). The 

AQI is an index used for reporting daily air quality to the public. The index tells 

how clean or polluted an area’s air is and whether associated health effects 

might be a concern. The EPA calculates the AQI for five criteria air pollutants 

regulated by the Clean Air Act: ground-level ozone, particulate matter, CO, 

SO2, and NO2. An AQI value of 100 generally corresponds to the primary 

NAAQS for the pollutant. The following terms help interpret the AQI 

information:

• Good – The AQI value is between 0 and 50. Air quality is 

considered satisfactory and air pollution poses little or no risk.

• Moderate – The AQI is between 51 and 100. Air quality is 

acceptable; however, for some pollutants there may be a moderate 

health concern for a very small number of people. For example, 

people who are unusually sensitive to ozone may experience 

respiratory symptoms.

• Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups – When AQI values are 

between 101 and 150, members of “sensitive groups” may 

experience health effects. These groups are likely to be affected at 

lower levels than the general public. For example, people with lung 

disease are at greater risk from exposure to ozone, while people 

with either lung disease or heart disease are at greater risk from 
3. Affected Environment (Air Resources)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-73

exposure to particle pollution. The general public is not likely to be 

affected when the AQI is in this range.

• Unhealthy – The AQI is between 151 and 200. Everyone may 

begin to experience some adverse health effects, and members of 

the sensitive groups may experience more serious effects.

• Very Unhealthy – The AQI is between 201 and 300. This index 

level would trigger a health alert signifying that everyone may 

experience more serious health effects.

The AQI of Lewis and Clark County, Cascade County, and Richland County are 

displayed in Table 3-47, Air Quality Index Report, 2009-2011. In general the 

air quality in these areas has consistently been good for the past three years 

(EPA 2012b).

Table 3-47

Air Quality Index Report, 2009-2011

Year

Number 

of Days 

with AQI 

data

Number of 

Days Rated 

Good

Percent of 

Days 

Rated 

Good

Number 

of 

Moderate 

Days

Number of 

Unhealthy 

for Sensitive

Groups

Days

Number of 

Unhealthy 

or Very 

Unhealthy 

Days

Lewis and Clark County

(west of the planning area)

2011 365 340 93% 24 1 0

2010 360 306 85% 45 8 1

2009 358 331 92% 25 2 0

Total: 1,083 977 94 11 1

Average: 90% 9% 1% 0%

Cascade County

(west of the planning area)

2011 347 325 94% 22 0 0

2010 365 340 93% 25 0 0

2009 365 344 94% 21 0 0

Total: 1,077 1,009 68 0 0

Average: 94% 6% 0% 0%

Richland County

(east of the planning area)

2011 365 336 92% 29 0 0

2010 365 345 95% 20 0 0

2009 365 343 94% 22 0 0

Total: 1,095 1,024 71 0 0

Average: 94% 6% 0% 0%

Source: EPA 2012b
3. Affected Environment (Air Resources)

3-74 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Air quality related values include visibility, which can be degraded by regional 

haze due primarily to sulfur, nitrogen, and particulate emissions. Since 1980, the 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network 

has measured visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. The nearest 

IMPROVE site is in the UL Bend Wilderness adjacent to the northeastern edge 

of the planning area. Visibility at this IMPROVE station has improved slightly in 

the 2005 to 2009 time period compared with the 2000-2004 time period on 

both the 20 percent haziest days and the 20 percent clearest days (Hand 2011).

Atmospheric deposition refers to processes in which air pollutants are removed 

from the atmosphere and deposited into terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Air 

pollutants can be deposited by either wet precipitation (via rain or snow) or dry 

(gravitational) settling of particles and adherence of gaseous pollutants to soil, 

water, and vegetation. Much of the concern about deposition surrounds the 

secondary formation of acids and other compounds that can contribute to 

acidification of lakes, streams, and soils and affect other ecosystem 

characteristics, including nutrient cycling and biological diversity. Deposition 

varies with precipitation and other meteorological variables such as 

temperature, humidity, winds, and atmospheric stability.

The National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network is an 

interagency sponsored network of monitoring stations that measures wet 

atmospheric deposition. The Clean Air Status and Trends Network is an 

interagency network of monitoring stations managed by EPA that measures dry 

deposition. The closest National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National 

Trends Network sites are in Havre, north of the planning area, and in Clancy, 

west of the planning area. There are no Clean Air Status and Trends Network

sites near the planning area; the nearest sites are in Glacier National Park and 

Theodore Roosevelt National Park. 

Table 3-48, Annual Average Deposition (2009-2011), shows the deposition 

levels of sulfates, nitrates, and ammonium, as well as pH and precipitation, from 

2009 to 2011. The annual average precipitation pH between 2009 and 2011 was 

5.56 at the Havre site and 5.40 at the Clancy site; normal rain has a pH level of 

5.6, while acid rain has a pH level around 4.3 (EPA 2012c).

There are no Class 1 areas within the planning area. The closest Class 1 area is 

the UL Bend Wilderness, adjacent to the northeastern edge of the planning 

area. The Gates of the Mountains Wilderness Area in Lewis and Clark County is 

west of the planning area and is also in close proximity to the planning area. The 

land in the planning area is designated as Class II.
3. Affected Environment (Air Resources)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-75

Table 3-48

Annual Average Deposition (2009-2011)

Year pH Precipitation

(cm)

Annual Average Wet Deposition 

(kg/ha/yr)

SO4 NO3 NH4

Havre, MT (MT98)

2009 5.60 26.1 0.69 0.65 0.41

2010 5.49 38.6 0.32 0.55 0.24

2011 5.58 27.8 0.45 0.70 0.43

Average 5.56 30.8 0.49 0.63 0.36

Clancy, MT (MT07)

2009 5.35 38.5 0.29 0.42 0.15

2010 5.43 42.9 0.25 0.45 0.16

2011 5.43 44.9 0.25 0.40 0.18

Average 5.40 42.1 0.26 0.42 0.16

Source: NADP/NTN 2009-2011

SO4=sulfates; NO3=nitrates; NH4=Ammonium

3.15.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

The area managed by the BLM is in compliance with all NAAQS (MTDEQ 

2011). The Richland and Cascade County monitoring locations are the most 

representative air quality monitors for the BLM-administered lands in the 

planning area. As such, these monitoring locations have the best estimate to 

what kind of air quality is present in the planning region, and more specifically, 

on BLM-administered lands. The conditions on BLM-administered lands are 

similar to those discussed in Section 3.15.1, Conditions of the Planning Area.

3.15.3 Trends

Quantitative data provided by the Richland and Cascade County monitors show 

air quality near the planning area has been good over the past several years 

(EPA 2012a). Based on the proximity of these monitoring sites to the planning 

area, and on past trends for air quality, it is reasonable to assume the air quality 

in the planning area will remain good. Measures that are implemented to protect 

GRSG may also benefit air resources if they prohibit surface disturbance or 

reduce access to habitat, consequently limiting fugitive dust or pollution caused 

by transportation.

The good air quality in the area is largely attributed to the rural nature of the 

planning region. In the event that more development occurs in the future, air 

quality may be affected.

Visibility trend plots at the UL Bend Wilderness IMPROVE site shows slight 

improvements in visibility on both the 20 percent haziest and 20 percent 
3. Affected Environment (Air Resources)

3-76 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

clearest days since the early 2000s (Hand 2011). Trend plots at National 

Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network monitoring sites 

MT2007 and MT98 likewise show SO2, NO3, and NH4 deposition rates to be 

generally stable since the early 2000s (NADP/NTN 2012).

3.16 CLIMATE

Climate change is defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC) as “a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by 

using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its 

properties, and persist for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It 

refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or 

as a result of human activity” (IPCC 2007). Climate change and climate science 

are discussed in detail in the Climate Change Supplementary Information Report for 

Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota, Bureau of Land Management (BLM 

2010b). This document is often referred to as the “Climate Change SIR” and is 

incorporated by reference into the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse 

RMPA/EIS.

Earth has a natural greenhouse effect, wherein naturally occurring gases such as 

water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide absorb and retain 

heat. Without the natural greenhouse effect, the earth would be approximately 

60°F cooler (BLM 2010b). Climate change is caused in part by the increase in 

GHGs in the atmosphere beyond naturally occurring levels1. Over time the 

amount of energy sent from the sun to the Earth’s surface should be 

approximately the same as the amount of energy radiated back into space, 

leaving the temperature of the Earth’s surface roughly constant. Increased levels 

of GHGs trap more heat in the atmosphere rather than allowing it to escape 

back into space.

Climate models predict that if GHGs continue to increase, the average 

temperature at the Earth’s surface could increase from 3.2 to 7.2oF (1.8 to 

4.0°C) above 1990 levels by the end of this century (EPA 2011b). An increase in 

the average temperature of the Earth may produce changes in sea levels, rainfall 

patterns, and intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. The IPCC, in 

its Fourth Assessment Report, stated that warming of the earth’s climate system 

is unequivocal and that warming is very likely due to anthropogenic (humancaused) GHG concentrations (IPCC 2007).

 1 There are six GHGs tracked by the IPCC: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydroflourocarbons, 

perflourocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (State Department 2010). The latter three gases are known as high 

global warming potential gases due to their warming effectiveness (140 to 23,900 times greater than carbon 

dioxide) and their long atmospheric lifetimes (between 1-50,000 years) (EPA 2013). Carbon dioxide, methane, and 

nitrous oxide have both natural and human-generated sources, while high global warming potential gases are 

strictly human-generated from various industrial processes. GHGs are tracked as carbon dioxide equivalents, with 

one gram of carbon dioxide molecule counting as one and other GHG molecules counting as some multiple (EPA 

2012d).
3. Affected Environment (Climate)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-77

3.16.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

Climate

The planning area has a semiarid continental climate marked by cold winters, 

warm to rarely hot summers, winds primarily from the west, and abundant 

sunshine.

The average temperature in central Montana over the last thirty years is 

between 40oF and 50oF. The average January temperature is around 23oF. The 

average July temperature is about 66oF, though temperatures as high as 110oF 

have been recorded (Western Regional Climate Center 2012).

Average annual precipitation ranges from 11 inches to 22 inches, with an 

average of 15 inches of precipitation (Western Regional Climate Center 2012).

Snow in the mountain areas may be several feet deep. On the plains, snow more 

than 12 inches deep is uncommon but not rare. Snow generally falls between 

November and April, although traces have been reported at Lewistown in July 

and August.

Rainfall is concentrated between April and June. Precipitation from July through 

September is characterized by localized intense thunderstorms that can drop 

more than an inch of rain or hail on a small area in a few minutes. Low humidity, 

high temperatures, and moderate to strong winds cause rapid loss of soil 

moisture (Western Regional Climate Center 2013).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

GHG emissions are generally reported at national and statewide levels. 

Montana’s GHG emissions were inventoried by the state in 2005 (Montana 

Climate Change Advisory Committee 2007). In 2005, activities in Montana 

accounted for approximately 37 million metric tons of carbon dioxide 

equivalents gross emissions, approximately 0.6 percent of total US GHG

emissions. Montana’s gross emissions increased 11 percent from 1990 to 2004, 

while national emissions rose by 15 percent during this period.

Electricity use, agriculture, and transportation are Montana’s principal GHG

emissions sources. Together, the combustion of fossil fuels for electricity 

generation used in-state and in the transportation sector account for about 46 

percent of Montana’s gross emissions. The contribution of agriculture-related 

GHG emissions is much higher in Montana (26 percent) than in the nation as a 

whole (seven percent). The state also has higher levels of emissions from the 

fossil fuels industry—natural gas, oil products, and coal—than the national 

average (Montana Climate Change Advisory Committee 2007).

3.16.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

Conditions on BLM-administered lands are similar to those described above for 

the planning area.
3. Affected Environment (Climate)

3-78 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

3.16.3 Trends

Climate changes over the past 100 years are well documented, and climate 

change is expected to continue into the future. Fossil fuel combustion and other 

human-caused GHG-producing activities are ongoing, although public awareness 

and future regulations may reduce annual GHG emissions. Due to the long 

atmospheric lifetimes of most GHGs, climate change impacts will continue to 

increase for many years after GHG emissions decrease (EPA 2012d).

Over the past 100 years, annual temperature and precipitation have increased, 

and climate models predict that they will continue to increase through the 21st 

century. Extreme weather events such as severe drought and intense rainfall are 

expected to increase in frequency in the future as well (NCSL 2008). 

Depending on the model, in Montana temperatures are predicted to increase 3 

to 4°F by the mid-21st century and 5 to 6°F by the end of the century 

(USGCRP 2009). Precipitation is expected to increase during winter and spring, 

decrease slightly in the summer, and remain relatively unchanged in the fall 

(USGCRP 2009). Annual median runoff is expected to decrease between two

and five percent (USGCRP 2009). Temperature increases may increase crop 

yields, which may encourage parts of the state not previously used for 

agriculture to be obtained for that purpose (NRC 2010). The risk of wildfire is 

expected to increase throughout the state (NRC 2010).

3.17 SOIL RESOURCES

Soil processes determine, to a large extent, the structure and function of 

ecosystems. Soil health is integral to the BLM’s mandate to sustain the health, 

diversity, and productivity of BLM-administered lands.

The existing Headwaters Resource Management Plan has the following objective 

related to soils:

• Soils will be managed to maintain productivity and to minimize 

erosion.

The existing Judith Resource Area Resource Management Plan has the following 

objective related to soils:

• The BLM will maintain or improve soil productivity by increasing 

vegetation cover and reducing erosion.

Soil type and quality, along with climate, determine whether sagebrush can grow 

in a given location, and can determine the type or variety of sagebrush 

community that is able to thrive. Among other factors, the presence of GRSG is 

dependent upon the presence of sagebrush. Due to sagebrush type and viability 

being dependent on soil type and quality, soils are an important element to 

GRSG habitat.
3. Affected Environment (Soil Resources)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-79

3.17.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

In the portion of the planning area covered by the Judith Resource Area

Resource Management Plan, soils are derived from glacial till, sedimentary or 

igneous bedrock, and alluvium from mixed rock sources. This creates complex 

and diverse soil patterns, varying greatly in character capability, limitations and 

productivity. This diversity in soils is reflected in the four Physiographic 

Provinces that occur across the Judith Resource Area Resource Management 

Plan portion of the Planning Area (BLM 1992). These four Physiographic 

Provinces are described below.

Soils located in the Glacial Till Upland Province formed during several periods of 

late Wisconsin glaciation and are found on landscapes that range from nearly 

level to gently rolling and from strongly rolling to steep, particularly along 

drainage-ways. The soils are commonly loamy or clayey till soils, with the clayey 

soils sometimes being poorly drained. Erosion hazards vary in the Glacial Till 

Upland Province, but are generally slight to moderate due to the gently rolling 

topography and short slopes. When disturbed or cultivated, erosion hazards 

increase, especially wind erosion hazards (BLM 1992).

Soils in the Sedimentary Uplands Province are composed of mostly clayey soils 

weathered from calcareous and acid shales, but loamy and sandy sedimentary 

uplands are also common. The soils in this province are usually fragile and highly 

erosive because of steep slopes and extreme physical properties such as high 

clay or salt content, slow permeability, relatively shallow depth to bedrock, and 

sparse vegetation ground cover. Wind and water erosion susceptibility is 

increased when vegetation ground cover is sparse. Due to the fragile nature of 

the soils in this portion of the planning area, they are highly susceptible to 

compaction, severe rutting, and erosion, caused by vehicular travel (BLM 1992).

The Alluvial Soils Province contains deep, clayey, loamy, and sandy soils in valley 

bottoms, valley sides, and slopes and upland terraces, with local areas that have 

rock fragments throughout the soil or in the underlying parent material. These 

soils have high vegetation production potential and are therefore used by 

livestock and wildlife, particularly near water sources. Soils with high clay 

contents in these areas are especially susceptible to compaction, which results 

in reduced water infiltration, which then leads to increased surface water runoff 

and associated erosion (BLM 1992).

The Mountains and Foothills Province is composed primarily of loamy and clayey 

soils that range from shallow to deep, and generally have rock fragments 

throughout the soil. The soils are found on bedrock ridges and on footslopes 

that form a rolling to very steep terrain with areas of bedrock and talus. Erosion 

hazards here are slight to high, and compaction susceptibility is moderate to 

high (BLM 1992).

The Headwaters Resource Management Plan notes that soil data is incomplete 

for the Meagher County, which is the only portion of the planning area covered 
3. Affected Environment (Soil Resources)

3-80 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

by this RMP. This data is still unavailable from the NRCS (it is in the publishing 

phase at this time of writing); however, GIS mapping provided the major soil 

orders in the planning area, described below.

Soils are categorized into 12 orders that are based on the conditions under 

which the soil develop, with each order having specific inherent soil properties.

NRCS data indicates that entisols, mollisols, and vertisols are the predominate 

soils of the planning area. Entisols are often classified as young soils, or soils that 

are characterized by little to no soil horizon (layer) development, and poor 

surface nutrient or organic content. Soil characteristics of Mollisols include dark 

colored soils with high base chemical content (as opposed to acidic content), 

high mineral content, and a nutrient enriched surface layer (A horizon). 

Vertisols are clayey soils that often swell when moistened and shrink when dry, 

resulting in characteristic cracks in the soil through at least part of the year 

(NRCS 1999).

Soil orders that comprise the remaining portions of the planning area include 

Alfisols, Inceptisols, and Aridisols. Alfisols are characterized by a thin or light 

surface horizon that is rich in nutrients, and often have a clayey subsurface 

horizon. Inceptisols commonly occur in areas of active erosion, such as slopes, 

and as a result are characterized by poorly developed soil layers or horizons, 

with thin surface layers that often have little organic content. Aridisols are 

characterized by a low water holding potential or capacity, and can have high 

salt contents (NRCS 1999).

3.17.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

Soil classifications and interpretations on BLM-administered land are provided 

through a series of tables that breakdown the planning area into dominant soil 

orders, NRCS farmlands, acreage with sensitive soils, and soil restoration 

potential classes.

Table 3-49, Dominant Soil Order on BLM-Administered Lands, provides 

acreage numbers for soils within the BLM-administered lands that occur within 

the planning area (see Figure 3-9, Major Soil Orders, in Appendix A).

Table 3-49

Dominant Soil Order on BLM-Administered Lands

Headwaters

Total

(acres)

PPH

(acres)

PGH

(acres)

Alfisols 313 0 13 (4%)

Entisols 139 0 60 (43%)

Inceptisols 1,138 0 3 (0.3%)

Mollisols 4,330 0 265 (6%)

Undefined 1,961 0 70 (4%)
3. Affected Environment (Soil Resources)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-81

Table 3-49

Dominant Soil Order on BLM-Administered Lands

Headwaters

Total

(acres)

PPH

(acres)

PGH

(acres)

Judith Resource 

Area Acreage PPH PGH

Alfisols 48,771 34,511 (71%) 1,612 (3%)

Aridisols 24,538 21,078 (86%) 2,034 (8%)

Entisols 312,956 88,252 (28%) 79,429 (25%)

Inceptisols 44,228 12,430 (28%) 8,652 (20%)

Mollisols 76,952 29,934 (39%) 9,193 (12%)

Vertisols 63,876 42,919 (67%) 6,044 (9%)

Undefined 14,773 4,093 (28%) 4,933 (33%)

Source: BLM 2012a

NRCS farmlands on BLM-administered and private lands within the planning 

area are shown in Table 3-50, NRCS Farmlands on BLM-Administered Lands, 

and in Figure 3-10, NRCS Farmland Classification, in Appendix A.

Table 3-50

NRCS Farmlands on BLM-Administered Lands

Headwaters BLM 

(acres)

BLM PPH

(acres)

BLM 

PGH

(acres)

Private 

(acres)

Private

PPH

(acres)

Private 

PGH

(acres)

Prime 200 0 0 37,180 0 16,860

(45%)

Statewide 

Importance

270 0 10

(4%)

77,120 0 36,710

(48%)

Not Primeland 15,740 0 420

(3%)

815,110 0 577,740

(71%)

Prime if Irrigated 70 0 0 24,550 0 14,670

(60%)

Judith Resource 

Area

BLM 

(acres)

BLM PPH

(acres)

BLM 

PGH

(acres)

Private 

(acres)

Private

PPH

(acres)

Private 

PGH

(acres)

Prime 800 250

(31%)

150

(19%)

341,230 1,950

(0.5%)

13,780

(4%) 

Statewide 

Importance

49,330 15,880

(32%)

7,120

(49%)

801,220 104,780

(13%)

85,280

(11%)

Not Primeland 560,720 210,960

(38%)

102,660

(18%)

3,974,740 1,071,280

(27%)

552,210

(14%)
3. Affected Environment (Soil Resources)

3-82 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 3-50

NRCS Farmlands on BLM-Administered Lands

Headwaters BLM 

(acres)

BLM PPH

(acres)

BLM 

PGH

(acres)

Private 

(acres)

Private

PPH

(acres)

Private 

PGH

(acres)

Prime if Irrigated 18,270 6,130

(34%)

1,960

(11%)

324,630 29,960

(9%)

59,570

(18%)

Source: BLM 2012a

Sensitive soils on BLM-administered lands and BLM sub-surface administered 

lands within the planning area are shown in Table 3-51, Sensitive Soils in the 

Planning Area. Sensitive soils in the planning area are classified as soils that are 

susceptible to water erosion and soils that have low restoration potentials. The 

planning area does not have soils susceptible to wind erosion. 

Table 3-51

Sensitive Soils in the Planning Area

Land Status 

Acreage with 

Severe Water 

Erosion 

Potential

Acreage with 

Low Soil 

Restoration 

Potential

BLM 179,431 73,388

Department of Defense 2 0

USFWS 25,327 5,872

Private 720,505 403,104

State Land 81,471 39,356

State Water 3,523 970

Forest Service 16,489 399

Water 327 1,565

Source: BLM 2012a

Soil Restoration Potential on BLM-administered lands within the planning area is

shown in Table 3-52, Soil Restoration Potential on BLM-Administered Lands, 

and Figure 3-11, Soil Restoration Potential, in Appendix A.

Table 3-52

Soil Restoration Potential on BLM-Administered Lands

Headwaters Total (acres) PPH (acres) PGH (acres)

High 4,626 0 270 (6%)

Moderate 1,172 0 41 (3%)
3. Affected Environment (Soil Resources)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-83

Table 3-52

Soil Restoration Potential on BLM-Administered Lands

Headwaters Total (acres) PPH (acres) PGH (acres)

Low 123 0 60 (49%)

Not Rated 1,964 0 70 (4%)

Judith Resource Area Total PPH (acres) PGH (acres)

High 191,904 78,718 (41%) 32,714 (17%)

Moderate 309,409 93,798 (30%) 70,772 (23%)

Low 73,265 59,567 (81%) 3,639 (5%)

Not Rated 11,516 1,133 (10%) 4,471 (39%)

Source: BLM 2012a

3.17.3 Trends

Qualitative observations indicate that soil health, stability, and watershed health 

has improved overall on BLM-administered lands; however, there are areas 

where soil health and stability is diminishing due to concentrated commercial 

and recreational use and activities.

3.18 WATER RESOURCES

Streams and water quality are the focus of this section. Wetlands (including 

riparian areas) are discussed in Section 3.5. Water on BLM-administered lands 

is regulated by the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Public Land 

Health Standards, and other laws, regulations, and policy guidance at the federal, 

state, and local levels.

3.18.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

The major sources of surface water in the planning area are the Missouri River, 

Sacagawea River (Crooked Creek), Musselshell River, Sun River, Dearborn 

River, Judith River, and Smith River. These rivers are tributaries of the Missouri 

River. Smaller watercourses in the planning area involve streams that can be 

ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial. Lakes can be permanent or temporary

(see Figure 3-12, Water Features, in Appendix A). Wetlands and floodplains 

vary in extent and depth throughout the year (see Figure 3-3 in Appendix A). 

Permanent waters can also be in the form of wells, springs, ponds, diversions, 

and reservoirs developed for human, wildlife or livestock consumption, as seen 

in Table 3-53, Developed Water Sources in the Planning Area. Dams and pits 

provide drinking water sources for GRSG, but can also provide habitat for 

mosquitos, which can increase the risk of spreading West Nile virus

transmission among GRSG populations. Other water developments such as 

underground wells do not provide a drinking water source for GRSG, but also 

do not provide a habitat for mosquitos.
3. Affected Environment (Water Resources)

3-84 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 3-53

Developed Water Sources in the Planning Area

Habitat Type Feature Type Number of Features 

No Habitat

Dam/Pit 2,919

Other -

PGH

Dam/Pit 838

Other 3,816

PPH

Dam/Pit 2,420

Other 3,699

Source: BLM 2012a

3.18.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

This discussion of existing conditions includes a description of surface water, 

water quality, and groundwater. The description is limited to BLM-administered 

lands within the planning area, especially lands within GRSG habitat.

Surface Water

Stream flow volumes differ greatly within the planning area. Flows in unregulated 

streams have large seasonal variations, with the largest flows generally occurring 

during spring or early summer as a result of snowmelt and rainstorms. Peak 

flows on prairie streams occur in March or April resulting from snowmelt. 

Larger peak flows on small drainages can occur from intense summer 

thunderstorms, but generally not on an annual basis. Peak flows on mountain 

streams occur from late May to early June. The peaks are less sharp than on 

prairie streams. Summer rainstorms can result in short intervals of increased 

stream flow during June through September. During winter, stream flow in 

prairie streams is greatly reduced or absent as a result of little ground water 

inflow and ice formation (BLM 1994).

Ephemeral streams do not flow during an average water year but do flow in 

response to large precipitation events. Intermittent streams flow during spring 

runoff for an average water year, but generally dry up later in the summer. 

Perennial streams contain some water all year for an average water year. Most

of the streams on BLM-administered land in the planning area are intermittent 

and flow from March to July. However, streams can still contain water during 

other months due to stored water being fed to the streams from shallow 

groundwater sources or floodplains. Table 3-54, Watershed Acreages in the 

Planning Area, lists information watersheds on BLM-administered lands; Table 

3-55, Streams on BLM-Administered Lands in the Planning Area, lists 

information for perennial and intermittent streams on BLM-administered lands 

in the planning area; and Table 3-56, Acres of Freshwater Pond and Lacustrine 

in PPH and PGH on BLM-Administered Lands in the Planning Area, lists

information for ponds and lakes on BLM-administered lands in the planning area.
3. Affected Environment (Water Resources)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-85

Table 3-54

Watershed Acreages in the Planning Area

Watershed BLM PH BLM PH GH BLM GH

Arrow 26,275 0 0 73,548 20,801

Belt 1677 0 0 0 0

Box Elder 58,422 195,060 49,704 24,276 1,950

Bullwhacker-Dog 9,438 53,763 437 12,442 1,125

Flatwillow 55,548 119,038 39,583 87,849 5,582

Fort Peck Reservoir 32,086 108,179 12,901 51,364 14,393

Judith 25,635 0 0 86,464 14,915

Lower Musselshell 123,465 120,300 23,523 49,482 22,047

Middle Musselshell 10252 85,364 6,364 30,541 3,888

Smith 153 0 0 2,827 0

Upper Missouri 645 0 0 2,384 0

Upper Musselshell 1,044 0 0 37,917 144

Source: BLM 2012a

Table 3-55

Streams on BLM-Administered Lands in the Planning Area

RMP Intermittent or Perennial

Stream Miles GRSG Habitat Type

Headwaters Intermittent: 21.0 No habitat

Headwaters Perennial: 0.8 No habitat

Headwaters Intermittent: 3.4 PGH

Headwaters Perennial: 0.0 PGH

Judith Resource Area Intermittent: 1237.4 No habitat

Judith Resource Area Perennial: 22.9 No habitat

Judith Resource Area Intermittent: 706.1 PGH

Judith Resource Area Perennial: 8.1 PGH

Judith Resource Area Intermittent: 1320.4 PPH

Judith Resource Area Perennial: 12.8 PPH

Source: BLM 2012a
3. Affected Environment (Water Resources)

3-86 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 3-56

Acres of Freshwater Pond and Lacustrine in PPH and PGH on BLM-Administered 

Lands in the Planning Area

RMP GRSG Habitat Type in Wetlands Acres

Headwaters PGH <1

Headwaters Outside of GRSG habitat <1

Judith Resource Area PPH 974

Judith Resource Area PGH 60

Judith Resource Area Outside of GRSG habitat 209

Total 1,243

Source: BLM 2012a

Riparian areas are ecosystems that occur along rivers, streams, or waterbodies. 

These areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of 

permanent surface or subsurface water influence. Typical riparian areas are 

lands along, adjacent to, or contiguous with perennially and intermittently 

flowing rivers, streams, and shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water 

levels. Excluded are such sites as ephemeral streams or washes that do not 

exhibit vegetation dependent on free water in the soil. Wetlands are areas that 

are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and 

duration sufficient to support and which, under normal circumstances, do 

support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil 

conditions. Wetlands include marshes, swamps, lakeshores, sloughs, bogs, wet 

meadows, estuaries, and riparian areas. Even though riparian and wetland areas 

occupy only a small percentage of BLM-administered land in the planning area 

(approximately 0.4 percent), these areas provide a wide range of functions 

critical to many different wildlife species, improve water quality, provide 

scenery, and provide recreational opportunities. 

Healthy surface water sources (such as ponds, lakes, and wetlands) provide 

habitat for insects and animals that are predators of mosquitos. Areas that both 

have standing water and do not support predators of mosquitos can be areas 

where mosquito populations increase. The conditions of wetlands (including 

riparian areas) are discussed in Section 3.5.

Water developments are also influential sources of water for wildlife. Water 

developments can function for multiple uses. They provide additional and 

alternative sources of water for wildlife and livestock, and can decrease use of 

riparian areas. Within the planning area, most of the water developments are 

intended for livestock, followed by water developments intended for fish. There 

are 13,702 water developments in the decision area, and 10,733 water 

developments in GRSG habitat, none of which are for GRSG. However, wildlife 

will often take advantage of available water developments.
3. Affected Environment (Water Resources)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-87

Water Quality

Water quality, as defined by the Clean Water Act, includes all the physical, 

biological, and chemical characteristics which affect existing and designated 

beneficial uses. The State of Montana is required to identify which beneficial 

uses a water body currently supports or could support in the future. Water 

quality standards are established to protect the beneficial uses of the state’s 

waters. Beneficial uses are identified for specific waters.

The State of Montana is required by Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act to 

identify waters which are water quality impaired because of failing to meet their 

designated beneficial uses. Section 303(d) requires that each state develop a list of 

water bodies that fail to meet water quality standards and delineate stream 

segments and listing criteria for all streams. The Section 303(d) list of impaired 

waters is updated biannually, and the state is required to develop a total 

maximum daily load allocation for each pollutant of concern. Table 3-57, 

Impaired Streams on BLM-Administered Lands in the Planning Area, lists 

information for impaired streams on BLM-administered lands in the planning area.

Upland and, especially riparian land health conditions greatly influence water 

quality. The functioning condition of riparian and wetland areas is a result of the 

interaction of geology, soil, water, and vegetation (BLM 1998). Riparian areas 

surrounding rivers, streams, and springs (lotic waters) are in PFC when 

adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to:

• Dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflows, thereby 

reducing erosion and improving water quality

• Filter sediments, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development

• Improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge

• Develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting 

action

• Develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the 

habitat, water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish 

production, waterfowl breeding and other uses

• Support greater biodiversity

Streams that are in PFC typically have channel dimensions that are appropriate 

for the landscape and setting and adequate riparian-wetland vegetation to 

stabilize banks from cutting action. Both of these features help to reduce 

erosion and mitigate non-point source pollutants, thereby improving water 

quality. Functional conditions of streams on BLM-administered lands can be 

found in Table 3-21. However, PFC does not connote adequate or good water 

quality. Water of poor water quality flowing into a section of stream with PFC 

would still have poor water quality. 
3. Affected Environment (Water Resources)

3-88 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 3-57

Impaired Streams on BLM-Administered Lands in the Planning Area

RMP

GRSG 

Habitat 

Type

Cause or Source of Stream 

Impairment

Stream 

Name Miles

Headwaters No Habitat

Sedimentation/Siltation [CFL 1990], 

Phosphorus (Total) [CFL 2006], Nitrogen 

(Total) [CFL 2006], Temperature, water 

[CFL 1988]

Elk Creek 0.26

Sedimentation/Siltation [CFL 1990], 

Temperature, water [CFL 2006], 

Phosphorus (Total) [CFL 2006]

Battle 

Creek 0.42

Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones, 

Natural Sources

North Fork 

Musselshell 

River

0.32

Judith 

Resource 

Area

No Habitat

Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones, 

Natural Sources

Blood 

Creek 9.02

Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones, 

Flow Alterations from Water Diversions, 

Impacts from Resort Areas (Winter and 

Non-winter Resorts), Agriculture, Impacts 

from Hydrostructure Flow 

Regulation/modification, Streambank 

Modifications/destabilization

Musselshell 

River 1.33

Cadmium [CFL 1992], pH [CFL 1992], 

Mercury [CFL 1992], Copper [CFL 1992], 

Zinc [CFL 1992]

Armells 

Creek 1.60

Cyanide [CFL 2004], Thallium [CFL 2004], 

Selenium [CFL 2004], Iron [CFL 2004]

Last Chance 

Creek 0.14

Iron [CFL 2006], Phosphorus (Total) [CFL 

2006], Aluminum [CFL 2006], Lead [CFL 

2006], Nitrogen (Total) [CFL 2006]

Fargo 

Coulee 0.09

Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) [CFL 

2004], Sedimentation/Siltation [CFL 2004] Dog Creek 10.98

pH [CFL 1992], Lead [CFL 1992], Zinc [CFL 

1992]

Chicago 

Gulch 1.33

pH [CFL 1992], Lead [CFL 1992], Zinc [CFL 

1992]

Collar 

Gulch 2.50

Sedimentation/Siltation [CFL 1988], 

Chromium (total) [CFL 1988], Copper [CFL 

1988]

Belt Creek 0.20

Sedimentation/Siltation [CFL 1996], Nitrates 

[CFL 2000]

Big Otter 

Creek 0.00

Sedimentation/Siltation [CFL 2002]

North Fork 

Flatwillow 

Creek

0.28

Selenium [CFL 2006], Total Dissolved Solids 

[CFL 2006], Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + 

Nitrate as N) [CFL 1990]

Coffee 

Creek 0.92
3. Affected Environment (Water Resources)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-89

Table 3-57

Impaired Streams on BLM-Administered Lands in the Planning Area

RMP

GRSG 

Habitat 

Type

Cause or Source of Stream 

Impairment

Stream 

Name Miles

Judith 

Resource 

Area

PGH

Agriculture, Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline 

Zones, Loss of Riparian Habitat, Rangeland 

Grazing

Judith River 6.96

Agriculture, Channelization, Streambank 

Modifications/destablization, Impacts from 

Hydrostructure Flow 

Regulation/modification

Musselshell 

River 0.91

Iron [CFL 2006] Arrow 

Creek 0.74

Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) 

[CFL 2004], Sedimentation/Siltation [CFL 

2004]

Dog Creek 1.33

Selenium [CFL 2006], Iron [CFL 2006], 

Total Dissolved Solids [CFL 1992] Wolf Creek 0.25

Selenium [CFL 2006], Total Dissolved Solids 

[CFL 2006], Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + 

Nitrate as N) [CFL 1990]

Coffee 

Creek 0.23

Judith 

Resource 

Area

PPH

Unknown Reason for Stream Impairment Snoose 

Creek 4.59

Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones, 

Natural Sources

Blood 

Creek 11.86

Agriculture, Channelization, Streambank 

Modifications/destablization, Impacts from 

Hydrostructure Flow 

Regulation/modification

Musselshell 

River 0.03

Iron [CFL 2006], Phosphorus (Total) [CFL 

2006], Aluminum [CFL 2006], Lead [CFL 

2006], Nitrogen (Total) [CFL 2006]

Fargo 

Coulee 0.03

Iron [CFL 2006], Sulfates [CFL 2006], 

Phosphorus (Total) [CFL 2006], 

Sedimentation/Siltation [CFL 1994], Specific 

Conductance [CFL 2006], Solids 

(Suspended/Bedload) [CFL 1994], Nitrogen 

(Total) [CFL 2006]

North 

Willow 

Creek

2.03

Total Dissolved Solids [CFL 2006], 

Sedimentation/Siltation [CFL 1988], Specific 

Conductance [CFL 2006]

McDonald 

Creek 0.04

Source: BLM 2012a

CFL = cycle first listed

Groundwater

Groundwater is used for irrigation, domestic use, and livestock use. The quality 

of the groundwater is a function of the chemical makeup of the underground 
3. Affected Environment (Water Resources)

3-90 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

formation containing the water. Springs and seeps occur in areas where water 

from aquifers reaches the surface. Many springs begin in stream channels; others 

flow into small ponds or marshy areas that drain into channels. Some springs 

and seep areas form their own channels that reach flowing streams, but other 

springs lose their surface expression and recharge alluvial fill material or 

permeable stratum.

Springs and seeps are important to aquatic habitats because of the perennial 

base flow they provide to a stream. The outflow from springs in summer usually 

helps to maintain lower water temperatures. In winter, especially in small 

streams, base flow helps to maintain an aquatic habitat in an otherwise frozen 

environment.

Springs have been disturbed either by management activities that have affected 

the volume of water available to the vegetation and soils where springs begin, or 

by activities that have affected the vegetation and soils directly. Activities, such 

as grazing, water developments, recreation use, mining, road construction, and 

vegetation management, have affected spring systems in the past. Activities such 

as well drilling or blasting can affect springs by reducing the amount of water in 

their aquifers or by affecting subsurface flow patterns.

3.18.3 Trends

Demands on water resources have increased over the past few decades. 

Although most early water rights were established for irrigation and livestock, 

today’s demand includes municipal water supplies, commercial and industrial 

supplies, and maintenance of adequate stream flows for fish, recreation, and 

water quality.

Management activities involving ROW disturbance, grazing, and fire have created 

situations that alter land health, thereby impairing water quality. Livestock water 

impoundments have altered surface and subsurface water flow. The number of 

new livestock water impoundments has leveled off due to a lack of appropriate 

locations for such developments. Consequently, future water developments are 

expected to rely more on wells and stock tanks.

The availability of water in much of the planning area is limited and may hamper 

additional developments that depend on water. Future water development for 

wildlife, recreation, and livestock would require a water right before project 

implementation could occur. Any additional water developments would require 

adhering to Montana state laws for surface and ground water.

3.19 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES – OTHER SPECIES OF ISSUE

This section provides a description of special status species other than GRSG. 

Refer to Section 3.3, Greater Sage-Grouse, for a discussion of GRSG. Section 

3.3 also includes a discussion of special status species policies and regulations.
3. Affected Environment (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-91

3.19.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

The planning area consists of over 7.3 million acres of land which provides 

potential habitat for special status species (Table 3-58, Habitat by Ownership 

within the Planning Area). The BLM directly manages approximately 593,993 

acres of habitat within the planning area. Private landowners, the State of 

Montana, and others (not managed by an organization) hold the remaining 6.7 

million acres within the planning area. It is critical to work with all landowners 

and resource agencies throughout the planning area to provide protection for 

special status species since the majority of habitat across the landscape is held 

by entities outside of the BLM.

Table 3-58

Habitat by Ownership within the Planning Area

BLM State Private Other Total

PGH (acres) 112,341

(11%)

83,433

(8%)

816,648

(80%)

2,378

(0.2%)

1,014,786 

PPH (acres) 233,219 

(19%)

90,587

(7%)

878,155

(73%)

6,016

(0.5%)

1,207,977 

Outside of 

GRSG habitat

(acres)

248,435

(5%)

352,483

(7%)

3,473,364

(68%)

1,014,458

(20%)

5,088,752 

Total 593,995

(8%)

526,503

(7%)

5,168,167 

(71%)

1,022,852

(14%)

7,311,515 

Source: BLM 2012a

Special status species that are known to occur within the counties of the 

planning area (Chouteau, Fergus, Judith Basin, Meagher, and Petroleum), were 

identified using the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) web site 

(MTNHP 2012a and 2012b). No special status fish species are confirmed or 

likely to inhabit the planning area. Special status animal species that are 

confirmed or likely to inhabit the planning area include the following mammal 

species black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus), fringed myotis (Myotis 

thysanodes), gray wolf (Canis lupis), long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis), long-legged 

myotis (Myotis volans), swift fox (Vulpes velox), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Plecotus 

townsendii), and white-tailed prairie dog (C. leucurus).

Special status bird species include Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii), black 

tern (Chilodonias niger), black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), 

bobolink (Dolichonyx orysivorus), Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri), chestnutcollared longspur (Calcarius ornatus), dickcissel (Spiza americana), Franklin’s gull 

(Larus pipixcan), least tern (Sternula antillarum), loggerhead shrike (Lanius 

ludovicianus), long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), marbled godwit (Limosa 

fedoa), McCown’s longspur (Calcarius mccownii), mountain plover (Charadrius 

montanus), red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), sage sparrow 
3. Affected Environment (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

3-92 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

(Amphispiza belli), sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), Sprague’s pipit (Anthus 

spragueii), and white-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi). Special status raptor species 

include bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), 

ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), and Swainson’s 

hawk (Buteo swainsoni),

The following special status reptile species that are confirmed or potentially 

inhabit the planning area includes greater short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma 

hernandesi), milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum), snapping turtle (Chelydra 

serpentine), and Western hog-nosed snake (Heterodon nasicus). Special status 

amphibian species include Great Plains toad (Bufo cognatus), northern leopard 

frog (Lithobates pipiens), Plains spadefoot (Spea bombifrons), and Western toad 

(Anaxyrus boreas boreas).

Two special status plant species are likely to inhabit the planning area little 

Indian breadroot (Pediomelum hypogaeum) and Platte cinquefoil (Potentilla 

plattensis). Little Indian breadroot is a perennial herb that is distributed from 

Nebraska to Montana and south to New Mexico and Texas (MTNHP 2013a). 

This herb prefers grasslands and open pine woodlands with loose, sandy soil 

below sandstone outcrops. Little Indian breadroot is suspected of being 

poisonous and is considered unpalatable to domestic livestock (Forest Service

2013). Platte cinquefoil is also a perennial herb that occurs throughout the 

Great Plains in Canada (Alberta and Manitoba) south to Arizona and New 

Mexico (MTNHP 2013b). Platte cinquefoil occupies mesic grasslands and 

sagebrush steppe as well as alpine-montane wet alkaline meadows often on 

hummocks of shrubby cinquefoil (Dasiphora fruticosa). Currently, the Billings and 

Miles City field offices have proposed removing Platte cinquefoil from the 

sensitive plants list.

More detailed information regarding special status species including status and 

general habitat descriptions for confirmed or potentially known species to 

inhabit the planning area can be found in Appendix L, Special Status Species 

Confirmed or Likely to Inhabit the Planning Area.

3.19.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

The planning area has over 1.2 million acres of PPH and over one million acres 

of PGH; however, the BLM manages 233,219 acres of PPH and 112,341 acres of 

PGH (refer to Table 3-58). The BLM-administered lands have the potential to 

provide habitat to a wide range of special status animal and plant species (see 

Appendix L).

3.19.3 Trends

The State of Montana provides status and trends data for special status species 

on the Montana Natural Heritage Program website (MTNHP 2012a and 2012b). 

Below is a general description of the current trends for special status animal and 

plant species in Montana.
3. Affected Environment (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-93

Animals

A list of special status animal species with the potential to inhabit the planning 

area is included in Appendix L. Special status mammals, birds, reptiles and 

amphibians are vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in Montana due to 

limited or declining populations and declining range or habitat. Breeding 

populations of mountain plover and chestnut-collared longspur are at greatest 

risk of extirpation or extinction for bird species. The northern leopard frog is 

likely to occur in GRSG habitat and is at high risk to global extinction or 

extirpation in the state.

Plants

Special status plant species that may inhabit the planning area are included in 

Appendix L. Little Indian breadroot and Platte cinquefoil are at risk of 

extinction or extirpation in the state due to limited to very limited and declining 

numbers, range and habitat, even though they may be abundant in some areas.

3.20 FISH AND WILDLIFE

MFWP and USFWS are directly responsible for the management of fish and 

wildlife species in the planning area, and the BLM is responsible for land 

management. Therefore, on BLM-administered lands in the planning area, the 

BLM is directly responsible for the management of habitat for fish and wildlife 

species and indirectly responsible for the health of fish and wildlife populations 

that are supported by these habitats.

Implementation of any of the alternatives would result in general and 

unquantifiable indirect beneficial effects for fish in terms of greater protection 

through new restrictions on surface and resource use resulting in reduced 

opportunities for surface disturbance or habitat disruption where they exist.

Therefore, general fish species will not be discussed further in Chapter 3.

The wildlife habitats that occur in the planning area are primarily characterized 

in the vegetation, soil, and water, and vegetation existing conditions discussions 

in Sections 3.5, 3.17, Soil Resources, and 3.18, Water Resources,

respectively. See Table 3-2 and Table 3-3 for acres of PPH and PGH within 

vegetation types on lands in the LFO. The discussions of aquatic and terrestrial 

habitat below identify attributes of these resources that are particularly 

important to their role in providing habitat. Table 3-59, Wildlife Species of the 

Lewistown Field Office, lists species of high priority for BLM management 

efforts due to their economic value, regulatory status, high public interest, or 

other qualities. Special status species are described in Section 3.19.
3. Affected Environment (Fish and Wildlife)

3-94 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 3-59

Wildlife Species of the Lewistown Field Office

Species or Group Rationale for Key Designation

Birds

Waterfowl and migratory birds (cranes, ducks, 

geese, and swans)

Economic and recreational value/high interest 

and protected by law

Upland game (partridge, pheasant, and grouse) Economic and recreational value

Eagles/other raptors (hawks) High interest, protected by law, keystone 

species

Mammals

Big game (elk, deer, pronghorn) High interest, economic and recreational value

Herptiles

Reptiles Ecological function and indicators of ecosystem 

health

Amphibians Ecological function and indicators of ecosystem 

health

Source: MTNHP 2012b

3.20.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

There are 7.3 million acres within the planning area and the BLM directly 

manages nearly 593,995 acres of wildlife habitat (refer to Table 3-58). The 

remaining 6.7 million acres are primarily held by private landowners. The 

presence and interspersion of many habitat types support a large number of 

wildlife species throughout the planning area regardless of ownership. The 

discussion of wildlife populations and habitat addresses the entire planning area, 

not just the lands managed by BLM. Since wildlife are mobile and may readily 

cross these boundaries, it is important to work cooperatively with all 

landowners and resource agencies to improve wildlife management throughout 

the planning area.

Big game including elk (Cervus canadensis), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), 

white-tailed deer (O. virginianus), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), mountain 

lion (Puma concolor), black bear (Ursus americanus); upland game birds including 

pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus), 

and gray (Hungarian) partridge (Perdix perdix); and numerous waterfowl species 

are among the species that use habitat in the planning area. The diversity and 

populations of wildlife throughout the planning area provide considerable 

recreational opportunities and economic benefits for the State of Montana. A 

minimum of 81 species of mammals, 303 species of birds, and 21 species of 

amphibians and reptiles occur in the planning area (MTNHP 2012b).

Wildlife species of primary management concern to one or more agencies, such 

as the BLM, MFWP, and USFWS include game species, rare, or keystone 
3. Affected Environment (Fish and Wildlife)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-95

species. Therefore, they require consideration in management activities and may 

affect land management decisions. A keystone species is one whose presence 

and role within an ecosystem has a disproportionate effect on other organisms 

within the system. 

3.20.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

The LFO has 345,560 acres of GRSG habitat including 233,219 acres of PPH

(refer to Table 3-58). These lands have the potential to provide habitat to a 

wide range of wildlife species as described above in Section 3.20.1.

3.20.3 Trends

Wildlife species trend data for the planning area were obtained from the 

MTNHP Tracker web tool (MTNHP 2012b). Below are general descriptions of 

the current trends for key wildlife species groups as described in Section 

3.20.1.

The majority of waterfowl within the planning area are common, widespread, 

and abundant (although they may be rare in parts of their ranges). These 

common waterfowl species are not considered vulnerable in most of its range 

or during the breeding season. Harlequin duck populations are at risk; hooded 

merganser and trumpeter swan are potential species of concern and species of 

concern respectively. Gray partridge and ring-necked pheasant are introduced 

upland game bird species, and their statuses are not ranked by the State of 

Montana. These upland birds occur year round in all five counties within the 

planning area. GRSG are currently being considered for listing by the ESA. For 

more information regarding GRSG refer to Section 3.3. The sharp-tailed 

grouse population within the planning area is secure though it may be quite rare 

in parts of its range. Sensitive raptor species are secure to declining throughout 

the planning area. Big game species of Montana including elk, mule deer, whitetail deer, and pronghorn antelope as well as black bear are considered common, 

widespread, and abundant. Mountain lion populations are secure to declining 

within its range. In general, reptile and amphibian populations within the LFO 

are not in decline or at risk of extinction (Maxell et al. 2009).

3.21 RENEWABLE ENERGY

Renewable energy projects on BLM-administered lands throughout the US 

include wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass projects and the siting of 

transmission facilities needed to deliver this power to the consumer. 

Geothermal heat is also considered a leasable mineral and is governed by the 

Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. There are no geothermal resources within the 

planning area; therefore, geothermal resources will not be discussed in 

Chapter 3 or Chapter 4.

As of 2010, the BLM’s renewable energy policy is directed by the following 

regulations and executive orders:
3. Affected Environment (Renewable Energy)

3-96 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

• The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Title II, Section 211), which requires 

the DOI to approve at least 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy

on public lands by 2015.

• Executive Order 13212, Actions to Expedite Energy-Related 

Projects, which requires federal agencies to expedite review of 

energy project applications.

• Secretarial Order 3285, which requires the DOI to identify and 

prioritize specific locations best suited for large-scale renewable 

energy production.

Additionally, the BLM has specific guidance for certain types of renewable 

energy. The main IMs are summarized here:

• IM 2011-003, Solar Energy Development Policy (BLM 2011c), 

establishes policy for the processing of ROW applications for solar 

energy development projects on BLM-administered lands and 

evaluating the feasibility of installing solar energy systems on BLM 

administrative facilities and projects.

• IM 2009-043, Wind Energy Development Policy (BLM 2008e), 

provides updated guidance on processing ROW applications for 

wind energy projects on BLM-administered lands.

• IM 2011-061, Solar and Wind Energy Applications – Pre-Application 

and Screening (2011d), establishes screening criteria used by the 

BLM to assist in prioritizing the processing of and in determining 

what actions to take on new and existing solar and wind energy 

development ROW applications. The processing of applications with 

the least environmental resource conflicts should facilitate the 

development of environmentally responsible solar and wind energy 

projects on the public lands, consistent with the provisions of the 

Secretarial Order.

• IM 2004-227, Biomass Utilization Strategy (BLM 2004b), updated in 

July 2005, provides sets of goals to help focus and increase 

utilization of biomass from BLM-administered lands. In June 2005, 

the final rule in the Federal Register revised the authority of 48 CFR 

Part 1452 by adding 1452.237-71, which is a new contract clause for 

removal and utilization of woody biomass generated as a result of 

land management service contracts whenever ecologically and 

lawfully appropriate. The BLM issued IM 2009-120 in May 2009, 

which updated the contract clause for utilization for woody biomass 

(BLM 2009d).

Solar and wind projects are authorized via the ROW authorization process. 

ROW applications for development on BLM-administered lands must be 

accompanied by a processing fee as set forth in 43 CFR 2804.14. ROW 
3. Affected Environment (Renewable Energy)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-97

applications are generally accepted and processed on a first-come, first-served 

basis. The ROW regulations (43 CFR 2804.23[c]) provide authority for offering 

BLM-administered lands under competitive bidding procedures for ROW 

authorizations. The BLM may initiate a competitive process if a land use planning 

decision has specifically identified an area for competition, or when two or 

more applications are submitted for the same facility or system. The BLM may 

also consider other public interest and technical factors in determining whether 

to offer lands for competitive leasing. Competitive bidding follows procedures 

required by 43 CFR 2804.23(c).

3.21.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

WAFWA Management Zones 1 and 4

There are no acres of solar or wind energy ROWs in the planning area (Manier

et al. 2013). The data and information included from the BER was the most 

accurate available when the data was “frozen” in time for analysis purposes; 

however, these scenarios remain based in present knowledge. Spatial data 

informing the existing conditions were compiled to establish a consistent 

information base across the entire region (GRSG Management Area), but, in 

order to attain this consistently across state, ownership, and management 

boundaries, some local data have been omitted. There may be inconsistencies 

between WAFWA-level and local planning-level data. As such, these data 

provide a regional baseline, suitable for guiding regional mid- to long-term 

analysis scenarios (Manier et al. 2013).

Below is a summary of renewable energy interest in Montana.

Solar

No interest in commercial-scale solar energy development has occurred in 

Montana. Fewer annual days of sunshine and the low angle of the sun during the 

winter contribute to low solar development in the state.

Wind Energy

A number of new wind farms have been developed and proposed on private 

lands along the I-15 corridor in northwestern Montana in proximity to the 

recently approved Montana Alberta Tie Line transmission project. Projects 

continue to be proposed all across Montana in a number of counties. However, 

the distance from current transmission infrastructure continues to be a 

challenge for wind developers in Montana, and grid capacity is also be a limiting 

factor. Currently, the only wind facility authorized on BLM-administered lands in 

the Montana/Dakotas is located in South Dakota.

Biomass

Montana may have good prospects for biomass development using its 

agricultural resources and land base. The growth of this energy development 

will still be hampered in Montana by lack of easy access to large consumption 

markets.
3. Affected Environment (Renewable Energy)

3-98 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

3.21.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory only considers solar resources to 

be viable when they occur at intensities of 6.0 kilowatt hours per square meter 

per day, and allocate designations of “Good,” “Excellent,” or “Premium.” Solar 

potential on BLM-administered land in the Lewistown District is below 6.0 

kilowatt hours per square meter per day. Therefore, no BLM-administered lands 

in the planning area are considered likely to be pursued by commercial energy 

developers for utility scale solar (that is, ≥20 MW [megawatts] electricity that 

will be delivered into the electricity transmission grid [Manier et al. 2013]).

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory only considers wind resources to 

be viable when they occur at intensities of 400 watts per square meter or 

higher, and allocate designations of “Good,” “Excellent,” or “Outstanding” wind 

potential. Only 16 percent, or 62,916 acres, of the BLM-administered land in the 

Lewistown District has wind potential greater than 400 watts per square meter. 

Approximately 70 percent of this acreage is found within PPH and another nine 

percent of this acreage is found within PGH. Table 3-60, Wind Potential on 

Slopes <15% on BLM-administered Lands, shows the wind potential for all the 

BLM-administered Lands in LFO.

Table 3-60

Wind Potential on Slopes <15% on BLM-administered Lands

Wind Potential Total acres PPH acres PGH acres

Class 2, Poor, (below 300) 83,774 10,657 (13%) 1,552 (2%)

Class 3, Fair, (300-400) 248,989 165,627 (67%) 30,176 (12%)

Class 4, Good (400-500) 55,950 41,601 (74%) 5,247 (9%)

Class 5, Excellent (500-600) 5,701 2,121 (37% 301 (5%)

Class 6, Outstanding (600+) 1,265 6 (0.5%) 46 (4%)

Source: BLM 2012a

3.21.3 Trends

Within the planning area, greater pressure to develop renewable energy

resources on BLM-administered lands could occur as a result of public energy 

policy coming from individual states or the federal government. The 

development of more energy-efficient technologies for wind, biomass, and solar 

power will continue to grow with increasing regulation and price of fossil fuels 

and the increasing demand for energy products. In Montana, the source of 

renewable energy will most likely be wind energy, as Montana is ranked as the 

fifth highest state in wind energy potential by the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory (NREL 2011).
3. Affected Environment (Social and Economic Conditions)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-99

3.22 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

This section discusses the social and economic conditions of the planning area. 

These conditions are discussed in greater detail in the Lewistown Field Office 

Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS Socioeconomic Baseline Assessment Report 

prepared in support of the planning effort (Forest Service Enterprise 2013).

Changes in BLM management of GRSG habitats are anticipated to have a 

considerable impact on existing GRSG populations and have the potential to 

affect local social and economic conditions. Certain defining features of every 

area influence and shape the nature of local social and economic conditions.

These defining characteristics include the local population, the presence of or 

proximity to large cities or regional population centers, types of longstanding 

industries, predominant land and water features, and unique area amenities. The 

characteristics of counties in Central Montana containing GRSG habitat 

influence the relationship between BLM-administered lands and local social and 

economic activity.

Changes in management of BLM-administered lands can have social and 

economic effects which extend beyond the immediate boundaries of the lands

managed, affecting the social and economic conditions of neighboring counties 

and communities. Individual counties and communities may respond to change 

differently than the larger region; consequently a multidimensional approach is 

used to analyze the impacts of the proposed GRSG conservation measures. For 

this analysis, social and economic conditions, current conditions and trends are 

presented for a five-county region which includes Chouteau, Fergus, Judith 

Basin, Meagher, and Petroleum counties. Data is provided for the state as a 

whole as a reference region where appropriate.

3.22.1 Existing Conditions

Population Change

While the total US population grew by 24 percent between 1970 and 2010, the 

five-county impact area experienced an 11 percent decline. Over the past four 

decades populations in all five counties of the planning area have fallen: 

Chouteau (-660 people), Fergus (-1,025 people), Judith Basin (-595 people), 

Meagher (-231 people), and Petroleum (-181 people) (Diagram 3-4, Population 

Change for the Five-County Impact Area). Population declines within the fivecounty region have gradually tapered off over the last decade as the total 

population within the five-county region fell by 761 people, or just over three

percent. Although population loss in Petroleum County halted and losses in 

Chouteau (-3 percent), Fergus (-3 percent), and Meagher (-2 percent) slowed, 

Judith Basin continued to experience a significant loss of 11 percent.
3. Affected Environment (Social and Economic Conditions)

3-100 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Diagram 3-4

Population Change for the Five-County Impact Area

Source: US Department of Commerce, 2005, 2000, and 2010

Employment and Economic Specialization

Average annual unemployment in the five-county impact area has remained 

relatively constant over the last decade, with unemployment in each of the five 

counties remaining below state and national averages. While national 

unemployment in the US rose from four percent in 2000 to 9.6 percent in 2010, 

unemployment in the five-county impact area remained relatively more constant 

increasing from 4.9 percent in 2000 to 5.8 percent in 2010. Average annual 

unemployment varied across the five counties but was reported to be lower 

than the 2010 national average in all five counties. In 2010, Chouteau, Fergus, 

Judith Basin, Meagher, and Petroleum counties were reported to have had an 

average annual unemployment rate of 4.4 percent, 6.1 percent, 5.6 percent, 8.6 

percent, and 6.3 percent, respectively, while unemployment was 6.9 percent in 

Montana and 9.6 percent for the US (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011).

Employment within the five-county impact area is distributed amongst economic 

sectors and displayed below in Diagram 3-5, Employment Distribution in the 

Five-County Impact Area and Montana, relative to statewide employment in 

these sectors. The bottom six highlighted sectors are directly related to BLM 

land management. The contributions from BLM represent only a portion of the 

industry employment displayed in these six sectors. The government sector 

includes all federal, state, and local employment, while the grazing sector 

includes both cattle and sheep ranching. The last four sectors are all specifically 
3. Affected Environment (Social and Economic Conditions)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-101

Diagram 3-5

Employment Distribution in the Five-County Impact Area and Montana

Source: IMPLAN 2010
3. Affected Environment (Social and Economic Conditions)

3-102 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

attributable to tourism and recreation (Forest Service Enterprise 2013). Further 

discussion of the contributions to these sectors from BLM management is 

presented below.

Using the ratio of the percent employment in each industry in the region of 

interest (five-county impact area) to the percent of employment in that industry 

for a larger reference region (the state of Montana) reveals whether labor 

specialization exists within the impact area. For a given industry, when the 

percent employment in the impact area is greater than in the reference region, 

local employment specialization exists in that industry (Forest Service 1998).

Identification of employment specialization within the impact area provides a 

frame of reference for the contributions of BLM-administered lands within the 

impact area. Applying this criterion to 2010 data reveals that the planning area 

can be characterized as most specialized in the agricultural sectors, which 

include sectors related to livestock grazing. Since BLM-administered lands within 

the five-county area provide local livestock producers with forage to 

supplement other sources of feed, a portion of this specialization can be 

attributable to BLM management.

Community Well-Being

Community well-being relates to the economic, social, cultural, and political 

components of community life which allows residents to fulfill their basic needs, 

while creating an enjoyable place for citizens to live. While many factors 

contribute to quality of life in a region, unemployment, poverty and personal 

income are the most commonly used social indicators of well-being. As 

discussed above, labor participation in Chouteau, Fergus, Judith Basin, Meagher, 

and Petroleum counties is high; average annual unemployment rates have 

persistently been lower than state and national averages over the last decade.

Following the Office of Management and Budget's Directive 14, the US Census 

Bureau uses a set of predetermined income thresholds which vary by family size 

and composition to detect who is poor. If the total income for a family or an 

unrelated individual falls below the relevant threshold, then the family or 

unrelated individual is classified as being "below the poverty level." While 

poverty rates for individuals and families at the state (14.5 percent and 9.7 

percent) and national (13.8 percent and 10.1 percent) level remained high in 

2010, poverty in the five-county area was reported to be even more prevalent 

with 16.4 percent of individuals and 12.9 percent of families living below the 

poverty level in 2010. Poverty at the county level varied across the five counties, 

with Judith Basin reporting the lowest rates and Chouteau reporting the highest. 

In 2010, 21 percent of individuals and 14.8 percent of families in Chouteau, 14.7 

percent of individuals and 12.5 percent of families in Fergus, 9.9 percent of 

individuals and 6.4 percent of families in Judith Basin, 19 percent of individuals 

and 14.1 percent of families in Meagher, and 16.7 percent of individuals and 18.1 

percent of families in Petroleum were estimated to be living in poverty (US 

Department of Commerce 2012a).
3. Affected Environment (Social and Economic Conditions)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-103

Total personal income (TPI) and per capita personal income (PCPI) are two 

more widely used measures of economic well-being within communities. From 

1970 to 2010, annual TPI in the five-county impact area increased from $581 

million to $769 million, and annual PCPI increased from $23,683 to $35,183 (all 

measures adjusted for inflation to 2011 dollars). This translates to a TPI increase 

of 32 percent and a PCPI increase of 48 percent over this time period (US 

Department of Commerce 2012b). While PCPI is a useful measure of economic 

well-being it should be examined alongside changes in real earnings per job. 

Since PCPI includes income from 401(k) plans as well as other non-labor income 

sources like transfer payments, dividends, and rent, it is possible for per capita 

income to rise, even if the average wage per job declines over time. While PCPI 

rose between 1970 and 2010 by 48 percent, average earnings per job shrank by 

21 percent (from $38,663 to $30,511; values adjusted for inflation to 2011 

dollars) (Forest Service Enterprise 2013). Increased PCPI in the face of falling 

wages indicates that non-labor income’s share of TPI significantly rose during 

this period.

Components of Personal Income

Further examining trends within personal income provides insight to the area 

economy and its connection to BLM-administered lands within the five-county 

impact area. There are three major sources of personal income: (1) labor 

earnings or income from the workplace; (2) investment income, or income 

received by individuals in the form of rent, dividends, or interest earnings; and 

(3) transfer payment income or income received as Social Security, retirement 

and disability income or Medicare and Medicaid payments.

In 2010, labor earnings accounted for nearly half of TPI in the five-county region, 

but long-run trends indicate that labor earnings’ share of TPI has been declining. 

Labor earnings’ share of TPI has decreased from 1970 to 2010 (from 72.3 to 

49.9 percent) while the share of non-labor income has risen (from 27.7 to 50.1 

percent). As a share of TPI, investment income and transfer payments rose from 

18.6 to 28.1 and 9.1 to 22 percent, respectively, over this 40-year time period. 

Although transfer payments’ share of TPI rose drastically over this period, data 

indicated this increase was only slightly due to increases in income maintenance 

payments related to welfare or unemployment. The data shows the share of 

income maintenance increased from less than one percent to 3.7 percent while 

the share of age related transfer payments in the form of retirement, disability 

insurance, and Medicare increased from six to 15.3 percent between 1970 and 

2010 (US Department of Commerce 2012b). Increased shares of age-related 

transfer payments is an indication that the region’s population is growing older, 

with people 65 and older accounting for a large percent of the region’s 

population.

Area Economic Conditions Related to Grazing

From 1970 to 2010, employment in the farm sector (including livestock grazing) 

decreased by 43.9 percent (from 4,030 to 2,740 jobs), with nearly 78 percent of 
3. Affected Environment (Social and Economic Conditions)

3-104 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

farm employment in 2010 attributable to farm proprietors. Although 

employment has been declining, the farm sector continued to support 13,090 

jobs (or 17.3 percent of total employment) in the five-county area in 2010 (US 

Department of Commerce 2012a). In 2011, livestock production in Montana 

accounted for 40.1 percent of the state’s total farm receipts and was valued at 

$1.4 million dollars (NASS 2012). According to agricultural statistics collected 

by the state, the five-county area was reported to have an inventory of 

2,500,000 cattle and calves, and 225,000 head of sheep in 2011.

Under the Taylor Grazing Act and FLPMA, the BLM permits grazing on 

administered allotments for the purpose of fostering economic development for 

private ranchers and ranching communities by providing ranchers access to 

additional forage (Forest Service Enterprise 2013). The BLM estimates the 

grazing potential of each allotment permitted for grazing under ideal forage 

conditions, but determines the number of AUMs allocated each year based on 

range conditions. Currently, the LFO allocates 103,806 AUMs annually on 

allotments potentially affected by conservation measures under this RMPA. On 

an annual basis use of the allocated forage can be less based on market 

conditions, drought or range practices to protect other resources. Allocated 

forage in the decision area was used to estimate employment and labor income 

contributions to the five-county impact area economy using an IMPLAN inputoutput model. If all allocated AUMs were used, about 201 jobs (direct, indirect 

and induced) and $2.8 million in labor income (direct, indirect and induced) 

would be contributed to the impact area economy on an average annual basis.

Direct employment to the grazing (refer to Diagram 3-5) sector amounts to 

approximately 128 jobs which accounts for 29 percent of employment in this 

sector (IMPLAN 2010).

Lands and Realty 

Lands and realty can be divided between land use authorizations and land tenure 

adjustments. Land use authorizations consist of ROWs, communication sites, 

and other leases or permits, while land tenure adjustments focus primarily on 

land exchange, acquisition (including purchase and easement acquisition), and 

disposal. Land tenure adjustments can be important to local and regional 

economies depending on their complexity and impacted resources, but overall 

land tenure adjustments are currently inactive within the planning area. 

Therefore, the discussion in this section focuses on land use authorizations (e.g., 

ROWs) given their importance to local and regional communities.

Currently, there are ROWs within GRSG habitat: 643 in PPH and 266 in PGH.

These include ROWs for roads, trails and highways, transmission lines, 

telephone or communication lines, water facilities, railroad, pipeline and conduit.

The area community and economy depends in part on these ROWs for access 

on roads, power to businesses and homes, and communication lines for 

expanding technology. Future expansion of Central Montana’s rural fiber optic 
3. Affected Environment (Social and Economic Conditions)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-105

network may cross BLM-administered land in the decision area. Currently, there 

are no existing wind energy ROWs within the decision area.

Recreation

The economic influence of recreation use on BLM-administered lands is related 

to local expenditures for goods and services such as gasoline, lodging, meals, and 

supplies. To understand the local economic influence of recreation use, it is 

important to understand that local expenditures vary depending on the type of 

activity, whether the recreation use is from local residents or non-local 

residents, and whether the activity involves overnight stays. Local expenditures 

related to recreation use support local employment and labor income.

Generally, employment related to recreation and tourism tends to be seasonal 

and relatively low paid, with a high portion of the labor force self-employed. The 

recreation opportunities available in the decision area play an important role in 

the quality of life of local residents, and also attract visitors from elsewhere in 

the state and region. The BLM-administered lands in the decision area received 

an estimated 45,500 recreation visits in 2012 (Forest Service Enterprise 2013). 

Major recreation activities on BLM-administered lands in the decision area 

include motorized and non-motorized activities such as hunting, hiking, and 

wildlife viewing.

Market and Non-Market Values

Generally goods and services can be traded in markets where interactions 

between buyers and sellers dictate the price, or value, of a good through the 

unit prices and quantities sold. BLM-administered lands produce a wide range of 

environmental goods and services which society benefits from. Some goods, like 

forage for cattle, can easily be valued because livestock feed can be bought and 

sold in markets. Other resources provided by these lands, such as recreational 

opportunities, ecological processes, and habitat for unique species, cannot be 

bought and sold in traditional markets, which is why they are often 

characterized as non-market goods. Measuring the value of these non-market 

goods is important because these resources tend to be undervalued and 

estimates can enable management to make more informed decisions regarding 

their use to more accurately reflect their true value to society.

Non-market values can be broken down into two categories, use and non-use 

values. The use-value of a non-market good is the value to society from the 

direct use of the asset; these values are derived from BLM-administered lands 

through recreational activities such as hiking, bird watching and OHV use. In 

addition to hunting, other non-market values exist for public goods such as air 

quality, scenery and water quality. The use of non-market goods often requires 

consumption of associated market goods, such as lodging and gas.

Non-use, or passive use, values of a non-market good reflect the value of an 

asset beyond its current use. These can be described as existence, option and 

bequest values. Existence values are the amount society is willing to pay to 
3. Affected Environment (Social and Economic Conditions)

3-106 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

guarantee that an asset simply exists. An existence value for BLM-administered

lands might be the value of knowing that undisturbed GRSG habitat exists or the 

value associated with undeveloped scenic landscapes. In addition to implicit 

existence values, society's willingness to pay to preserve resources for future 

use attaches additional passive use values. The potential benefits people would 

receive from future use are referred to as option values when future use is 

expected to occur within the same generation and bequest values when 

preservation allows future generations to benefit from the resource use. Within 

the LFO bequest and option values might exist for numerous plant and animal 

species, landscapes, heritage sites, and recreational trails. While use and non-use 

values exist for these lands, the methodologies for measuring these values are 

controversial and difficult to apply, making evaluation during the planning 

process not feasible. However, this does not preclude their consideration.

3.23 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Executive Order 12898 requires federal agencies to “identify and address the 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of 

its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 

populations.” According to the CEQ Environmental Justice Guidelines for NEPA

(1997), “minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the minority 

population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority 

population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the 

minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate 

unit of geographic analysis...a minority population also exists if there is more 

than one minority group present and the minority percentage, as calculated by 

aggregating all minority persons, meets one of the above stated thresholds.”

In addition to race, concentrations of people living under the poverty level are 

of interest when considering the Environmental Justice implications of the 

proposed action. CEQ guidance on identifying low-income populations states 

“agencies may consider as a community either a group of individuals living in 

geographic proximity to one another, or a set of individuals (such as migrant 

workers or Native Americans), where either type of group experiences 

common conditions of environmental exposure or effect.”

3.23.1 Existing Conditions

The ethnic and racial composition of Montana, the five-county planning area, and 

individual counties in 2010 are displayed in Table 3-61, Population by Race and 

Ethnicity (2010). Montana’s 2010 population was reported to be significantly less 

diverse than the general US population (74 percent white), with individuals 

identifying themselves as white accounting for 89 percent of the state’s 

population. Shares of racial and ethnic minority groups at the state level, with 

the exception of American Indians, were less than their share of the overall US 

population. While Central Montana’s population has a larger share of individuals 

identifying themselves as American Indian alone, American Indians living within 
3. Affected Environment (Environmental Justice)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-107

Table 3-61

Population by Race and Ethnicity (2010)

White1

Black or 

African 

American1

American 

Indian & 

Alaska 

Native1

Asian1

Native 

Hawaiian 

& Other 

Pacific 

Islander1

Some 

Other 

Race1

Two or 

More 

Race1

Hispanic 

(of any 

Race) 1

United 

States

74.0% 12.5% 0.8% 4.7% 0.2% 5.5% 2.4% 15.7%

Montana 89.8% 0.4% 6.2% 0.6% 0.1% 0.6% 2.3% 2.8%

Five-County 

Area

91.2% 0.9% 6.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.7% 0.7% 1.8%

Chouteau 

County

77.2% 0.4% 20.6% 0.2% 0.4% 0.1% 1.3% 1.6%

Fergus 

County

96.4% 1.2% 1.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.7% 0.3% 1.4%

Judith Basin 96.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.6%

Meagher 

County

96.3% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 0.3% 6.0%

Petroleum 

County

85.5% 7.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 5.2% 3.0%

Source: Forest Service Enterprise 2013 1 Race and ethnicity shares do not add to 100 percent because Hispanics can be of any race.

the five-county area represent 0.5 percent of the area’s total population (US 

Department of Commerce 2012a). While the data indicates that the area has 

small shares of minority racial and ethnic groups, these populations do meet the 

CEQ’s definition of minority populations.

As discussed above in Section 3.22.1, Chouteau, Meagher, and Petroleum 

counties had higher poverty rates for individuals and families than general 

poverty rates for the state and country. Thus, the census data indicates that low 

income populations, as defined by CEQ, do exist within the planning area.
3. Affected Environment (Environmental Justice)

3-108 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPTER 4

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-1

CHAPTER 4

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the likely direct and indirect impacts on the human and 

natural environment that could occur from implementing the alternatives 

presented in Chapter 2. Cumulative impacts from the proposed alternatives 

are presented Chapter 5. This chapter is organized by topic, similar to 

Chapter 3. Each topic area includes a method of analysis section that identifies 

indicators, methods, and assumptions; a discussion of the nature and type of 

effects; a summary of effects common to all alternatives; and an analysis of 

impacts for each of the four alternatives. A separate section describing 

irretrievable or irreversible commitment of resources is presented at the end of 

the chapter. Indicators are factors that describe resource condition and change 

and can help the BLM determine trends over time. The section on methods and 

assumptions describes methodologies and assumptions for assessing impacts 

specific to the resource or resource use. These are in addition to those general 

assumptions and methodologies listed in Section 4.1.1, Analytical Assumptions,

and Section 4.1.2, General Methodology for Analyzing Impacts. The nature and 

type of effects section describes in general terms impacts on resources or 

resource uses from allowable uses or restrictions on allowable uses. Impacts for 

each alternative describe how the indicators would change the magnitude of the 

nature and type of effect.

All management actions proposed in Chapter 2 are primarily planning-level 

decisions and do not result in direct, on-the-ground changes. However, by 

planning for uses on BLM-administered surface estate and federal mineral estate

during the planning horizon for the Judith Resource Area Resource Management 

Plan and Headwaters Resource Management Plan, this impact analysis focuses 

on impacts that could eventually result in on-the-ground changes. Impacts for 

some resources or resource uses, such as livestock grazing and OHV use, could 

be confined to the BLM-administered surface estate. Other impacts, such as 

energy and minerals and requirements to protect GRSG from such activity, 
4. Environmental Consequences (Introduction)

4-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

could apply to all BLM-administered federal mineral estate (including split

estate). Some BLM management actions may affect only certain resources under 

certain alternatives. This impact analysis identifies impacts that may enhance or 

improve a resource as a result of management actions, as well as those impacts 

that have the potential to impair a resource. However, the evaluations are 

confined to the actions that have direct, immediate, and more prominent 

effects. If an activity or action is not addressed in a given section, no impacts are 

expected, or the impact is expected to be negligible based on professional 

judgment.

The BLM manages BLM-administered lands for multiple uses in accordance with 

FLPMA. Land use decisions are made to protect the resources while allowing 

for different uses of those resources, such as energy and mineral development, 

OHV use, recreation, and livestock grazing. When there are conflicts among 

resource uses or when a land use activity could result in unacceptable or 

irreversible impacts on the environment, the BLM may restrict or prohibit some 

land uses in specific areas. To ensure that the BLM meets its mandate of 

multiple use in land management actions, the impacts of the alternatives on 

resource uses are identified and assessed as part of the planning process. The 

projected impacts on land use activities and the environmental impacts of land 

uses are characterized and evaluated for each of the alternatives.

Impact analysis is a cause-and-effect process. The detailed impact analyses and 

conclusions are based on the BLM planning team’s knowledge of resources and 

the project area; reviews of existing literature; and information provided by 

experts in the BLM, other agencies, and interest groups, as well as by concerned 

citizens. The baseline used for the impact analysis is the current condition or 

situation, as described in Chapter 3. Impacts on resources and resource uses 

are analyzed and discussed in detail commensurate with resource issues and 

concerns identified throughout the process. Occasionally, impacts are described 

using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms.

4.1.1 Analytical Assumptions

Several assumptions were made to facilitate the analysis of the projected 

impacts. These assumptions set guidelines and provide reasonably foreseeable 

projected levels of development that would occur within the Lewistown Field 

Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS planning area during the planning period. 

These assumptions should not be interpreted as constraining or redefining the 

management objectives and actions proposed for each alternative, as described 

in Chapter 2. The following general assumptions apply to all resource 

categories. Any specific resource assumptions are provided in the Methods and 

Assumptions section for that resource.

• Each alternative in Chapter 2 constitutes a possible RMPA and 

would be implemented.
4. Environmental Consequences (Introduction)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-3

• Implementing actions from any of the RMPA alternatives would be 

in compliance with all valid existing rights, federal regulations, BLM 

policies, and other requirements.

• Implementation-level actions necessary to execute the land use 

plan-level decisions in this RMPA would be subject to further 

environmental review, including NEPA, as appropriate. 

• Direct impacts of implementing the RMPA primarily occur on the 

decision area lands, and indirect impacts primarily occur on the 

decision area and adjacent private lands.

• Local climate patterns of historic record and related conditions for 

plant growth may change with warmer, drier conditions likely to 

occur throughout the life of the Judith Resource Area Resource 

Management Plan and Headwaters Resource Management Plan.

• In the future, as tools for predicting climate changes in the planning 

area improve and changes in climate affect resources and 

necessitate changes in how resources are managed, the BLM may 

reevaluate decisions made as part of this planning process and adjust 

management accordingly.

• The discussion of impacts is based on the best available data. 

Knowledge of the planning area and professional judgment, based on 

observation and analysis of conditions and responses in similar 

areas, are used to infer environmental impacts where data are 

limited.

• RDFs apply to certain activities (i.e., water developments, mineral 

development, and fire fuels management) conducted by the BLM.

Because the BLM does not have jurisdiction over split estate lands 

for activities not related to fluid mineral leasing and development, 

RFDs apply only to the 593,995 acres of BLM surface in the decision 

area.

• Restrictions on land use authorizations are identified for ROW

avoidance or ROW exclusion areas. Because the BLM does not 

have jurisdiction over split estate lands for land use authorizations, 

ROW avoidance and ROW exclusion restrictions apply only to the 

593,995 acres of BLM surface in the decision area.

• Data from GIS have been used in developing acreage calculations 

and to generate the figures in Appendix A. Calculations depend on 

the quality and availability of data. Most calculations in this RMPA

are rounded to the nearest 10 acres or 0.1-mile. Given the scale of 

the analysis, the compatibility constraints between datasets, and lack 

of data for some resources, all calculations are approximate and are 

for comparison and analytic purposes only. Likewise, the figures in 

Appendix A are provided for illustrative purposes and are subject 
4. Environmental Consequences (Introduction)

4-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

to the limitations discussed above. The BLM may receive additional 

GIS data; therefore, acreages may be recalculated and revised.

4.1.2 General Methodology for Analyzing Impacts

Potential impacts or effects are described in terms of type, context, duration, 

and intensity, which are generally defined as follows:

• Type of Impact – Because types of impacts can be interpreted 

differently by different people, this chapter does not differentiate 

between beneficial and adverse impacts (except in cases where such 

characterization is appropriate or required by law, regulation, or 

policy). The presentation of impacts for key planning issues is 

intended to provide the BLM decision maker and reader with an 

understanding of the multiple use tradeoffs associated with each 

alternative. The impact analysis presents the effects caused by an 

action and the reader is left to interpret if that is a beneficial or 

adverse impact. Different readers may interpret the effect as either 

adverse or beneficial.

• Context – Context describes the area or location (site specific, local, 

planning area wide or regional) in which the impact would occur. 

Site-specific impacts would occur at the location of the action, local 

impacts would occur within the general vicinity of the action area, 

planning area-wide impacts would affect a greater portion of the 

planning area, and regional impacts would extend beyond the 

planning area boundaries.

• Duration – Duration describes the length of time an effect would 

occur, either short term or long term. Short term is defined as 

anticipated to begin and end within the first five years after the 

action is implemented. Long term is defined as lasting beyond five

years to the end of or beyond the planning time frame of the Judith 

Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Headwaters 

Resource Management Plan.

• Intensity – Rather than categorize impacts by intensity (e.g., major, 

moderate, and minor), this analysis discusses impacts using 

quantitative data wherever possible.

• Direct and Indirect Impacts – Direct impacts are caused by an action 

or implementation of an alternative and occur at the same time and 

place. Indirect impacts result from implementing an action or 

alternative but usually occur later in time or are removed in 

distance and are reasonably certain to occur.

Analysis shown under Alternative A may be referenced in the other alternatives 

with such statements as “impacts would be the same as, or similar to, 

Alternative A” or “impacts would be the same as Alternative A, except for . . .,” 

as applicable.
4. Environmental Consequences (Introduction)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-5

Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources is discussed in Section 

4.24, Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources. Irreversible 

commitments of resources result from actions in which resources are 

considered permanently changed. Irretrievable commitments of resources result 

from actions in which resources are considered permanently lost.

4.1.3 Incomplete or Unavailable Information

The CEQ established implementing regulations for NEPA, requiring that a 

federal agency identify relevant information that may be incomplete or 

unavailable for an evaluation of reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects 

(40 CFR 1502.22). If the information is essential to a reasoned choice among 

alternatives, it must be included, unless the cost of obtaining the information is 

exorbitant. Knowledge and information is, and would always be, incomplete, 

particularly with infinitely complex ecosystems considered at various scales.

The best available information pertinent to the decisions to be made was used 

in developing the RMPA. Considerable effort has been taken to acquire and 

convert resource data from the BLM and outside sources into digital format for 

use in the RMPA.

Certain information was unavailable for use in developing this RMPA because 

inventories have either not been conducted or are incomplete. Some of the 

major types of data that are incomplete or unavailable include:

• Field inventory of soils and water conditions

• Field inventory of vegetation composition

• Field inventory of wildlife and special status species occurrence and 

condition

For these resources, estimates were made concerning the number, type, and 

significance of these resources based on previous surveys and existing 

knowledge. In addition, some impacts cannot be quantified given the proposed 

management actions. Where this gap occurs, impacts are projected in qualitative 

terms or, in some instances, are described as unknown. Subsequent projectlevel analysis will provide the opportunity to collect and examine site-specific 

inventory data required to determine appropriate application of RMP-level 

guidance. In addition, ongoing inventory efforts by the BLM and other agencies 

in the planning area continue to update and refine information used to 

implement this RMPA.

4.2 GREATER SAGE-GROUSE

4.2.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Indicators of impacts on GRSG are as follows:
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

• Acres of sagebrush habitat

• Average male lek attendance for large, medium, and small leks

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• Three general categories of human disturbance to habitats or 

disruption to animals would be the most influential on GRSG and 

their habitat: 1) disturbance/disruption from casual use; 2) 

disturbance/disruption from permitted activity; and 3) changes in 

habitat condition, such as from fire or weed invasion.

• BMPs, RDFs, COAs, and standard operating procedures are used 

for analysis and would be implemented to reduce impacts on GRSG. 

These are subject to modification, based on subsequent guidance 

and new science.

• Short-term effects are defined as those that would occur over a 

time frame of up to two years and long-term effects would occur 

over longer than two years.

• Ground-disturbing activities could positively or negatively modify 

habitat or cause loss or gain of individuals. This all depends on the 

amount of area disturbed, the nature of the disturbance, the species 

affected, and the location of the disturbance. For example, juniper 

reduction treatments disturb the ground but could positively modify 

habitat in the long term.

• Direct impacts of implementing the RMPA primarily occur on the 

decision area lands; indirect impacts of implementing the RMPA 

primarily occur on the decision area and adjacent land not 

administered by the BLM.

• Removing livestock grazing from BLM-administered land would 

result in private lands being fenced from BLM-administered land.

• Removing livestock grazing from BLM-administered land would 

result in pits, dams, and reservoirs being removed from BLMadministered land, or these structures would fail over time. For 

those that support fisheries, important riparian-wetland habitat 

could remain, but this is less than ten percent of the total pits, 

dams, and reservoirs.

• Under Alternative A, land tenure adjustments would be subject to 

current disposal/exchange/acquisition criteria. These include 

retaining lands with threatened or endangered species, high quality 

riparian habitat, or plant and animal populations or natural 

communities of high interest, including GRSG.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-7

• Impact analysis focuses on the Yellowstone Watershed population, 

including the survey areas of Winifred, Crooked Creek, War Horse, 

and Yellow Water Triangle. Leks are categorized as large (more 

than 25 males), medium (fewer than 25 and more than 10 males), 

and small (fewer than 10 males).

4.2.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Factors related to the decline in GRSG distribution and abundance throughout 

their range includes habitat loss and degradation, disease and predation, 

chemicals, and changes in land use (USFWS 2010a, p. 14). Habitat loss and 

fragmentation reduces the land area available to support GRSG and increases 

opportunities for other types of disturbance, such as predation, human traffic, 

wildfire, and spread of invasive plant species. The GRSG impacts section focuses

on threats specifically identified for the Yellowstone Watershed population 

within the LFO: sagebrush elimination/agricultural conversion, fire, weed spread 

and conifer encroachment, energy, infrastructure, grazing, and recreation

(USFWS 2013, p. 17).

Loss and fragmentation of sagebrush habitats is a primary cause of the decline of 

GRSG populations, (USFWS 2010a). Threats posed by conversion to 

agriculture, infrastructure, wildfire, invasive weeds, conifer encroachment, 

livestock grazing, and energy development are all associated with loss, 

fragmentation, and degradation of habitat. The reasons for declining GRSG 

populations are habitat fragmentation, reductions in lek persistence, lek

attendance, population recruitment, yearling and adult annual survival, female 

nest site selection, nest initiation, and complete loss of leks and winter habitat 

(USFWS 2010a, p. 21). 

Yellowstone Watershed and Belt Mountains GRSG Analysis

The alternatives analysis in this chapter focuses on the Yellowstone Watershed

population of GRSG. The LFO planning area also includes the Belt Mountain 

population area. Only 439 acres (0.1 percent) of this area is administered by the 

BLM, all in PGH, and no leks are located here; the nearest lek is 2.5 miles away.

The major threats in this area are isolation, conversion to agriculture, conifer 

encroachment, and weed spread.

Most BLM-administered lands within the population are on the northern border 

of mapped habitat; these lands are experiencing conifer encroachment. The 

amount and location of BLM-administered habitat and the distance to leks

prevents the BLM from meaningfully addressing COT report threats at the RMP 

level. In the short term, there would be no difference between alternatives for 

the amount of sagebrush or grassland habitat. In the long term, if conifer 

encroachment were not treated, approximately 120 acres would transition from 

sagebrush to Douglas-fir.

Alternative A would allow treatment in PGH and Alternatives C and D would 

allow treatment in GH, while Alternative B would prioritize treatments in PH. It 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

is unlikely that sagebrush habitats would be maintained on BLM-administered 

land in the Belt Mountains population under Alternative B.

COT Report Threats—Sagebrush Elimination, Agriculture Conversion

Over time, sagebrush habitats have been removed for crop production or 

development. Such conversion results in the loss of habitat and decreases the 

connectivity between seasonal habitat. This increases population isolation, which 

increases the probability for the loss of genetic diversity. This then increases the 

probability of extirpation from random events (Knick and Hanser 2011).

Habitat loss and fragmentation also increase opportunities for other 

disturbances, such as human traffic, wildfire, and invasive plant spread. While 

habitat conversion for agriculture is not directly tied to BLM management, land 

tenure decisions, such as acquisitions and disposals, can indirectly affect the 

acreage available for agriculture and urbanization. For example, if the BLM were 

to dispose of a parcel characterized as sagebrush-steppe, it could be converted 

to farmland or subdivided into home sites. Lands retained under BLM 

management would not be converted for agriculture or urbanization. In 

Montana, large leks are 4.5 times less likely to occur than small leks when tilling

fragments 21 percent or more of land within a 0.6-mile radius of breeding sites 

(Tack 2009).

The continuing pressure for conversion of private rangeland to agricultural land 

or residential development in LFO poses increasing risks of habitat 

fragmentation, particularly given the patchwork of land ownership in the area.

Temperature increases from climate change may increase crop yields, which 

may encourage parts of the state not previously used for agriculture to be 

converted for that purpose (NRC 2010).

Impacts from ACECs

Special designations (e.g., ACECs, Wilderness, and WSAs) and other 

conservation measures could be established to protect GRSG and their habitats. 

However, this GRSG-specific amendment includes special management 

prescriptions that provide broad protection from habitat fragmentation, loss,

and human disturbance. No additional protection would be afforded with ACEC 

designation. Existing special designations may protect GRSG or their habitat, but 

they were not established for this purpose.

COT Report Threats—Fire

Fire is particularly damaging to Wyoming big sagebrush, which is most of the 

sagebrush habitat in the LFO. Big sagebrush, unlike silver sagebrush, does not 

resprout after a fire; instead, it is replenished by wind-dispersed seed from 

adjacent unburned stands or seeds in the soil. Depending on the species and the 

size of a burn, sagebrush can reestablish itself within five years of a burn. 

However, a return to a full pre-burn community cover can take 13 to 100 years 

(Connelly et al. 2004). While wildfire likely played an important historical role in 

creating a mosaic of habitat for GRSG, current land use patterns have restricted 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-9

the system’s ability to support wildfire. Slow rates of regrowth and recovery of 

sagebrush after disturbance, coupled with high rates of disturbance and

conversion to introduced plant cover, are largely responsible for the 

accumulating displacement and degradation of the sagebrush ecosystem (Manier 

et al. 2013, pp. 4-6). Climate change is expected to increase the risk of wildfire 

throughout Montana (NRC 2010).

Fire suppression may be used to maintain habitat for GRSG (NTT 2011, pp. 25-

27). Fire suppression may preserve the condition of some vegetation 

communities, as well as habitat connectivity. This is particularly important in 

areas where fire frequency has increased as a result of weed invasion or where 

landscapes are highly fragmented. Fire also increases opportunities for invasive 

species, such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), to expand (Balch et al. 2012); fire 

suppression may limit this expansion. In the LFO, cheatgrass is not widespread, 

though isolated patches may be found. Propensity to wildfire is less in the LFO 

planning area than in the Great Basin region of the Yellowstone Watershed

population area, due to the planning area’s cooler and wetter climate.

Controlled burning may be prescribed to treat fuel buildup and can help

sagebrush habitat recover in some vegetation types, especially when silver 

sagebrush is undergoing conifer encroachment. Reseeding with native plants and 

long-term monitoring to ensure the production of GRSG cover and forage 

plants, would assist vegetation recovery (NTT 2011, pp. 26-27). In the LFO,

controlled burning is used primarily in ponderosa pine areas to limit conifer 

spread and is not used in GRSG habitat.

COT Report Threat—Vegetation Management (Conifers, Weeds, and 

Annual Grasses)

Current treatments and active vegetation management typically focus on 

vegetation composition and structure for fuels. Habitat management and 

productivity manipulation also are used to improve habitat and forage for 

ungulates and other grazers. An example of this is soil stabilization to manipulate 

vegetation composition, to increase productivity, or to remove invasive plants

(Knick et al. 2011). Distribution of these treatments can affect the distribution 

of GRSG and sagebrush habitats locally and across a region.

Invasive plants are thought to alter plant community structure and composition, 

productivity, nutrient cycling, and hydrology. They may outcompete native plant 

populations. In particular, invasive plants can reduce and eliminate vegetation 

that GRSG use for food and cover, resulting in habitat loss and fragmentation. 

Invasive plants also may increase the risk of wildfire. An assortment of nonnative 

annuals and perennials and native conifers are currently invading sagebrush 

ecosystems.

Expansion of conifer woodlands, especially juniper (Juniperus spp.), also 

threatens GRSG. This is because conifers do not provide suitable habitat, and 

mature trees displace shrubs, grasses, and forbs required for GRSG through 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

competition for resources. Juniper expansion is also associated with increased 

bare ground, the potential for erosion, and additional perch sites for raptors. 

For these reasons, woodland expansion may also represent expansion of raptor 

predation threat, in ways similar to perches on power lines and other structures 

(Connelly et al. 2004).

Landscapes with large, intact patches of sagebrush are preferred to avoid edge 

effects. In addition, GRSG require habitats that include a diversity of herbaceous 

species and healthy native grasses, making management for high condition 

important (Knick et al. 2011).

The distribution of sagebrush is limited, and the cost of habitat restoration is 

high. For these reasons, management plans that protect intact sagebrush and 

restore impacted areas strategically to increase connectivity of intact sagebrush 

have the best chance of increasing high quality sagebrush cover (Connelly et al. 

2004; Beck and Mitchell 2000, cited in Manier et al. 2013, p. 108). Sagebrushpromoting vegetation treatments would increase the amount and quality of 

GRSG habitat.

Managing and controlling invasive weed species in GRSG habitat would decrease 

the spread of weeds that directly compete for resources such as water with 

native plants and that indirectly increase the risk of fire, such as from cheatgrass,

impacts on sagebrush. To reduce the likelihood of invasive weed spread and the 

extent of current infestations, the BLM uses integrated weed management 

techniques through weed control cooperative range improvement agreements. 

The BLM implements vegetation treatments, such as mechanical, chemical, handcutting, and prescribed burning, to reduce weed infestations and conifer 

encroachments.

These conservation efforts would reduce the impacts of weeds or conifers on 

sagebrush and would increase the availability of GRSG habitat. In addition, fuels 

management actions, as described above, can also reduce weeds and conifers 

and create fire breaks. 

Indicators of potential impacts on GRSG from invasive plants and conifers under 

the proposed alternatives are acres of sagebrush habitat and acres meeting 

rangeland health standards.

COT Report Threat—Energy

Energy development requires construction of roads, well pads, wells, and other 

infrastructure, with associated noise, traffic and lights. These improvements

disturb wildlife and alter, degrade, or displace native ecosystems. Wildlife is 

displaced by energy development infrastructure, with power lines and roads 

having the largest effects, according to a meta-analysis of prairie grouse 

populations. Population declines associated with energy development result 

from the abandonment of leks, decreased attendance at the leks that persist, 

lower nest initiation, poor nest success, decreased yearling survival, and 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-11

avoidance of energy infrastructure in important wintering habitat (Holloran 

2005; Aldridge and Boyce 2007).

Industrial activity to develop surface mines and infrastructure could result in 

noise and human activity that disrupt the habitat and life cycle of GRSG. The 

number of displaying GRSG on two leks within 1.25 miles of active mines in 

northern Colorado declined by approximately 94 percent. This was over a fiveyear period following an increase in mining activity, though limited recovery 

occurred subsequently (Remington and Braun 1991, cited in Manier et al. 2013, 

p. 71; Braun 1998). 

All studies which assessed impacts of energy development on GRSG found 

negative effects, whereas no studies reported a positive influence of 

development on populations or habitats (Naugle et al. 2011). Research has 

reported that breeding populations of GRSG were negatively impacted, with 

declines in lek attendance by male GRSG ranging from 13 to 79 percent at 

conventional well pad densities. This was defined in the study as four to eight

pads per square mile; within the planning area conventional well pad density is 

one per square mile (640 acres). A recent summary of studies investigating 

GRSG response to natural gas development reported impacts on leks from 

energy development were most severe when infrastructure occurred near leks 

and that impacts remained discernible out to distances up to four miles (Naugle 

et al. 2011; Manier et al. 2013, p. 51).

An observed 21 percent decline in GRSG population between pre- and postmine development was primarily attributed to decreased nest success and adult 

female annual survival; the treatment effect was more noticeable closer to gas 

field infrastructure. 

Annual survival of individuals reared near gas field infrastructure (yearling 

females and males) was significantly lower than control individuals that were not 

reared near infrastructure (Holloran et al. 2010, cited in Manier et al. p. 59).

Generally, oil and gas developments within two to four miles of leks or nesting 

areas had a deleterious effect on populations; the effect increased as well 

density increased (Lyon and Anderson 2003; Walker et al. 2007; Johnson et al. 

2011). Knick and Connelly (2011) found that burned areas and human 

disturbance were the primary factors influencing the fate of leks.

Current oil and gas leases are substantial across GRSG ranges in MZ I, though 

oil and gas leasing is inactive on BLM-administered lands in PH and GH within 

the LFO. The potential for development is based on locations of geologic fields 

for traditional oil and gas, distributed extensively across eastern portions of 

GRSG range (Manier et al. 2013, p. 51). LFO is not leasing any parcels for fluid 

minerals in PH or GH under any alternative. Private lands are being leased; 

however, three wells targeting the Heath formation less than two years ago are 

currently being removed, and additional wells are not expected.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

A lease does not guarantee development; a separate environmental review 

process is conducted before permission is given to drill. Oil and gas leasing is 

not currently active in the LFO area but could become prevalent in the future, 

depending on market conditions.

Restrictions on mineral leasing in GRSG habitat would reduce impacts on the 

species by reducing the disturbances described above.

COT Report Threat—Grazing and Range Management

Livestock grazing is the most widespread land management practice in western 

North America; 70 percent of all lands are grazed (Floyd et al. 2003). Cattle

grazing is also the dominant agricultural use in the LFO. Since the early 1900s, 

livestock use on public lands has declined. 

Simultaneously with reduced stocking of public rangelands has been measurable 

improvements in range condition during the latter half of the 1900s (Box 1990;

Laycock et al. 1996). The focus of rangeland management on livestock 

production has been shifting since the 1960s and 1970s toward conservation, 

ecosystem integrity and services, sustainable use of resources for multiple 

purposes, the restoration of degraded rangelands, and benefits for wildlife 

(Connelly et al. 2004; Vavra 2005; Briske et al. 2011; Knick et al. 2011). The 

mere presence of livestock does not mean that long-term destruction is 

occurring to wildlife or habitat. Instead, the degree to which grazing affects 

habitat depends on the number of animals grazing in an area, the time of grazing,

and the grazing system used.

Although the Great Plains ecosystems evolved under grazing pressures from 

hoofed ungulates, the seasonality and intensity of domestic livestock grazing 

under current grazing management may differ from historic bison and elk 

grazing. The impact of grazing on these communities varies with site potential, 

ecological condition, and climate. If not managed optimally or effectively, cattle 

and sheep grazing can cause soil compaction, nutrient enrichment, vegetation 

and nest trampling, direct disturbance, and negative effects on GRSG

recruitment (Connelly et al. 2004 pp.7-29 –7-32). This would result from 

livestock reducing invertebrate prey or increasing GRSG exposure to predators 

(Beck and Mitchell 2000, pp. 998-1000; Knick 2011; Coates 2007, pp. 28-33).

Impacts on habitat vary with livestock densities and distribution: the more 

evenly livestock are distributed, the lower their impact on any given area (Gillen 

at al. 1984). However, cattle show a strong preference for certain areas, leading 

to high use in some areas and little to no use in others. In general, livestock use

is limited by slopes greater than 30 percent, dense forests and vegetation, poor 

or little upland forage, and lack of water.

GRSG habitat structure and composition may be affected positively or 

negatively by livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Forage utilization 

standards and guidelines, such as BLM Standards for Rangeland Health, were 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-13

developed to identify, with proper management, future conditions of rangeland 

resources.

Properly managed livestock grazing, permitted within standard and guideline 

limits (as specified in the LFO standards for rangeland health in Appendix F), is 

designed to cause no adverse impacts on rangeland or habitat values. Grazing 

plans designed to improve fair and poor condition range with rest periods may 

increase herbaceous cover and concurrently GRSG habitat (Adams et al. 2004). 

Changing the timing of grazing to promote grass and forb growth, and residual 

matter, also benefits GRSG habitat (Woodward 2006). Light grazing may 

produce mosaics in sagebrush communities and increase grass and forb 

production needed for nesting and brood-rearing (Adams et al. 2004). Light to 

moderate grazing does not appear to affect cover of perennial grasses important 

to nest cover (Strand and Launchbaugh 2013; Reisner et al. 2013).

Areas with excessive utilization for a number of years have negatively impacted 

GRSG habitat. The situation has created conditions that favor annual grass 

dominance and reduce perennial grasses used as nesting and escape cover (Beck 

and Mitchell 2000). Periodic overgrazing can damage range resources for the 

long term. It often exacerbates drought effects when livestock levels are not 

reduced to match the limited forage production.

Livestock’s heavy use of riparian meadows reduces the availability of succulent 

forbs and may cause GRSG to avoid these habitats (Klebenow 1982). Livestock 

may also trample nests and disturb GRSG behavior (Beck and Mitchell 2000; 

Coates 2007, pp.28-33).

Grazing in riparian areas can destabilize streams and river banks, reduce riparian 

shade, and increase sediment and nutrient loads in the aquatic ecosystem. 

Timing of grazing influences effects on meadows and riparian areas. Meadow and 

riparian areas within sagebrush habitat in good condition can withstand 

moderate spring, early summer, or winter use (Shaw 1992; Clary et al. 1996;

Mosley et al. 1997). The length of time livestock access meadows may be more 

important than the level of use (Mosley et al. 1997). Rest from grazing may be 

necessary to restore degraded riparian and meadow habitat (Clary and Webster 

1989).

Grazing infrastructure, such as water features and pipelines for livestock, can 

attract livestock to previously undisturbed habitat areas. This artificially 

concentrates livestock impacts, such as heavy grazing and vegetation trampling 

(Braun 1998). Standing water for livestock can create puddles that serve as 

breeding grounds for mosquitoes that carry West Nile virus (Walker and 

Naugle 2011). Fences provide predator perches and are a cause of direct 

mortality to GRSG (Braun 1998; Stevens et al. 2012). Grazing management that 

provides for sagebrush ecosystem health would enhance habitat for GRSG 

populations.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-14 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Birds and other wildlife species do not respond to grazing directly but to habitat 

changes. In general, livestock can influence habitat by modifying plant biomass, 

plant height and cover, and plant species composition. As a result, livestock 

grazing could change habitat and alter species abundances and composition in 

GRSG insect prey. Changes could occur in varying degrees in plant composition 

and change in vegetative structure, affecting cover for nesting birds. Grazing 

could also alter fire regimes (Davies et al. 2010) to varying degrees.

Grazing can reduce the spread of invasive grasses, if applied annually before the 

grasses have cured, and can be used as a tool to reduce fuel load (Connelly et al. 

2004, pp. 7, 28-30).

COT Report Threat—Infrastructure

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Transmission lines and major power lines are widespread throughout GRSG

range. GRSG respond negatively to increased human infrastructure in sagebrush 

habitats, including roads, power lines, and communication towers (Knick and 

Connelly 2011; Johnson et al. 2011). Although transmission line and power line 

construction does not generally result in substantial direct habitat loss, it would 

temporally disturb individual GRSG and habitat along the ROW.

Following construction, GRSG avoidance of vertical structures, likely due to 

raptors perching on them, may result in habitat exclusion via behavioral 

response. One study reported that the frequency of raptor/GRSG interactions 

during the breeding season increased 65 percent and golden eagle interactions 

alone increased 47 percent where a transmission line had been constructed

(Ellis 1985). GRSG have been observed to avoid brood-rearing habitats within 

three miles of power lines (LeBeau 2012). Higher densities of power lines within 

four miles of a lek negatively influence lek attendance (Walker et al. 2007). 

ROW exclusion areas would prohibit all development of ROWs, while in ROW 

avoidance areas, whether a ROW should be allowed would be considered on a 

case-by-case basis. This flexibility may be advantageous where federal and 

private landownership areas are mixed; exclusion areas may result in more 

widespread development on private lands.

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Ecological impacts of roads and motorized trails include mortality due to 

collisions, behavior modifications due to noise, activity, and habitat loss, physical 

environment alteration, nutrient leaching, erosion, invasive plant spread, 

increased use, and alteration of habitat by humans accessing it. GRSG avoid 

nesting and summering near major roads (for example, paved secondary 

highways) and traffic disturbances. Research suggests that roads within 4.7 miles

of leks negatively influence male lek attendance, with larger roads having greater 

effects (Connelly et al. 2004; Johnson et al. 2011). Negative influences on male 

lek attendance are increased road length and traffic levels on roads and traffic 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-15

activity during the early morning on roads within approximately two miles of 

leks (Holloran 2005; LeBeau 2012; Forman and Alexander 1998; Lyon and 

Anderson 2003, cited in Manier et al. 2013, pp. 44 and 50).

Closing and reclaiming unused, minimally used, or unnecessary roads in and 

around GRSG habitat would reduce disturbance to GRSG in those habitats. It 

also would increase the amount of GRSG habitat when the roads are reclaimed 

(NTT 2011, p. 11).

COT Report Threat—Recreation

Recreation in GRSG habitat is benign in most situations, but excessive use may 

disturb birds or nesting sites, degrade sagebrush habitat, or allow poaching 

(NTT 2011, p. 12). Activities such as camping, bicycling, OHV use, and hunting 

make use of the extensive network of BLM roads and trails. These activities

impact sagebrush and GRSG by generating noise and dust, spreading invasive 

plants, and altering wildlife behavior (Knick et al. 2011). In addition, road and 

trail use may directly cause GRSG mortality via collisions with vehicles.

Closing or seasonally restricting roads used by recreationists in and around 

seasonal GRSG habitats may reduce the impacts on wildlife. Restricting 

permitted access to important habitat areas based on seasonal use and 

coincident with GRSG activities would also protect GRSG (Knick et al. 2011; 

NTT 2011, p. 11).

4.2.3 Alternative A

COT Report Threats—–Sagebrush Elimination, Agriculture Conversion 

Impacts from Land Tenure Decisions

Land tenure adjustments would be subject to current disposal, exchange, and 

acquisition criteria. These include retaining lands with threatened or endangered 

species, high quality riparian habitat, or plant and animal populations or natural 

communities of high interest. This would likely include retaining or protecting

areas with GRSG and would thus maintain occupied habitats. Thus, management 

under existing land tenure criteria would likely retain GRSG habitat and other 

lands with high value to wildlife.

COT Report Threat—Fire

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

As shown in Section 3.6, under current management, 168,700 acres of GRSG 

habitat on BLM-administered land are at high risk of wildfire. Fuels treatment 

may reduce the risk by mechanical means or prescribed fire. 

Prescribed burning may also be used in support of resource management 

objectives, such as restoring grassland or shrubland, reducing conifer 

encroachment, or increasing age-class variety. The intention of prescribed 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-16 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

burning is to improve wildlife habitat and vegetation production. Sagebrush 

treatments are designed to maintain sagebrush within the canopy at 15 to 50 

percent and to increase succulent forbs in order to improve forage for GRSG 

and increase population stability. Chemical weed treatments may be applied 

following prescribed burns to limit the expansion of weeds or invasive species in 

the burned area.

Rest periods following wildfire or controlled burn are determined on a sitespecific basis. Intensive wildfire suppression would be applied to high-value 

areas, such as sagebrush, fire-sensitive woody riparian areas, and commercial 

forests. Continuation of this policy would protect sagebrush acreage, but high 

risks of wildfire would remain in some areas.

COT Report Threats—Vegetation Management (Conifers and Weeds and 

Annual Grasses)

As shown in Section 3.5, 516,000 acres of BLM-managed GRSG habitat in the 

planning area has high potential for cheatgrass spread. Under Alternative A, 

current vegetation management would continue. Grazing methods, land 

treatments, and other improvements would be designed and monitored to 

accomplish objectives, including wildlife habitat needs. Noxious weed control 

would be the responsibility of the affected permittee and lessee under existing 

weed control cooperative range improvement agreements. Each year, 

permittees and lessees would provide the BLM with records and maps of 

treatment areas. Conifer removal projects would continue using mechanical 

means and controlled burns. These approaches would continue to be effective 

in combating the spread of weeds and conifers, subject to budget limitations.

COT Report Threats—Energy

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Mineral exploration and extraction directly disturbs GRSG and degrades their 

habitat, as described under Nature and Type of Effects. Existing leases cover 

89,761 acres in the planning area, 45,400 acres of which are in BLMadministered PPH and PGH. This acreage would remain the same across all the 

alternatives. 

Under Alternative A, fluid mineral leasing and development would continue on 

previously leased lands, though not all leased areas would ultimately be 

developed. Under current rates of development, no new wells would be drilled 

on previously leased land in the coming decade. Additional widespread lease 

development in the LFO is not expected.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Before coal exploration licenses or prospecting permits for nonenergy leasable 

minerals were approved, environmental review would be required to assess 

impacts and develop mitigation measures. Generally, surface occupancy is 

prohibited within key wildlife areas, floodplains, and public ROWs. There are no 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-17

known coal resources in the planning area; therefore, actions associated with 

coal extraction would not impact GRSG populations.

For locatable minerals, mitigation measures to prevent unnecessary degradation 

would continue to apply to the proposed Plan of Operations. The BLM would 

consider purchasing claims where activities threaten resource values, such as 

wildlife habitat. These policies are unlikely to impact GRSG due to the lack of 

mining in the LFO; as discussed in Section 3.9, no locatable mineral 

development potential has been identified within GRSG habitat in the current 

RMPs.

COT Report Threat—Infrastructure

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative A, ROWs are considered on a case-by-case basis outside of 

exclusion and avoidance areas, with policy being to collocate when possible. 

There are no ROW exclusion areas within the planning area, but there are two 

avoidance areas, Acid Shale Pine Forest ACEC and Judith River Canyon (9,708 

acres total, 2,463 acres of which are in GRSG habitat, as shown in Section 

4.13, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern). The collocation approach 

provides limited protection for GRSG habitat from ROW construction, which is 

a cause of fragmentation. Table 4-1, ROW Exclusion and Avoidance Areas in 

GRSG Habitat (PH and GH), shows ROW avoidance and exclusion areas under 

each alternative.

Table 4-1

ROW Exclusion and Avoidance Areas in GRSG Habitat (PH and GH)

Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

ROW avoidance area

(acres)

0 112,341 0 240,464

ROW exclusion area

(acres)

0 233,219 345,560 0

Note: Exclusion and avoidance areas in are PH and GH for Alternatives B-D, and in PPH and PGH for 

Alternative A (since no PH or GH is presently designated).

COT Report Threats—Grazing and Range Management 

Impacts from Range Management

As shown in Table 4-2, Acres and AUMs Available for Grazing in the Planning 

Area in GRSG Habitat, currently, 570,112 acres in the planning area are open 

for livestock grazing, with 103,806 acres available AUMs. There are 6,781 acres 

closed to livestock grazing. Current livestock grazing was a significant causal 

factor for not achieving land health standards in 78 (54 allotments within GRSG 

habitat) of the 526 allotments within the planning area.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-18 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 4-2

Acres and AUMs Available for Grazing in the Planning Area in GRSG Habitat

Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Available AUMs 103,806 103,806 34,398 103,806

AUMs in GRSG

habitat (PH and GH)

69,408 69,408 0 69,408

Acres open to 

grazing

570,112 570,112 232,947 570,112

Acres open to 

grazing in PH and GH

337,165 337,165 0 337,165

Note: PH and GH are for Alternatives B, C, and D, and PPH and PGH are for Alternative A (since no PH or GH is 

presently designated).

In accordance with BLM grazing regulations 43 CFR, Part 4180, policy and 

guidance, the LFO has changed livestock grazing management on the 105,437 

acres of PPH and PGH (see Table 3-45) that were not meeting land health 

standards due to current livestock grazing. The actions taken should allow 

GRSG habitat to improve by reducing the negative impacts.

At this time the LFO cannot quantify through monitoring that the management 

changes implemented on these lands have resulted in the acres achieving land 

health standards; however, management changes were implemented. If future 

land health evaluations and determinations indicate that lands are still not 

achieving standards, further action in accordance with grazing regulations 

(regulatory mechanisms) and BLM policy and guidance would be required.

Under Alternative A, livestock grazing would continue to be managed through 

existing grazing plans. When grazing regimens are implemented, methods and 

guidelines from the existing RMPs would be followed to maintain ecological 

conditions and enhance wildlife habitat and vegetation production. Monitoring 

would be used to maintain the effectiveness of grazing management practices,

and integrated ranch planning may be used to plan allotments as single units. 

Land health assessments and other management evaluations aim to meet

rangeland health standards, which would provide for the health of rangeland 

vegetation that supports GRSG and other wildlife. Range improvements would 

be designed to meet both wildlife and range objectives and fences would be built 

or modified to permit passage of wildlife and to minimize GRSG fence collision 

risks.

The acreage in PPH found to not be meeting standards would continue to be 

managed to achieve the standards, which would improve its usefulness as GRSG 

habitat. Restricting livestock from riparian areas would enhance riparian habitat 

for wildlife, including GRSG.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-19

COT Report Threat—Recreation

Impacts from Recreation

Alternative A includes no specific recreation plan related to GRSG or their 

habitat. This means that uncontrolled recreation would continue and could

increase in GRSG habitat. Although most recreation is benign, hunting, camping,

and bird watching may disturb individual GRSG.

Recreation is an important use of BLM roads. As shown in Table 3.35 in 

Section 3.11, Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management, there 

are currently 773 miles of roads on BLM-administered land in PPH and PGH. 

Under Alternative A, BLM-administered lands would continue to permit limited 

yearlong use for motorized vehicles. Recreation on wildlife habitat may disturb 

GRSG, may reduce nest success, and may contribute to habitat fragmentation. 

Under Alternative A, road and trail development is minimized in crucial big 

game and upland bird habitat. Roads may be closed to vehicles where substantial 

resource impacts occur, including harm to wildlife or habitat. These policies may 

limit disturbance of GRSG habitat during the nesting season.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects on GRSG in the Planning Area 

under Alternative A 

As discussed in Chapter 3, the Yellowstone Watershed GRSG population 

contains five GRSG priority habitat areas within the Billings, Miles City, and 

Lewistown BLM field offices. PPH within the LFO is made up of Yellow Water 

Triangle, War Horse, Crooked Creek, and Winifred. Table 3-5 shows lek size 

data for these survey areas.

The Winifred survey area contains more agricultural land (11 percent) than any 

other PPH area in the LFO. Any further loss of habitat, regardless of ownership, 

would likely decrease lek size and population numbers. No further loss of 

sagebrush habitat on BLM-administered land is expected in this area. The two 

large leks in the Winifred survey area have declined in size over the monitoring 

period and are presently just over the 25 GRSG threshold separating large from 

medium-size leks.

The number of large leks in Crooked Creek (one), War Horse (six), and Yellow 

Water Triangle (two) are expected to be maintained, assuming no changes to 

private lands or West Nile virus outbreaks. Habitats with more extensive 

agricultural production are more impacted (higher GRSG population declines) 

during West Nile virus outbreaks (Taylor et al. 2010).

The NRCS in both Fergus and Petroleum Counties is working with producers 

on private and public lands as part of the SGI to improve GRSG habitat. This

would continue under all alternatives, as would fence marking on high collision 

risk fences within 1.25 miles of leks.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-20 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

The total number of leks and large leks has declined over the course of data 

collection (see Diagrams 3.1 and 3.2 in Section 3.3), with 2012/2013 

representing the lowest counts since surveys began in the 1950s. GRSG habitat 

on state and private lands would remain in the long term. Assuming this, the 

BLM would take the following corrective actions for grazing management on 

allotments not meeting rangeland health standards due to current livestock 

management (40 percent of PPH):

• Fence marking in conjunction with NRCS

• Deferring all oil and gas leases in PPH or PGH

• Wildfire suppression

Under Alternative A, these measures could stabilize GRSG numbers in the short

term and maintain numbers in the long term. This would be especially true in 

the War Horse and Yellow Water Triangle survey areas, where a greater 

amount of BLM-administrated lands occur.

Grazing would be managed to meet rangeland health standards, which include 

GRSG habitat as part of the biodiversity standard. Continued grazing would 

reduce the amount of fine fuels and fires over the next decade. This would likely 

be similar to what has occurred over the previous decade (less than 2,000 acres 

burned in BLM PPH). 

Continued grazing would also require permittees to continue to treat noxious 

weeds on BLM allotments. Land use patterns, weather, and West Nile virus

would continue to play important roles in recruitment and survival rates for 

both chicks and adults. Recreation effects would continue to be minimal and 

benign, as described above.

4.2.4 Alternative B

COT Report Threats—Sagebrush Elimination, Agriculture Conversion 

Impacts from Land Tenure Decisions

No lands in PH would be available for disposal under Alternative B. As discussed 

above, current disposal, exchange, and acquisition criteria would include 

retaining lands with threatened or endangered species, high quality riparian

habitat, or plant and animal populations or natural communities of high interest. 

Thus, Alternative B would not change the likelihood of habitat conversion to 

agriculture or other uses. Because of the unlikely conversion of land under this 

alternative, sagebrush habitat would not be removed from BLM administration,

resulting in no loss of PH on BLM-administered lands.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-21

COT Report Threat—Fire

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fire and fuels management actions proposed under Alternative B would

specifically protect mature sagebrush acreage and GRSG from wildfire and 

prescribed burning. As under Alternative A, the trend of nearly 2,000 acres 

burned annually between 2000 and 2012 would be expected to continue over 

the next 10 years.

The approach to prescribed fire would be as described under Alternative A. 

Fuels treatments would be designed and implemented with an emphasis on 

promoting sagebrush. Sagebrush canopy would not be reduced below 15 

percent unless fuels management objectives required it. Seasonal restrictions 

would be applied to fuels management. Rest periods also would be required and 

invasive species would be controlled with native seeds wherever possible. Fire 

suppression would be prioritized in PH and GH, potentially leading to fine fuel 

buildup. Grazing livestock would be an option to reduce fine fuel load. 

The impacts under Alternative B would likely be the same as those under 

Alternatives A and D.

COT Report Threats—Vegetation Management (Conifers and 

Weeds/Annual Grasses)

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Current management programs (Alternative A) were already designed to 

reduce weeds and conifer spread, which benefit GRSG habitat. Habitat 

restoration and vegetation management actions under Alternative B would 

additionally improve GRSG habitat and prioritize restoration to benefit PH

compared to Alternative A. As a result, the restoration and management of 

vegetation actions would focus on GRSG habitat more than Alternative A. It 

would do this by requiring the use of native seeds, designing post-restoration 

management to ensure the long-term persistence of restoration, considering 

changes in climate, and monitoring and controlling invasive species.

COT Report Threats—Energy

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Geophysical exploration would be allowed within PH but only for obtaining 

information on fluid mineral resources in areas outside of PH. Impacts on GRSG 

and their habitat could continue as a result of existing fluid mineral leases 

(44,500 acres in PH and GH); however, no new wells are likely to be drilled on 

BLM-administered land in the next decade. 

In the event of new permits to drill, additional RDFs and conservation measures 

would be applied to existing leases as COAs. In comparison to Alternative A, 

these additional measures would result in potential beneficial impacts related to 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-22 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

drilling. Under current forecasts, no drilling is anticipated, so there would be no 

change in impacts on GRSG.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Alternative B would find all surface mining of coal to be unsuitable in PH. In LFO 

there are no coal potential or existing lease areas. For locatable minerals, areas 

in PH would be proposed for withdrawal from mineral entry based on risk to 

GRSG habitat. Existing claims would be subject to potential buyout. Currently 

there is no coal potential and limited locatable mineral mining in the planning 

area; therefore, these actions would have little to no impact on GRSG 

populations or habitat, relative to Alternative A.

COT Report Threat—Infrastructure

Impacts from Lands and Realty

PH would be managed as ROW exclusion areas (233,219 acres), with limited 

exceptions, and GH would be managed as ROW avoidance areas (112,341 

acres; Table 4-1). ROW exclusion areas would protect GRSG habitat and 

reduce habitat fragmentation on BLM-administered lands, as described above 

under Nature and Type of Effects. However, impacts on GRSG would still 

continue to occur on non-BLM lands in the LFO. As shown in Table 4-6,

ReGAP Habitat Type including Non-BLM Acreage in PH and GH within Rightof-way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas by Alternative (Acres), in Section 4.4, 

Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands), below, more 

sagebrush habitat is on land not administered by the BLM (863,565 acres) 

compared to 256,052 acres BLM-administered land. This suggests that ROW 

exclusion and avoidance areas may impact more GRSG habitat if development is 

potentially pushed onto private land.

COT Report Threats—Grazing and Range Management 

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative B, the amount of PH and GH open for livestock grazing and 

available AUMs is the same as under Alternative A (Table 4-2). Noxious weed

control would be the same as under Alternative A. Impacts on GRSG habitat 

from grazing, as described under Nature and Types of Effects, would continue 

under Alternative B. However, AMPs, integrated ranch planning, and land health 

assessments in PH would be used to incorporate GRSG management objectives 

into grazing permit renewals. These policies would likely increase the protection 

and quality of GRSG habitat on grazing lands, compared to current policy 

(Alternative A). They could increase GRSG populations compared to 

Alternative A.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-23

COT Report Threat—Recreation

Impacts from Recreation

Under Alternative B, SRPs would be issued in habitat areas only where the 

effects of recreation were neutral or beneficial to GRSG habitat. The BLM 

would continue to limit motorized vehicles to existing roads and trails until 

travel management planning is complete. Route construction in PH would be 

limited to realignments or built to minimum standards necessary. During the 

breeding season, recreation permits would not be issued in the vicinity of leks

to promote nesting success. 

These policies would protect GRSG by limiting disturbance of GRSG habitat 

from activities associated with recreational vehicle traffic. However, impacts 

from dispersed recreation, such as hiking or camping, would likely continue to 

disturb individual GRSG in areas where they occur.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects on GRSG in the Planning Area 

Under Alternative B

Grazing and noxious weed control under Alternative B would be similar to 

Alternative A. Direct effects from ROW exclusion areas within PH would be 

reduced on BLM-administered lands; however, this could result in much greater 

infrastructure impacts on adjacent private lands, especially in the War Horse, 

eastern Crooked Creek, and Yellow Water Triangle areas. This would be due 

to the checkerboard nature and variety of ownerships within PH (974,735 

acres) and GH (899,659 acres). See Section 4.3, Lands and Realty, for more 

information on land ownership patterns in ROW avoidance and exclusion areas.

Moving ROW impacts to private lands could prove especially detrimental for 

GRSG since no RDFs would be required by the BLM there. The sparcity of 

BLM-administered land in Winifred would likely have negligible potential indirect 

impacts on private lands as a result of ROW exclusion areas. Over the long

term, ROW exclusion areas on BLM-administered land would likely decrease 

the number of large and medium leks in the planning area, especially War Horse

and Yellow Water Triangle due to the potential effect of pushing development 

onto adjacent private lands with less management oversight. Because more

sagebrush habitat is on land not administered by the BLM, development may 

impact more leks if pushed onto private land.

The human population in PH in Fergus and Petroleum Counties is sparse, so 

impacts from the ROW exclusion areas would be limited. Functioning habitat 

would increase as a result of vegetation treatments prioritized in PH, especially 

mechanized treatments targeting conifer encroachment. Designating routes as 

part of travel management would improve GRSG habitat long term once the 

plan is implemented. Short-term GRSG numbers would be expected to improve 

until negative impacts associated with long-term ROW exclusion areas are 

realized.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-24 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

4.2.5 Alternative C

COT Report Threats—Sagebrush Elimination, Agriculture Conversion

Impacts from Land Tenure Decisions

No lands in PH or GH would be available for disposal under Alternative C. As 

discussed above, current disposal, exchange, and acquisition criteria already 

include retaining lands with threatened or endangered species, high quality 

riparian habitat, or plant and animal populations and natural communities of high 

interest.

Private land may be acquired to enhance GRSG conservation value of existing 

lands. Although it is uncertain how much private land could be acquired to 

enhance GRSG habitat under Alternative C, this policy could increase the BLM 

acreage of sagebrush compared to Alternatives A, B and D, but impacts are 

likely to be minimal.

Impacts from Range Management

An indirect impact from excluding livestock grazing from BLM-administered 

lands is the potential conversion of adjacent private grazing lands to agriculture 

or other land uses. This is especially a concern in areas with a mosaic of 

ownership boundaries, which would decrease available habitat for GRSG that

inhabit rangeland outside of BLM-administered lands.

Impacts from ACECs

ACECs to protect GRSG would be designated as sagebrush reserves in PH, 

consisting of contiguous blocks of at least 4,000-acre blocks of BLMadministered land, covering 96,246 acres. No additional protections would 

occur for GRSG with an ACEC designation since all conservation measures 

would be applied to both PH and GH under Alternative C. In addition, the 

ACEC designation could attract increased hunting for GRSG.

COT Report Threat—Fire

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

The approach for fire suppression and emergency stabilization projects is as 

described under Alternative B. Additional policies would be included to ensure 

the availability of native seed. Relative to Alternatives A, B and D, fire 

suppression in sagebrush areas would be less effective since fine fuels would 

increase without livestock grazing.

COT Report Threats—Vegetation Management (Conifers and 

Weeds/Annual Grasses)

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts from habitat restoration and vegetation management would be largely 

similar to those described for Alternative B. However, they would be applied to 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-25

a larger area (PH and GH) and would thus provide more restoration and habitat 

enhancement for GRSG. Removing livestock grazing on BLM-administered land 

would eliminate Weed Control Cooperative Range Improvement Agreements 

with BLM permittees and lessees. Noxious weed control thus would be done by 

BLM personnel. This could reduce noxious weed control efforts and increase 

weed patch size and distribution.

COT Report Threats—Energy

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Geophysical exploration within PH would be permitted to obtain information 

for adjacent areas, with timing restrictions to protect GRSG. As described 

under Alternative B, additional RDFs and conservation measures would be 

applied as COAs to existing leases. Alternative C would also include seasonal 

restrictions to activities that could disrupt GRSG and provide additional 

mitigation measures in both PH and GH. Existing leases could continue to 

impact GRSG and their habitat; however, no new wells are anticipated to be 

drilled in LFO in the next decade. Thus, beneficial effects from this alternative 

on fluid minerals would be negligible, compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative B.

COT Report Threat—Infrastructure

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative C, PH and GH would be managed as ROW exclusion areas 

(345,560 acres; see Table 4-1). Establishing ROW exclusion areas would 

reduce fragmentation on BLM-administered land and would protect GRSG 

habitat, as described above under Nature and Type of Effects. However, given the 

checkerboard pattern of landownership in the LFO, ROW impacts could be 

pushed onto adjacent private lands, potentially over a much larger area. 

As shown in Table 4-6 in Section 4.4 below, more sagebrush habitat is on 

land not administered by the BLM (863,565 acres) compared to 256,052 acres 

of BLM-administered land. This suggests that ROW exclusion and avoidance 

areas may impact more GRSG habitat if potentially pushed onto private land.

Given the absence of land use controls and management, actions proposed 

under this alternative could increase habitat fragmentation on lands not 

administered by the BLM. See Section 4.3 for more information on

landownership patterns in ROW avoidance and exclusion areas.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-26 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

COT Report Threats—Grazing and Range Management

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative C, 343,991 acres would be closed to livestock grazing within 

PH and GH. This proposed management would eliminate 69,408 AUMs of 

available forage, leaving 34,398 AUMs of available forage in the planning area 

outside GRSG habitat (see Table 4-2). 

Removing permitted grazing uses in habitat areas would reduce the impacts on 

GRSG, such as loss of herbaceous nesting cover, described under Nature and 

Type of Effects. However, grazing may reduce fuel buildup, so removing it could 

increase the occurrence of large wildfires, especially given the potential impact 

on weed control (see above under Vegetation Management). Much of the level 

shrub grassland in Montana that is preferred grazing land is privately owned and 

increasingly valuable for residential development (MCFWS 2005).

An indirect impact from excluding livestock grazing from BLM-administered 

lands is the potential conversion of adjacent private grazing lands to agriculture 

or other land uses. This is especially a concern in areas with a mosaic of 

ownership boundaries, which would decrease available habitat for GRSG that 

inhabit rangeland outside of BLM-administered lands. In the long term, removing 

grazing permits on federal land could cause ranches to be converted to 

residential or agricultural use, leading to a loss of GRSG habitat on adjacent 

private lands. Temperature increases resulting from climate change may also 

increase crop yields, encouraging lands not previously used for agriculture to be 

converted for that purpose (NRC 2010).

In addition, no-grazing areas on BLM-administered land would require 

approximately 3,400 additional miles of fencing to separate these areas from 

adjacent grazing lands. This would increase the adverse effects of fencing on 

GRSG, such as raptor predation and potential collision, as well as habitat 

fragmentation. Construction of 3,400 miles of additional fencing could result in 

as many as 2,300 additional fence collisions (Stevens et al. 2012), some of which 

could be fatal for GRSG.

COT Report Threat—Recreation

Impacts from Recreation

Alternative C includes no specific recreation management related to GRSG or 

their habitat. Impacts are the same as under Alternative A.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects on GRSG in the Planning Area 

Under Alternative C

There would be no livestock grazing or noxious weed control by permittees 

under Alternative C. Removing grazing from BLM-administrated lands would 

increase residual vegetation and increase concealment for GRSG. Most notably, 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-27

these increases would be felt in the War Horse and Yellow Water Triangle

survey areas, where most BLM-administered lands occur. 

In the short term, GRSG populations may increase as a result of removing 

grazing. Direct effects from ROW exclusion areas within PH would be reduced 

on BLM-administrated lands. However, this could result in much greater 

infrastructure impacts on adjacent private lands, especially in the War Horse, 

eastern Crooked Creek, and Yellow Water Triangle survey areas. Over the 

long term, absence of grazing would increase fine fuels, making fire suppression

within sagebrush habitats less effective. Despite suppression, wildfires would 

become more prevalent and would increase conversion of Wyoming big 

sagebrush habitats to grasslands. This would be especially true in the War 

Horse and Yellow Water Triangle areas.

Grazing would continue on private and state lands in all survey areas and would 

require BLM-administrated lands be fenced to exclude livestock. The additional 

fencing would increase GRSG collisions. Smaller ranches that are not viable 

without BLM grazing permits would be more likely to be converted to 

agriculture or to be subdivided.

Direct and indirect effects from ROW exclusion areas are similar to Alternative 

B but would happen over a greater area, encompassing both PH and GH. Direct 

effects from ROW exclusion areas would be reduced on BLM-administered 

lands; however, this could result in much greater infrastructure impacts on 

adjacent private lands, especially in the War Horse, eastern Crooked Creek, 

and Yellow Water Triangle survey areas. This could prove especially detrimental 

for GRSG since no RDFs could be stipulated by the BLM on private lands. 

The sparse BLM ownership in Winifred could likely have negligible potential 

indirect impacts on private lands as a result of ROW exclusion areas. Over the 

long term, ROW exclusion on BLM-administered land would likely decrease the 

number of large and medium leks in the planning area, especially War Horse and 

Yellow Water Triangle. The human population in PH in Fergus and Petroleum 

Counties is sparse, so impacts from the ROW exclusion areas would be limited. 

GRSG habitat would increase as a result of vegetation treatments prioritized in 

PH, especially mechanized treatments targeting conifer encroachment.

The GRSG ACEC established under this alternative would provide no additional 

protections and could attract additional hunting pressure. Short- and long-term 

GRSG numbers could decline and no large leks would be expected to persist

long-term in the LFO portion of the Yellowstone Watershed Population.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-28 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

4.2.6 Alternative D

COT Report Threats—Sagebrush Elimination, Agriculture Conversion

Impacts from Land Tenure Decisions

No lands in PH would be available for disposal under Alternative D. Impacts 

from land tenure decisions are the same as under Alternative B.

Impacts from ACECs

No additional ACECs would be designated under Alternative D, and impacts on 

GRSG are the same as that described under Alternative A.

COT Report Threat—Fire

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fuels treatment would be designed and implemented with seasonal restrictions 

and avoidance of winter range, as described under Alternative C. As described 

under Alternative B, livestock grazing would be considered as a means of fuel 

reduction and fire suppression would be prioritized in GRSG habitat. Fire 

suppression in sagebrush areas would protect mature sagebrush and GRSG

from the disturbance associated with wildfire. Post-burn restoration programs

would help regrowth, compared to Alternatives A, B and C.

COT Report Threats—Vegetation Management (Sagebrush Elimination, 

Conifer Invasion, Invasive Species)

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts from habitat restoration and vegetation management under Alternative 

D are similar to Alternative B. However, this alternative includes consideration 

of other threatened, endangered, or sensitive species, in addition to GRSG. This

may reduce protection for GRSG habitat in very limited instances.

COT Report Threats—Energy

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Operational constraints would be applied to existing leases, with some 

exceptions to minimize disturbance associated with mineral extraction, as 

described under Nature and Type of Effects. As under Alternatives B and C, RDFs 

and conservation measures would be COAs for the permit to drill. No new 

drilling permits are anticipated in the next decade in LFO, so impacts from fluid 

minerals are unlikely to affect GRSG populations.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Similar to Alternative A, the planning area would be available for coal

exploration licensing. However, an environmental review would be conducted 

to assess impacts and to develop mitigation measures before exploration. 

Currently there is low coal potential in the planning area; therefore, these 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-29

actions are not expected to impact GRSG populations unless future coal 

resources are discovered.

Locatable minerals development would be managed as described under 

Alternative A. Prospecting for nonenergy leasable minerals would be permitted 

after appropriate environmental review. These policies would likely have 

minimal impact on GRSG, given the low level of mining in the planning area.

COT Report Threat—Infrastructure

Impacts from Lands and Realty

PH would be managed as ROW avoidance areas (233,219 acres); no ROW 

exclusion areas would be established (see Table 4-1). The policies described 

under Alternative D would consider ROW authorizations on a case-by-case 

basis. They would circumvent impacts of outright ROW exclusion areas where 

there is mixed public/private landownership of sagebrush habitat. Additionally, 

these policies would protect GRSG habitat from loss and fragmentation by 

avoiding ROW construction, while retaining the management flexibility to locate 

ROWs in less sensitive areas in order to preserve connectivity of PH.

COT Report Threat—Grazing and Range Management

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative D, there would be no change to the acreage open for grazing 

or available AUMs described under Alternative A (Table 4-2). The policies 

proposed under Alternative D would be similar to those described under 

Alternative B. Noxious weed control would be the same as under Alternative B;

as a result, impacts on GRSG habitat would be beneficial compared to 

Alternative A.

COT Report Threat—Recreation

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative B.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects on GRSG in the Planning Area 

Under Alternative D

Grazing and noxious weed control under Alternative D would be similar to 

Alternatives A and B. Fire and fuels management would be the similar to 

Alternative B, but rest periods following disturbance would be based on 

vegetation response and desired conditions, not length of time following

disturbance. GRSG habitat would increase as a result of vegetation treatments 

prioritized where they are most beneficial for GRSG, regardless of PH or GH

designation. Treatments targeting species other than GRSG would be allowed,

and depending on the habitat targeted, would most likely have no impacts. 

Additional site-specific NEPA studies would determine impacts for GRSG as 

well as other listed BLM sensitive species and migratory birds.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-30 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Similar to Alternative B, designating routes as part of travel management

planning would improve GRSG habitat long term once the plan is implemented.

In ROW avoidance areas within PH, the BLM would consider ROW requests on 

a case-by-case basis. This would influence the most appropriate placement and 

design for future infrastructure needs, especially in the War Horse, eastern 

Crooked Creek, and Yellow Water Triangle areas.

Short-term and long-term GRSG numbers would improve and the number of 

large leks would be maintained or would increase. This alternative provides the 

best possibility for LFO contributions to population viability for the GRSG 

Yellowstone Watershed Population, compared to Alternatives A, B and C.

4.2.7 Impacts Summary

Table 4-3, Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field 

Office by Alternative, provides a summary comparison of how each alternative 

alleviates COT report threats to GRSG listed as “Present and Widespread” and 

“Present but Localized” for the LFO. The major threats to GRSG habitats in 

populations occurring across WAFWA MZ I are agriculture conversion, weeds

and annual grasses, energy development (primarily oil and gas development), and 

supporting infrastructure and grazing (USFWS 2013, p. 17). The major threats 

to GRSG habitats in populations occurring across WAFWA MZ IV are the 

isolation and small size of the population, agriculture conversion, weeds and 

annual grasses, and grazing (USFWS 2013, p. 23).
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-31

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use1 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Oil and Gas Development*

Unleased Fluid Minerals

Areas closed to fluid mineral

leasing (acres)

1,949

Acres closed to fluid 

mineral leasing (one

ACEC, not in PPH or 

PGH)

1,949

Acres closed to fluid 

mineral leasing (one

ACEC, not in PPH or 

PGH)

1,949

Acres closed to fluid 

mineral leasing (one

ACEC, not in PPH or 

PGH)

1,949

Acres closed to fluid 

mineral leasing (one

ACEC, not in PPH or 

PGH)

Areas open within the planning 

area to be nominated for fluid 

mineral leasing (acres)

1,113,841 1,113,841 1,113,841 1,113,841

Summary of Impacts to

GRSG from Oil and Gas 

Development

Alternatives B, C, and D would apply RDFs (Appendix C for Alternatives B and C, and Appendix D

for Alternative D) as COAs where appropriate and necessary to drilling permits for currently leased 

federal minerals. Standard lease stipulations would apply to the existing leases. No new leases would 

be issued in PPH and PGH or PH and GH under any alternative, based on an existing RMP protest 

resolution, which requires deferring nominated lease parcels if a special stipulation is required to 

protect important wildlife values. These conditions and limitations would provide the regulatory 

mechanisms needed (identified in the COT report [USFWS 2013]) to stop population decline and 

habitat loss. They would do this by eliminating activities known to negatively impact GRSG and their 

habitats, and by reducing the threat of habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation.

Infrastructure Yellowstone Watershed Population*/Anthropogenic

ROW avoidance areas in PPH

and PGH, or PH and GH (acres)

30,193

Various ROW avoidance 

areas designated, none 

specified to protect PPH

and PGH

112,341

112,341 acres in GH,

no PH ROW

avoidance areas 

because it would be 

ROW exclusion area

0

No new ROW

avoidance areas 

because all PH and GH

would be ROW

exclusion area

240,464

233,219 acres of PH

and 7,245 acres of 

GH

 1 Resources/resource uses identified as threats to the LFO populations of GRSG in the COT report are identified with an asterisk*
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-32 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use1 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

ROW exclusion areas (acres), in 

accordance with BLM LUP 

Handbook, no exceptions 

permitted

0 233,219

233,129 acres in PH

345,560

All PH and GH

0

All PH and GH would 

be a ROW avoidance 

area

Travel management 345,560 acres limited to existing roads and trails. CTTM planning process for route evaluation and 

designation would begin within 5 years of the ROD being issued for this RMPA. The BLM would

minimize or prevent road and trail development on crucial big game and upland bird habitat areas. BLM 

regulations (43 CFR, Parts 8341.2 and 8364.1) allow for area, road or trail closures where OHVs are 

causing, or would cause considerable adverse effects on wildlife and its habitat.

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from Infrastructure

Overall, Alternative A would have the least protections for GRSG and GRSG habitat from 

development of infrastructure. Alternative B would have more restrictions on route construction and 

upgrades, as well as ROWs, than Alternatives A and D, but fewer than Alternative C (some actions 

under Alternative D are the same as under Alternative B; see Table 2-4).

Alternatives B and C exclude PH from new ROWs. This responds directly to the need identified in the 

COT report (USFWS 2013) to stop population decline and habitat loss by eliminating activities known 

to negatively impact GRSG and their habitats. Beneficial impacts are from the reduction in the threat 

of habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation on BLM-administered lands. Potential adverse indirect 

effects in GRSG habitat could increase if these activities were excluded from BLM-administered lands 

because they would still occur on private land without BLM RDFs or BMP guidance. Ownership 

patterns in LFO (highly fragmented, with public land comprising approximately 17% of the planning 

area) could substantially increase the length of infrastructure required to enclose BLM ROW exclusion 

areas. Alternative D would designate PH and GH as ROW avoidance areas because most PH and GH 

within the planning area are on private lands. The potential to concentrate infrastructure development 

where appropriate, and to use RDFs and BMPs, would increase direct beneficial effects from 

infrastructure on GRSG on BLM-administered lands; however, it could substantially reduce potential

indirect adverse effects on a much greater area of adjacent land not administered by the BLM. The 

benefits of maintaining or improving habitat on most of the PH would exceed the costs on BLMadministered lands and would be more likely to perpetuate a viable GRSG population. Reducing 

impacts on more of the existing habitat within the planning area is a reason for the ROW avoidance

areas rather than ROW exclusion areas in PH and GH under Alternative D. Each action alternative 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-33

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use1 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

would require collocating new ROWs with existing ROWs in GH. Alternative D would require this of 

new ROWs in PH also because new ROWs are not excluded in PH.

The action alternatives are in agreement with the following conservation objectives/options identified 

in the COT report specific to infrastructure:

1. Avoid developing infrastructure within PACs (objective).

2. Avoid constructing these features in GRSG habitat, both within and outside of PACs (option).

3. Remove transmission lines and roads that are duplicative or are not functional (option).

4. Construct transmission line towers to severely reduce or eliminate nesting and perching by 

avian predators, most notably ravens, thereby reducing human subsidies to those species 

(option).

Agriculture Conversion (Yellowstone Watershed Population)*

Areas identified for disposal Land tenure adjustments

in the Judith Resource 

Area planning area (MZ I) 

would be subject to 

disposal/acquisition 

criteria. Within MZ I,

retain important wildlife 

habitat (one of the three 

main criteria for land 

tenure adjustments 

outlined in the Judith 

Resource Area Resource 

Management Plan). Land 

tenure adjustments in the 

Headwaters planning area 

(MZ IV) would be subject 

to disposal/acquisition 

criteria. 

Retain public 

ownership of PH.

Consider exceptions

where there is mixed 

ownership, and land 

exchanges would allow 

for additional or more 

contiguous federal 

ownership patterns 

within PH.

Same as Alternative B, 

without exceptions for 

disposal to consolidate 

ownership that would 

benefit GRSG (applies 

to PH and GH).

PH would be retained 

in public ownership, 

except when 

opportunities for land 

exchange would 

provide a greater 

benefit to GRSG 

habitat.

Areas identified for acquisition No parcels identified in Seek to acquire state Strive to acquire When offered, PH
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-34 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use1 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

existing plans for 

acquisition. If parcels are 

acquired, land exchanges, 

sales, or other methods of 

acquisition may be used.

and private lands with 

intact subsurface 

mineral estate by 

donation, purchase, or 

exchange in order to 

best conserve, 

enhance, or restore 

GRSG habitat.

important private 

lands in ACECs.

Acquisition would be 

prioritized over 

easements. 

would be a priority in 

consideration of land

acquisitions (refer to 

Appendix H). 

Consider GRSG for 

all land tenure 

actions.

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from 

Agriculture/Urbanization

Although agriculture and urbanization have been identified as threats within the LFO planning area,

including both the Yellowstone Watershed (Conversion) and Belt Mountain (Urbanization) 

populations, the BLM has no direct management authority over those types of activities. Under 

Alternatives B and D, the BLM would take advantage of opportunities to consolidate GRSG habitat 

through land exchange if the action would benefit GRSG. Alternative C would allow for no disposal of 

PH or GH, regardless of benefits to GRSG. The LFO may have limited indirect abilities to influence 

these threats through maintaining appropriate authorized uses (grazing, ROWs, recreation, energy 

development) of BLM-administered lands that allow for the maintenance of habitat objectives. One 

specific example is to maintain appropriate levels of livestock grazing, which could discourage the 

conversion of identified GRSG habitat on private land to improved (nonnative) pasture or cropland.

Regarding the following conservation objectives/options identified in the COT report specific to 

infrastructure:

• Limit urban and exurban development in GRSG habitat and maintain intact native sagebrush plant 

communities (objective).

• Acquire and manage GRSG habitat to maintain intact ecosystems (option).

Alternative D meets the objectives best because of its flexibility. Alternative B meets the objectives but 

its focus on ROW exclusion areas could lead to greater impacts on non-BLM-administered lands. 

Alternative C is in agreement with the first objective, but the consequences of its limitations on 

grazing, including increased fencing and reduced weed control, would not maintain intact GRSG 

habitat.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-35

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use1 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Conifer Encroachment

See prescribed fire/fuels reduction below. 

Grazing (Yellowstone Watershed and Belt Mountains Populations)*

Areas closed to livestock grazing

(acres)

6,781 6,781 343,991

BLM-administered 

surface lands within 

PH and GH would be 

closed to livestock 

grazing.

6,781

Areas available for livestock 

grazing (acres)

570,112

BLM-administered surface 

lands.

570,112

BLM-administered 

surface lands.

232,902

BLM-administered 

lands outside of PH

and GH.

570,112

BLM-administered

surface lands.

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from Grazing

GRSG habitat considerations within livestock grazing allotments would be similar across Alternatives 

B, C and D. Range improvement restrictions are the same under Alternatives B and D. Under 

Alternative C (no grazing), the need for increased fencing on BLM-administered land in order to 

prevent livestock trespass would result in indirect impacts on GRSG, including increased 

fragmentation, increased potential for wildfire from fine fuel buildup, increased collision with fences, 

and increased raptor predation. Additionally, under Alternative C the BLM would lose the current or 

potential treatment of existing or new infestations of noxious weeds because these weeds are 

currently treated through agreements with permittees to spray, under the terms and conditions of 

grazing permits or leases. Under Alternative A, grazing would be managed to achieve the standards of 

rangeland health, which would address GRSG habitat requirements under most scenarios. However, 

the potential for project infrastructure up to 0.25 mile of leks under Alternative A could cause 

fragmentation, raptor perches, and inappropriate fence locations and designs. Alternatives B and D, 

would also manage grazing to achieve the standards of rangeland health. These alternatives also put 

specific focus on GRSG habitat requirements in PH to preclude adverse impacts from livestock and 

project infrastructure. Because Alternative C closes PH and GH to grazing, fine fuels would increase 

and weed control would be reduced. In addition, potential actions taken on private land to 

compensate for loss of public grazing might affect GRSG habitat and could be substantial (for example, 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-36 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use1 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

miles of fencing would likely be constructed to hold livestock on private lands).

Invasive Species (Yellowstone Watershed Population)*

Weed control Analysis of the impacts from weeds includes impacts from lands and realty, fluid minerals, wildfire 

suppression, fuels management and fire rehabilitation. For all alternatives, integrated vegetation 

management would be used to control, suppress, and eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive species, in 

accordance with BLM Handbook H-1740-2.

Structural range improvements 

and livestock management tools

Potential for invasive species to become established or to increase following construction would be 

considered in the project planning process and monitored and treated post-construction.

RDFs and BMPs for GRSG 

habitat

No RDFs or BMPs specifically for GRSG under Alternative A. Various RDFs and BMPs under 

Alternatives B, C and D, described in Appendix C and D, would be applied or suggested at the time 

an authorized use is granted.

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from Invasive Species

Due to climate conditions, invasive weeds do not currently threaten the planning area on a large scale. 

Under all alternatives, the spread of weeds would be managed using integrated vegetation management 

as resources allow. Under Alternative C, grazing would be eliminated in GRSG habitat, which would 

remove the lessee agreements on weed control and limit resources for addressing invasive weeds.

Disease

Alternatives to reduce impacts from West Nile virus on GRSG are considered under Water Development below. See RDFs and BMPs in 

Appendix C for Alternatives B and C, and in Appendix D for Alternative D, for a description of RDFs and BMPs to reduce the threat of 

West Nile virus.

Coal Mining

There is no coal potential in the planning area.

Weather

There is no resource program in an RMP for addressing this threat to GRSG and its habitat.

Predation

See RDFs and BMPs in Appendix C for Alternatives B and C, and in Appendix D for Alternative D, for a description of features 

designed to reduce the threat of predation.

Wildfire/Fuels Treatment

Areas suitable for prescribed fire

use and fuels treatments.

Intensive suppression

would be

applied to areas with high 

resource values, 

In GH, prioritize 

suppression where 

wildfires threaten

PH and follow RDFs 

In PH and GH, follow 

RDFs (Appendix C).

In PH and GH, design 

and implement fuels 

In GH, prioritize 

suppression where 

wildfires threaten

PH and follow RDFs 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-37

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use1 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

structures, improvements, 

oil and gas developments, 

commercial forest values, 

sagebrush and juniper 

areas, fire-sensitive woody 

riparian areas (soil 

subgroups 6 and 17), and 

cultural values that require 

aggressive suppression.

Controlled burning in 

conifer and sagebrush 

types would be done on 

an individual basis to 

improve wildlife habitat. 

Prescribed burning would

be administered on an 

individual basis in 

grassland, sagebrush, and 

conifer types to improve 

wildlife habitat and 

vegetation production. 

Burning would be done on 

a limited basis to improve 

wildlife and livestock 

forage in dense pinejuniper stands throughout 

the Missouri Breaks and 

to improve vegetation 

productivity on other 

upland sites, including 

sagebrush.

(Appendix C). In PH, 

design and implement 

fuels treatments with 

an emphasis on 

protecting existing 

sagebrush ecosystems.

Apply appropriate 

seasonal restrictions 

for implementing fuels 

management 

treatments according 

to the type of seasonal 

habitats present in PH.

Allow no treatments in 

known winter range 

unless the treatments 

are designed to 

strategically reduce 

wildfire risk around or 

in the winter range and 

would maintain winter 

range habitat quality.

treatments with an 

emphasis on 

protecting existing 

sagebrush ecosystems.

Apply appropriate 

seasonal restrictions 

for implementing fuels 

management 

treatments according 

to the type of seasonal 

habitats present.

Allow no fuels 

treatments in known 

winter range, unless 

the treatments are 

designed to 

strategically reduce 

wildfire risk around or 

in the winter range 

and would maintain 

winter range habitat 

quality.

(Appendix D). In PH 

and GH, design and 

implement fuels 

treatments with an 

emphasis on 

protecting existing 

sagebrush 

ecosystems. Sites 

should not be burned 

unless a) biological 

and physical 

limitations of the site 

and impact on GRSG 

are identified and 

determined to be 

neutral or beneficial 

to PH; b) 

management 

objectives for the 

site, including those 

for wildlife, are 

clearly defined; c) 

potential for weed 

invasion and 

successional trends 

are well understood;

and d) capability

exists to manage the 

post-burn site 

properly.

Apply appropriate 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-38 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use1 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

seasonal restrictions 

for implementing 

fuels management 

treatments according 

to the type of 

seasonal habitats 

present in PH. Allow 

no fuels treatments in 

known GRSG winter 

range unless the 

treatments are 

designed to 

strategically reduce 

wildfire risk around 

or in the winter range 

and would maintain 

winter range habitat 

quality.

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from Wildfire and 

Fuels Treatment

Alternative A manages wildlfire effectively but Alternatives B, C and D would provide additional 

protection to sagebrush habitat during fire management. Under all alternatives, anticipated threats 

from wildfire remain constant (estimated 2,000 acres burned over a decade).

Water Development

Identify number and type of 

range water developments

(location of developments not 

verified at this time).

• Nonhabitat - 2,919 

dams/pits

• PPH or PH - 2,420 

dams/pits

• PPH or PH - 3,699 

other

• PGH or GH - 838 

dams/pits

• PGH or GH - 3,816 

other

RDFs would be applied to new water developments or the 

reconstruction of existing water developments 

(pits/reservoirs/dams/holding ponds).
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse) 

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-39

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use1 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Common to all alternatives, the Montana/Dakotas BLM requires the installation of wildlife escape ramps in 

public lands (excluding pits and reservoirs), per Montana/Dakotas IM No. MT-2007-077.

all water developments on 

Solid Mineral Development

Locatable minerals Analyze proposed action 

in Plan of Operations and 

apply mitigating measures 

needed to prevent 

unnecessary or undue 

degradation. Before the 

BLM approves a Plan of 

Operations on existing 

mining claims in areas 

withdrawn, it would 

conduct validity 

examinations. If the claims 

did not contain a 

discovery, within the 

meaning of the mining 

laws, the claims would be 

declared null and void and 

the Plan of Operations 

would be denied. The 

BLM would consider 

purchasing valid claims 

where activities threaten 

the resource values 

protected by the 

withdrawal. Analyze 

proposed action in Plan of 

Operations and apply 

mitigating measures 

needed to prevent 

In PH, recommend

withdrawal from 

mineral entry based on 

risk to the GRSG and 

its habitat from 

conflicting locatable 

mineral potential and 

development (385,693 

acres). Make any 

existing mining claims 

within the withdrawal 

area subject to validity 

exams or buyout. 

Require Plan of 

Operations before any 

proposed surfacedisturbing activities. 

Consider seasonal 

restrictions if deemed 

effective. BMPs

(Appendix C) needed 

to prevent unnecessary 

or undue degradation 

to GRSG habitat would 

be applied.

Same as Alternative B, 

except applies to both 

PH and GH (639,927 

acres). 

BMPs (Appendix C) 

needed to prevent 

unnecessary or undue 

degradation to GRSG 

habitat would be 

applied.

Analyze proposed 

action in Plan of 

Operations and apply 

mitigating measures 

needed to prevent 

unnecessary or undue 

degradation. 

Locatable minerals

exploration and 

development under 

the mining laws are 

not authorized under 

the discretion of the 

field manager but are 

reviewed (Notice and 

Plan of Operations) 

and approved (Plan of 

Operations) to 

prevent unnecessary 

or undue degradation. 

Proposed actions

under Plan of 

Operations and 

Notices would be 

analyzed on a caseby-case basis in 

coordinating with

MTDEQ. BMPs

(Appendix D) 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-40 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use1 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

unnecessary or undue 

degradation.

needed to prevent 

unnecessary or undue 

degradation to GRSG 

habitat would be 

applied.

Salable minerals 2,437 acres within PGH

and 101 acres within PPH

are closed to salable 

minerals disposal.

The BLM would issue sales 

contracts for salable 

minerals where disposal is 

deemed to be in the public 

interest, while providing 

for reclamation of mined 

lands and preventing 

unnecessary or undue 

impact on nonmineral 

resources. Salable 

minerals permits are 

considered on a case-bycase basis and are issued 

at the discretion of the 

area manager (639,927 

acres open for sale of 

minerals).

The planning area would

be available for coal

exploration licenses. 

Surface occupancy within

Close PH to salable 

minerals disposal 

(385,693 acres). In PH, 

restore salable mineral 

pits no longer in use to 

meet GRSG habitat 

conservation 

objectives. 100 acres of 

BLM-administered

lands within PH are 

currently salable 

mineral disposal sites.

Close PH and GH to 

salable minerals 

disposal (639,927 

acres). In PH and GH, 

restore salable mineral 

pits no longer in use

to meet GRSG habitat 

conservation 

objectives. 300 acres 

of BLM-administered

lands within PH and 

GH are currently 

salable mineral 

disposal sites.

2,437 acres within 

GH and 101 acres 

within PH are closed 

to salable minerals 

disposal. In PH, the 

BLM would issue 

permits for salable 

minerals where 

disposal is deemed to 

be in the public 

interest, while 

providing for 

reclamation of mined 

lands and preventing 

unnecessary or undue 

degradation 

(Appendix D). 

Salable minerals 

material permits are 

considered on a caseby-case basis and are 

issued at the 

discretion of the field 

manager (639,927 

acres open for sale of 

minerals).
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-41

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use1 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

MZ IV generally would be 

prohibited within public 

road corridors, ROWs,

floodplains, and key 

wildlife areas.

Surface occupancy 

within MZ IV, 

generally would be 

prohibited within 

public road corridors, 

ROWs, floodplains, 

and key wildlife areas.

In PH, restore salable 

mineral pits no longer 

in use to meet GRSG

habitat conservation 

objectives.

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from Solid Mineral 

Development

Alternatives B and C would be more protective of GRSG and habitat than Alternatives A and D, 

although Alternative D, in the case of reclamation of salable mineral pits, requires the same action as 

Alternative B. Effective mitigation for existing mining claims and salable mineral sites is similar across

Alternatives B, C and D. Alternative D provides a greater number of BMPs to be considered as 

necessary and appropriate to mitigate impacts.

Climate Change

There is no specific resource program in this RMPA for addressing this threat to GRSG and its habitat. However, actions under several 

resources listed below do address climate change and drought impacts on GRSG habitat. Furthermore, BLM grazing regulations 43 CFR, 

Part 4110.3-2, Decreasing Permitted Use, states: (a) Permitted use may be suspended in whole or in part on a temporary basis due to 

drought, fire, or other natural causes, or to facilitate installation, maintenance, or modification of range improvements.

Implementing management 

actions after land health 

evaluations

Efforts to manage public 

rangeland under drought 

conditions would be 

directed first to 

allotments with resource 

concerns such as “I” 

category allotments. 

Specific allotments in the 

“M” and “C” categories 

could also be considered 

During droughts, 

prioritize evaluating 

effects of the drought 

in PH relative to their 

needs for food and 

cover. Since there is a 

lag in vegetation 

recovery following 

drought, ensure that 

post-drought 

During droughts, 

prioritize evaluating 

effects of the drought 

in PH and GH relative 

to their needs for food 

and cover. Since there 

is a lag in vegetation 

recovery following 

drought, ensure that 

post-drought 

During droughts, 

prioritize evaluating 

effects of the drought 

in PH, relative to 

their needs for food 

and cover. Drought 

management would 

continue to be in 

accordance with the

Montana/Dakotas 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-42 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use1 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

high priority when 

resource values or 

conditions so require.

management allows for 

vegetation recovery 

that meets GRSG 

needs in PH.

management allows for 

vegetation recovery 

that meets GRSG 

needs in PH.

drought policy 

(Appendix I). Since 

there is a lag in 

vegetation recovery 

following drought, 

post-drought 

management would 

be implemented to 

allow for vegetation 

recovery that meets 

GRSG needs in PH.

ES&R and habitat restoration and 

vegetation management

In PH, consider 

potential changes in 

climate when 

proposing restoration 

seeding of native plants. 

Consider collecting

from the warmer 

component of the 

species’ current range 

when selecting native 

seed.

In PH and GH,

consider potential 

changes in climate 

when proposing 

restoration seeding of 

native plants. Consider 

collecting from the 

warmer component of 

the species’ current 

range when selecting 

native seed.

In PH, consider 

potential changes in 

climate when 

proposing restoration 

seeding of native 

plants. Consider 

collecting from the 

warmer component 

of the species’ 

current range when 

selecting native seed.

Develop an 

appropriate seed mix 

for the location, 

based on current 

climatic data as well 

as soils/ecological site 

descriptions.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-43

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use1 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Contaminants

There are no management actions in this RMPA for addressing this threat to GRSG and its habitat. RDFs and BMPs, when applicable and 

appropriate, would be applied to use authorizations (Appendix C for actions under Alternatives B and C, and Appendix D for actions 

under Alternative D) to prevent the potential threat of contaminants.
4. Environmental Consequences (Lands and Realty)

4-44 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

4.3 LANDS AND REALTY

4.3.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Table 4-4, Comparison of Lands and Realty Indicators by Alternative, provides 

a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the effects on lands and 

realty under each alternative.

Table 4-4

Comparison of Lands and Realty Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

Acres of surface ownership in the 

planning area

No change No change No change No change

Acres of land tenure adjustments

(i.e., lands identified for disposal, 

withdrawal, or acquisition)

N/A 385,693 for 

mineral 

withdrawal

639,927 for 

mineral 

withdrawal

0

Number, acres/miles, and types of 

surface-disturbing ROWs and leases, 

including communication sites

909 acres Short-term 

increase, 

long-term 

decrease if 

buried or 

removed

Short-term 

increase, 

long-term 

decrease if 

buried or 

removed

Short-term 

increase, 

long-term 

decrease if 

buried or 

removed

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• Existing ROWs, designated utility corridors, and communication 

sites would be managed to protect valid existing rights.

• On renewal, assignment, or amendment of existing ROWs, 

additional stipulations could be included in the land use 

authorization.

• ROW holders may continue their authorized use as long as they are 

in compliance with the terms and conditions of their grant.

• The BLM would continue to process land use authorizations and 

land tenure adjustments as workforce and workload allow.

• The demand for all types of ROWs (including communication sites, 

utilities, and renewable energy projects) would gradually increase 

over time.

• Maintaining and upgrading utilities, communication sites, and other 

ROWs is preferred before the construction of new facilities in the 

decision area, but only if the upgrading can be accommodated in the 

existing ROW.
4. Environmental Consequences (Lands and Realty)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-45

• Demand for small distribution facilities to extend and upgrade 

services, such as communication sites and utilities, would increase as 

rural development occurs on the dispersed private parcels within 

the planning area.

• Demand for both regional and interstate transmission lines would 

increase as population and urban areas grow.

• Demand for new ROWs is expected to increase as demand for new 

communication technology, such as fiber optic cable, grows.

• Retention areas include all decision area lands (the BLMadministered lands within the planning area), with the exception of 

lands identified, or under consideration for disposal.

• In accordance with the Omnibus Act, the BLM would continue to 

manage all previously withdrawn BLM-administered lands as 

withdrawn from entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public 

land laws. Withdrawals would be reviewed, as needed, and 

recommended for extensions, modifications, revocations, or 

terminations. All existing withdrawals initiated by other agencies, 

such as the US Bureau of Reclamation or the Department of Energy, 

would be continued unless the initiating agency or BLM requests 

that the withdrawal be revoked.

4.3.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Resources and resource uses affect the lands and realty program by prescribing 

stipulations and mitigation to protect resources within ROW exclusion and 

avoidance areas. A ROW exclusion area is one that is not available for new 

ROW location under any conditions. A ROW avoidance area may be available 

for ROW location but may require special stipulations. ROW applications could 

be submitted in ROW avoidance areas; however, a project proposed in these 

areas may be subject to additional requirements, such as resource surveys and 

reports, construction and reclamation engineering, long-term monitoring, 

special design features, special siting requirements, timing limitations, rerouting, 

and off-site mitigation. Such requirements could restrict project location or they 

could delay availability of energy supply (by delaying or restricting pipelines, 

transmission lines or renewable energy projects) or they could delay or restrict 

communications service availability. As a result of special surveys and reports, 

alternative routes may need to be identified and selected to protect sensitive 

resources, such as GRSG habitat. Designating ROW exclusion and avoidance 

areas and applying special stipulations would result in increased application 

processing time and costs due to the potential need to relocate facilities or due 

to greater design, mitigation, and siting requirements.

Collocating transmission and mineral development infrastructure in existing 

ROWs, and existing disturbed areas, reduces land use conflicts and additional 

land disturbance. Collocation policies also clarify the preferred locations for 
4. Environmental Consequences (Lands and Realty)

4-46 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

utilities and simplify processing on BLM-administered lands. However, 

collocating can limit options for mineral development and selection of morepreferable locations for ROWs.

Travel management actions can involve closing areas or specific routes to 

motorized or mechanized travel, thereby creating areas that are impractical for 

some types of land uses, such as transmission lines or communication sites.

Land tenure adjustments are intended to maintain or improve the efficiency of 

BLM management, including management of GRSG habitat. Land disposal can 

result in a more contiguous decision area, thus increasing BLM-administered 

lands management efficiency. However, while consolidation may be beneficial for 

certain resources and uses, it may not necessarily reduce effects on GRSG

habitat.

The following resources or resource uses would have negligible or no impact on 

land use authorizations and land tenure and are, therefore, not discussed in 

detail: range management, fluid and solid minerals, mineral split estate, fire and 

fuels management, and habitat restoration/vegetation management.

4.3.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under all alternatives, the BLM would continue to process a pending land 

exchange within PH. The exchange would transfer 240-acres of private land to 

BLM ownership in exchange for disposing 240 acres of BLM-administered land 

to private ownership. The lands to be transferred into public ownership contain 

a lek site. The exchange would benefit GRSG under all alternatives; however, 

each alternative would result in greater or lesser levels of protection depending

on the specific management actions proposed.

Impacts from Recreation

Within the decision area, there is one SRMA and 11 ERMAs. BLM management 

goals and objectives are to preserve a desired setting and recreation experience 

for users within these areas. Land uses in the SRMAs and ERMAs should not 

conflict with recreation uses. In all alternatives, the BLM would continue to 

evaluate land use authorizations on a case-by-case basis in the special recreation 

areas so as to avoid conflicting uses.

4.3.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative A, travel would continue to be allowed on 595 miles of

existing roads and trails in the decision area. Existing transportation routes 

would continue to provide motorized access to ROW infrastructure and 

communication sites for construction and maintenance. Planning area habitat 

would remain closed to cross-country vehicle use.
4. Environmental Consequences (Lands and Realty)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-47

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative A, 215 total miles of existing ROWs in the decision area, 

including 162 miles in PPH and 53 miles in PGH, would continue to provide 

opportunities for collocation of new infrastructure. A total of 2,601 acres 

associated with the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC and Judith River Canyon 

would continue to be managed as ROW avoidance areas. All lands within the 

decision area would continue to be open for ROW development (subject to 

NEPA analysis).

BLM-administered lands would continue to be available for ROWs on a case-bycase basis, in accordance with Title V of FLPMA and 43 CFR, Part 2800. All 

ROW applications would be reviewed using the criteria of following existing 

corridors wherever practical and avoiding the proliferation of separate ROWs.

Wind facilities would be authorized through the ROW authorization process. 

See Section 4.20, Renewable Energy, for impacts on wind energy development.

Under Alternative A, the BLM would continue to manage 593,995 surface acres. 

There would continue to be six withdrawals in the decision area amounting to 

2,538 acres (101 acres in PPH and 2,437 acres in PGH). Land tenure and 

adjustments would be subject to the disposal and acquisition criteria in the 

existing RMPs.

Impacts from ACECs

Under Alternative A, the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC would continue to be a 

ROW avoidance area, continuing to affect ROW authorization application 

processing times and design standards for proposed ROWs within the 2,463-

acre ACEC boundary.

4.3.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

BLM would evaluate the need for permanent or seasonal road closures under 

Alternative B. Should the BLM determine during a future site-specific evaluation 

that there is a need to close certain routes, those closures could affect the 

convenience of access for ROW holders to existing ROW infrastructure, as 

described above under Nature and Type of Effects.

Under Alternative B, the BLM would only allow new roads where access to 

valid existing rights is necessary and does not currently exist. This would limit 

new ROW authorizations and new road construction as compared to 

Alternative A. Limitations on new road construction could make certain areas 

impractical for new ROW authorizations, particularly in areas not readily 

accessible via existing roadways.
4. Environmental Consequences (Lands and Realty)

4-48 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative B, 233,219 acres of the decision area associated with PH (39 

percent of BLM-administered land within the planning area) would be designated 

as ROW exclusion area for new ROW authorizations. GH in the decision area 

(112,341 acres) would be designated ROW avoidance area. However, 843 total 

acres of unitized lease areas (301 acres of PH and 542 acres of GH) would be 

exempt from ROW limitations related to oil and gas development.

As noted above in Nature and Types of Effects, limitations on new ROWs and 

aboveground linear features, such as transmission lines and pipelines, could 

restrict the availability of energy or service availability and reliability for 

communication systems. ROW exclusion and avoidance areas could extend 

processing time for renewals of existing ROW authorizations. The designations

could make siting new linear or block ROWs more difficult than under 

Alternative A.

Additionally, under Alternative B, the BLM would take advantage of 

opportunities to remove, bury, or modify 42 miles of existing power lines within 

PH. As noted above in Nature and Types of Effects, limitations on new ROWs

and above-ground linear features, such as transmission lines and pipelines, could 

restrict the availability of energy or service availability and reliability for 

communication systems.

The BLM would retain public ownership in PH except where land exchanges 

would result in more contiguous federal ownership patterns or where disposal 

accompanied by a habitat mitigation agreement or conservation easement would 

result in more effective management of GRSG habitat. If the BLM were to 

proceed with land tenure adjustments, those actions would enhance BLM 

management of GRSG habitat but could affect existing authorizations and leases,

as described in Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from ACECs

Under Alternative B, the Acid Shale-Pine Forest would become a ROW

exclusion area. Impacts on the lands and realty program from limitations on new 

ROW authorizations would be the same within and outside the ACEC and 

consistent with the Nature and Types of Effects.

4.3.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts on the lands and realty program under Alternative C would be the 

same as those described above under Alternative B, with the exception that 

Alternative C would prohibit new road construction within four miles of active 

leks. Because of the density of active lek sites, new road construction on BLMadministered land in the planning area would be limited to 21 percent of the 

decision area (13,340 acres in PH and 57,785 acres in GH), which is a reduction 

in areas available for new road construction and ROWs as compared to 
4. Environmental Consequences (Lands and Realty)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-49

Alternative A. This reduction would increase those effects described in Nature 

and Type of Effects, including delays in application processing time and costs, 

increase siting limitations, and delay delivery of energy supplies as compared to 

Alternative A.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative C, PH and GH (345,560 acres) would be designated as ROW

exclusion area for new ROW authorizations. However, 843 acres would be 

located inside a unitized area. Lands within the unitized area would be exempt 

from the ROW exclusion area provisions related to oil and gas development. 

Impacts on ROW authorizations are the same as under Alternative B and are 

consistent with effects described in Nature and Types of Effects.

The BLM would retain public ownership in PH with no exceptions and seek to 

acquire private lands when offered in ACECs. Impacts from land withdrawals

would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts from ACECs

Under Alternative C, the BLM would designate 96,246 acres of GRSG habitat as 

a new ACEC with management tailored to protect the GRSG habitat. BLM 

management of lands and realty would be the same outside the ACEC boundary 

as it would be inside. PH and GH would be managed as a ROW exclusion area. 

Designation of ROW exclusion and avoidance areas could affect the number 

and type of ROW authorizations depending on the location and nature of any 

proposed ROW.

4.3.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative D, the BLM would complete a travel and transportation 

management plan, designating certain roads as open, closed or limited to 

motorized travel. The BLM would also consider permanently closing certain 

user-created roads and trails where off-road vehicle use would cause adverse 

effects on habitat. This would likely increase the effects on lands and realty 

actions as compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative D, PH (233,219 acres) would be managed as ROW avoidance 

area for new ROW authorizations. PH and GH would be designated as wind 

energy ROW avoidance (345,560 acres). New ROW development would 

continue to be allowed in GH, within existing ROWs, and within the 843 acres 

of unitized lease areas, including 301 acres of unitized acres in PH. The 

designation of PH as ROW avoidance could limit the placement of new above 

ground infrastructure, resulting in an increase of effects on the lands and realty 

actions as compared to Alternative A. The extent of the effects would be based 

on the location and type of any proposed new ROW.
4. Environmental Consequences (Lands and Realty)

4-50 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Impacts from land tenure adjustments would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as those described above under Alternatives A and 

B.

4.4 VEGETATION (INCLUDING NOXIOUS WEEDS; RIPARIAN AND WETLANDS)

4.4.1 Methods and Assumptions

Impacts were determined by assessing which actions, if any, would change the 

upland vegetation, riparian and wetland vegetation, and weed indicators 

described below. Some impacts are direct, while others are indirect and affect 

vegetation through a change in another resource. Direct impacts on vegetation 

include disrupting, damaging, or removing vegetation, thereby reducing area, 

amount, or condition of native vegetation. Included among these are actions 

that reduce total numbers of plant species and actions that reduce or cause the 

loss of diversity, vigor, or structure of vegetation, or that degrade its function as 

habitat for GRSG or other wildlife.

Indirect impacts are those that may occur later in time, such as decreased plant 

vigor or health from dust or reduced water quality. Other indirect impacts 

include loss of habitat suitable for vegetation colonization due to surface 

disturbance; introduction of weeds that compete with desirable, native 

vegetation; conditions that enhance the spread of weeds; and general loss of 

potential habitat due to surface occupancy or soil compaction.

Indicators

Table 4-5, Comparison of Vegetation Indicators by Alternative, provides a 

summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the effects on vegetation 

under each alternative.

Table 4-5

Comparison of Vegetation Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres meeting Rangeland 

Health standards

Possible increase Possible 

increase

Stable/possible 

decrease

Possible 

increase

Acres of sagebrush 

(PH/GH1)

345,560 Possible 

increase

Increase Possible 

increase

Extent of fragmentation Increasing Stable or 

decreasing

Decreasing Stable or 

decreasing

Percentage of riparian areas 

in PFC

Stable Increase Increase Increase

Acres of riparian/wetland

vegetation

6,937 Stable or 

increasing

Stable or 

increasing

Stable or 

increasing

Change in spread of 

noxious weeds

Stable Stable Stable or 

increasing

Stable

1

PPH and PGH for Alternative A (no PH or GH is presently designated).
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-51

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• All plant communities would be managed toward achieving a mix of 

species composition, cover, and age classes across the landscape, 

except in site-specific situations where introduced grass plantings 

(crested wheatgrass) are used to defer livestock use of native 

pasture.

• The degree of impact attributed to any one disturbance or series of 

disturbances would be influenced by several factors, including 

location in GRSG habitat; the type, time, and degree of disturbance; 

existing vegetation; precipitation; and mitigating actions applied to 

the disturbance.

• Noxious and invasive weeds would continue to be introduced and 

spread as a result of ongoing vehicle traffic in and out of the 

planning area, recreational activities, wildland fire, wildlife and 

livestock grazing and movements, and surface-disturbing activities.

• Activities that would disturb soils could cause erosion, loss of 

topsoil, and soil compaction, which could affect the ability of 

vegetation to regenerate. Further, surface-disturbing activities could 

increase dust, which could cover existing vegetation and impair 

plant photosynthesis and respiration. Resulting impacts could 

include lowered plant vigor and growth rate, altered or disrupted 

pollination, and increased susceptibility to disease.

• Ecological health and ecosystem functioning depend on a number of 

factors, including vegetative cover, species diversity, nutrient cycling

and availability, water infiltration and availability, and percent cover 

of weeds.

• Climatic fluctuation would continue to influence the health and 

productivity of plant communities on an annual basis.

• Short-term effects would occur over a timeframe of two years or 

less and long-term effects would occur beyond two years. 

• Removal of livestock grazing from BLM-administered land would 

eliminate the opportunity to initiate weed control cooperative 

range improvement agreements for noxious weed control on 

affected lands.

4.4.2 Nature and Type of Effects

GRSG rely on sagebrush ecosystems for all aspects of their life cycle. Typically, a 

range of sagebrush community composition within the landscape (including 

variations in sub-species composition, co-dominant vegetation, shrub cover, 

herbaceous cover, stand age) are needed to meet seasonal, and inter-seasonal, 

requirements for food, cover, nesting, and wintering habitats. The landscape 
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-52 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

required for GRSG may range from up to 40 square miles. Thus, conserving and 

managing GRSG is as much about the ecology, management and conservation of 

large, intact sagebrush ecosystems as it is about the dynamics and behaviors of 

the populations themselves (Manier et al. 2013).

Historically, sagebrush-dominated vegetation was one of the most widespread 

habitats in the country, but its expanse has been fragmented, lost, or altered by 

invasive plants and anthropogenic disturbance (NTT 2011, p.4). Protection of

GRSG habitat would involve restrictions and limitations on activities that 

contribute to the spread of invasive species, fire, and other surface disturbance, 

and management of vegetation to promote healthy sagebrush and understory 

vegetation to support GRSG.

Vegetation Management and Habitat Protection

In addition to landscapes with large, intact patches of sagebrush (i.e., those with 

limited habitat fragmentation), GRSG require high-quality habitat conditions. 

These are a diversity of herbaceous species, vegetative and reproductive health 

of native grasses, and an abundance of sagebrush, making management for high 

condition important in seasonally important habitats (Connelly et al. 2004).

Given the limited distribution of suitable sagebrush habitats and the cost of 

habitat restoration, management plans that protect intact sagebrush acreage and 

restore impacted areas strategically to improve habitat connectivity have the 

best chance of increasing the amount and quality of sagebrush cover (Manier et 

al. 2013). Sagebrush-promoting vegetation treatments would protect native 

vegetation and overall ecosystem productivity, while reducing the distribution of 

invasive weeds and woody conifer species.

Invasive plants can alter plant community structure and composition, 

productivity, nutrient cycling, and hydrology, and may competitively exclude 

native plant populations. Invasive plant spread may result in habitat loss and 

fragmentation, and may also increase the risk of wildfire. The spread of invasive 

plants such as cheatgrass has increased the frequency and intensity of fires in 

some areas (Balch et al. 2012), though the LFO currently has cheatgrass only in 

isolated patches. An assortment of nonnative annuals and perennials and native 

conifers are currently invading sagebrush ecosystems, notably juniper species. 

Expansion of conifer woodlands present a threat to GRSG because they do not 

provide suitable habitat, and mature trees displace shrubs, grasses and forbs 

through direct competition for resources; conifer expansion is also associated 

with increased bare ground and erosion potential. Mature trees may offer perch 

sites for raptors and increase predation threats (Petersen et al. 2009; Bradley 

2010). Current treatments and active vegetation management typically focus on 

vegetation composition and structure for fuels management, habitat 

management and/or productivity manipulation for improving the habitat and 

forage conditions for ungulates and other grazers. Vegetation management 

techniques increase productivity by stabilizing soil surfaces or by removing 
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-53

invasive plants (Knick et al. 2011). Vegetation treatments would cause shortterm disturbance to vegetation from removal but would result in long-term 

improvements to habitat quality.

Treatments designed to prevent encroachment of shrubs, non-native species or 

woody vegetation would alter the condition of native vegetation communities by 

changing the density, composition, and frequency of species within plant 

communities. The intent of these management programs is to improve 

rangeland condition and enhance sagebrush ecosystems.

Vegetation manipulations in the riparian zone, such as weed treatments, native 

plantings, and erosion control in the channel, improve the condition of the 

riparian vegetation community, individual riparian species, and hydrologic 

functionality to attain PFC. Habitat connectivity for GRSG could be increased 

through vegetation manipulation designed to restore vegetation, or transition of 

an area to better match the surrounding vegetation.

Direct protection of sagebrush habitat to support GRSG would limit or modify 

uses in this habitat type. Use restrictions would reduce damage to native 

vegetation communities and individual native plant species in areas that are 

important for regional vegetation diversity and quality. Likewise, use restrictions 

would minimize loss of connectivity and would be more likely to retain existing 

age class distribution within these specific areas. Use restrictions could also 

minimize the spread of invasive species by limiting human activities that cause 

soil disturbance or seed introductions.

Wildland Fire

While wildfires likely played an important role historically in creating a mosaic of 

herbaceous-dominated areas (recently disturbed), and mature sagebrush (lessfrequently disturbed), current land-use patterns have restricted the system’s 

ability to support natural wildfire regimes. Slow rates of re-growth and recovery 

of vegetation after disturbances (driven by low water availability and other 

constraints) have contributed to the accumulating displacement and degradation 

of the sagebrush ecosystem (Beck et al. 2009). Thus, preservation of sagebrush 

against wildfire and limiting use of prescribed burning is important to preserving 

GRSG habitat.

Big sagebrush does not re-sprout after a fire, but is replenished by winddispersed seed from adjacent unburned stands or seeds in the soil. Depending 

on the species and the size of a burn, sagebrush can reestablish within five years 

of a burn, but a return to a full pre-burn community cover can take 13 to 100 

years (Connelly et al. 2004). Fire suppression may be used to maintain habitat 

for GRSG (NTT 2011). When management reduces wildland fire frequency by 

controlling natural ignitions, the indirect impact is that vegetation ages across 

the landscape and early successional vegetation communities are diminished. 

Fire suppression may preserve condition of some vegetation communities, as 

well as habitat connectivity. This is particularly important in areas where fire 
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-54 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

frequency has increased as a result of weed invasion, or where landscapes are 

highly fragmented. Fire suppression can also lead to increased fuel loads, which 

can lead to more damaging or larger-scale fires in the long term. Fire also 

increases opportunities for invasive species, such as cheatgrass, to expand (Balch 

et al. 2012), so fire suppression can indirectly limit this expansion.

Controlled burning may be prescribed to treat fuel buildup and can assist in the 

recovery of sagebrush habitat in some vegetation types. Re-seeding with native 

plants and long-term monitoring to ensure the production of GRSG cover and 

forage plants, would assist vegetation recovery (NTT 2011).

Lands and Realty

Construction of utility ROWs often involves vegetation removal, which would 

disturb native vegetation communities and individual native plant species, alter 

age class distribution, reduce connectivity, and encourage the spread of invasive 

species. ROWs may extend for many miles, fragmenting habitat and increasing 

the potential for weeds to be spread (NTT 2011). ROW corridors would be 

managed to concentrate placement of large linear facilities and other ROW 

development in less-sensitive areas and to minimize the loss of connectivity and 

total acreage of vegetation that would be disturbed.

The holder of a ROW is responsible for weed control on disturbed areas within 

the limits of the ROW. The holder is responsible for invasive weed control for 

the life of the ROW plus three years. The holder is responsible for consultation 

with the authorized officer or local authorities for acceptable weed control 

methods.

ROW exclusion areas would prohibit all development of ROWs in PH, with the 

exceptions provided, while ROW avoidance areas would consider on a case-bycase basis whether an ROW should be allowed. This flexibility may be 

advantageous where federal and private land-ownership areas are mixed, while

ROW exclusion areas could result in more widespread development on private 

lands.

Mineral Resources

Many sagebrush ecosystems overlay major oil and gas reserves, which has 

created a long history of mining and exploration, particularly on eastern 

portions of the range, which include the planning area. Energy development 

requires construction of roads, well pads, wells and other infrastructure, and 

associated noise, traffic and lights, that alter, degrade and/or entirely displace 

native ecosystems and disturb wildlife (Manier et al. 2013). Surface disturbance 

associated with mineral development often removes vegetation, reduces the 

condition of native vegetation communities and the connectivity of habitat, and 

encourages the spread of invasive species (NTT 2011).

Despite lease nomination deferrals of public lands to oil and gas leasing within 

PH and GH, many valid leases remain across GRSG ranges, including the LFO
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-55

(Manier et al. 2013). If mineral development is shifted away from sagebrush 

habitat to other areas to protect GRSG, impacts on vegetation in GRSG habitat 

would be reduced.

Recreation

Recreational use of GRSG habitat can be benign, but excessive use may cause 

degradation of sagebrush vegetation. Potential impacts from recreational use 

include trampling, soil compaction, erosion, spread of invasive plants, and 

generation of fugitive dust (NTT 2011; Bradley 2010). Recreational use can also 

increase the potential for wildfire caused by invasive plant spread or human 

error (Knick et al. 2011). Most impacts occur in easily accessible areas from 

motorized use, especially OHV use. Restrictions on recreational use of GRSG

habitat would limit damage to the vegetation communities that comprise this 

habitat, by directly reducing disturbance to vegetation from trampling, 

motorized vehicles, dust, and spread of invasive species. Such restrictions could 

involve seasonal area closures or limitations on the number of users or types of 

uses permitted.

Travel and Transportation

Road construction divides and fragments GRSG habitat, and causes erosion and 

nutrient leaching. The use of roads and trails creates soil compaction, and allows 

the spread of human disturbance, including wildfire and invasive plant species 

(Knick and Connelly 2011; Wisdom et al. 2011). Invasive species can outcompete sagebrush and other vegetation essential for GRSG survival. Invasive

species also increase wildfire frequencies, further contributing to loss of habitat 

(Balch et al. 2012).

For protection of GRSG, some roads may be seasonally or permanently closed, 

traffic may be restricted to designated routes, and new route construction 

avoided in PH to the maximum extent possible (NTT 2011).

Livestock Grazing

Livestock grazing is the most widespread land use across the sagebrush biome 

(Connelly et al. 2004). Livestock grazing can affect soils, vegetation health, 

species composition, water, and nutrient availability by consuming vegetation, 

redistributing nutrients and seeds, trampling soils and vegetation, and disrupting 

microbial systems (Connelly et al. 2004; NTT 2011). Livestock grazing is a 

“diffuse” form of biotic disturbance that exerts repeated pressure over many 

years on a system; thus, effects of grazing are not likely to be detected as 

disruptions, but as differences in the processes and functioning of the sagebrush 

system. Grazing effects are not distributed evenly because historic practices, 

management plans and agreements, and animal behavior all lead to differential 

use of the range (Knick 2011). Livestock often use riparian and wetland areas 

for water and shade, and may trample riparian vegetation, which could reduce 

riparian community condition and contribute to erosion.
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-56 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Livestock grazing may have both beneficial and detrimental aspects, depending 

on site-specific management (Connelly et al. 2004). At unsustainable levels, 

grazing can lead to loss of vegetative cover, decreased plant litter, increased soil 

erosion, and reduced habitat quality for wildlife, including GRSG (Knick 2011;

Connelly et al. 2004).

Properly managed grazing can be used as a tool to reduce fuel load, to protect 

intact sagebrush habitat, and to increase habitat extent and continuity (Adams et 

al. 2004). Grazing can also have beneficial effects on vegetation, by reducing 

litter removing annual grasses, facilitating growth of native species and increasing 

vegetation community diversity. Land health evaluations are used to assess 

rangeland condition and help to identify where changing in grazing management

would be beneficial. In areas meeting Rangeland Health Standards, grazing 

practices co-exist with healthy vegetation communities providing wildlife habitat.

Grazing systems that provide for closer management of allotments in GRSG

habitat and aim to protect sagebrush and riparian ecosystems would protect 

vegetation, by allowing more plant growth and reducing trampling and 

introduction of exotic species. Reducing or removing grazing in habitat areas 

would also reduce these effects but could have unintended consequences of 

increasing fuel building or degrading vegetation quality over the long term.

4.4.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Impacts from Solid Minerals

There are no known coal resources located in the planning area; therefore, 

associated management actions related to coal would not impact vegetation

under any of the alternatives.

4.4.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative A, BLM-administered lands would continue to permit limited 

yearlong use for motorized wheeled vehicles, restricted to existing roads and 

trails. Continuation of this policy would allow for invasive plants introduction, 

wildfire, soil compaction, fragmentation, and other effects discussed under

Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Recreation

Alternative A includes no specific recreation management related to GRSG or 

their habitat and thus current impacts from recreation on vegetation as 

described under Nature and Type of Effects would continue. Potential impacts 

include vegetation trampling, soil compaction, erosion, invasive plant spread, and 

fugitive dust generation.
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-57

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative A, ROWs would be considered on a case-by-case basis 

outside of ROW exclusion and avoidance areas, and ROWs would be 

collocated when possible, which would reduce surface disturbance and 

vegetation removal. There are no ROW exclusion areas within the planning 

area; however, there are two ROW avoidance areas, Acid Shale Pine Forest 

ACEC and Judith River Canyon. Vegetation disturbance and removal would be 

reduced in avoidance areas, as described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Table 4-6, ReGAP Habitat Type including Non-BLM Acreage in PH and GH

within Right-of-way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas by Alternative (Acres),

shows ReGAP habitat types within ROW avoidance and exclusion areas, 

including lands not administered by the BLM. The table shows that more 

sagebrush habitat is located on land not administered by the BLM (863,565 acres 

compared to 256,052 acres), suggesting that development restrictions on BLMadministered land could push ROW construction onto private lands and may 

not result in any benefit to sagebrush habitat.

Land tenure adjustments would be subject to current disposal and acquisition 

criteria, which include retaining important wildlife habitat and nesting habitat for 

game animals. Retention would reduce the likelihood of habitat conversion to 

agriculture, urbanization, or other uses that would remove vegetation in these 

areas. Currently, there are no areas identified for withdrawal in the planning 

area.
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-58 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 4-6

ReGAP Habitat Type including Non-BLM Acreage in PH and GH within Right-of-way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas by 

Alternative (Acres)

Habitat Type Non-BLM1 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

GH PH Avoidance2 Neither3 Avoidance4 Exclusion5 Neither3 Exclusion6 Neither3 Avoidance7 Neither3

Cultivated cropland 90,147 70,077 8 3,916 1,623 2,301 0 3,924 0 2,301 1,623

Developed, Low 

Intensity

1,673 1,858 0 143 29 114 0 144 0 114 29

Developed, Medium 

Intensity

18 3 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 2

Developed, Open 

Space

9,318 2,906 0 242 69 173 0 242 0 173 69

InterMountain 

Basins Big Sagebrush 

Steppe

286,096 523,109 2,942 211,354 44,698 169,598 0 214,297 0 169,598 44,698

InterMountain 

Basins Greasewood 

Flat

7,336 6,513 253 3,839 1,747 2,345 0 4,093 0 2,345 1,747

InterMountain 

Basins Montane 

Sagebrush Steppe

54,272 0 0 135 135 0 0 135 0 0 135

Introduced Upland 

Vegetation 

Perennial Grassland 

and Forbland

79,759 119,309 6 6,558 1,757 4,807 0 6,564 0 4,807 1,757

Middle Rocky 

Mountain Montane 

Douglas fir Forest 

and Woodland

8,473 0 0 31 31 0 0 31 0 0 31

North American 

Arid West 

Emergent Marsh

257 1,155 0 204 4 200 0 204 0 200 4

Northern Rocky 

Mountain DryMesic 

Montane Mixed 

Conifer Forest

-0 0 0 26 26 0 0 26 0 0 26
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-59

Table 4-6

ReGAP Habitat Type including Non-BLM Acreage in PH and GH within Right-of-way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas by 

Alternative (Acres)

Habitat Type Non-BLM1 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

GH PH Avoidance2 Neither3 Avoidance4 Exclusion5 Neither3 Exclusion6 Neither3 Avoidance7 Neither3

Northern Rocky 

Mountain Foothill 

Conifer Wooded 

Steppe

21,326 10,619 1,324 11,514 9,423 3,415 0 12,839 0 3,415 9,423

Northern Rocky 

Mountain Lower 

Montane, Foothill 

and Valley 

Grassland

41,098 0 0 219 120 99 0 219 0 99 120

Northern Rocky 

Mountain Montane 

Foothill Deciduous 

Shrubland

818 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 2

Northern Rocky 

Mountain 

Ponderosa Pine 

Woodland and 

Savanna

1,908 13,885 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 2

Northwestern 

Great Plains Black 

Hills Ponderosa Pine 

Woodland and 

Savanna

32,673 118 2,482 18,429 14,360 6,551 0 20,912 0 6,551 14,360

Northwestern 

Great Plains 

Floodplain

2,318 76 34 177 195 16 0 211 0 16 195

Northwestern 

Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie

105,251 150,819 298 38,918 8,377 30,839 0 39,216 0 30,839 8,377

Northwestern 

Great Plains 

Riparian

28,361 42,259 15 8,097 1,811 6,301 0 8,112 0 6,301 1,811
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-60 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 4-6

ReGAP Habitat Type including Non-BLM Acreage in PH and GH within Right-of-way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas by 

Alternative (Acres)

Habitat Type Non-BLM1 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

GH PH Avoidance2 Neither3 Avoidance4 Exclusion5 Neither3 Exclusion6 Neither3 Avoidance7 Neither3

Northwestern 

Great Plains 

Shrubland

5,255 409 78 1,526 1,529 75 0 1,603 0 75 1,529

Open Water Fresh 1,610 1,166 28 307 132 203 0 335 0 203 132

Pasture/Hay 25,694 739 2 10 8 4 0 12 0 4 8

Rocky Mountain 

Alpine Montane 

Wet Meadow

1,152 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1

Rocky Mountain 

Cliff, Canyon and 

Massive Bedrock

35 0 0 104 99 5 0 103 0 5 99

Rocky Mountain 

Lodge pole Pine 

Forest

1,058 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 4

Rocky Mountain 

Lower Montane 

Riparian Woodland 

and Shrubland

6,125 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 4

Rocky Mountain 

Subalpine Dry Mesic 

Spruce-Fir Forest 

and Woodland

62 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1

Rocky Mountain 

Subalpine Montane 

Mesic Meadow

25,156 0 0 21 21 0 0 21 0 0 21

Western Great 

Plains Badland

32,142 4,986 2,412 22,808 22,427 2,793 0 25,220 0 2,793 22,427

Western Great 

Plains Cliff and 

Outcrop

208 17 3 110 72 41 0 112 0 41 72
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-61

Table 4-6

ReGAP Habitat Type including Non-BLM Acreage in PH and GH within Right-of-way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas by 

Alternative (Acres)

Habitat Type Non-BLM1 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

GH PH Avoidance2 Neither3 Avoidance4 Exclusion5 Neither3 Exclusion6 Neither3 Avoidance7 Neither3

Western Great 

Plains Closed 

Depression 

Wetland

109 105 0 21 3 18 0 21 0 18 3

Western Great 

Plains Open 

Freshwater 

Depression 

Wetland

68 54 0 43 0 43 0 43 0 43 (0)

Western Great 

Plains Saline 

Depression 

Wetland

203 2,920 0 392 17 375 0 392 0 375 17

Western Great 

Plains Sand Prairie

26,780 19,605 5 5,535 2,992 2,548 0 5,539 0 2,548 2,992

Western Great 

Plains Wooded 

Draw and Ravine

2,812 2,028 30 931 606 355 0 961 0 355 606

Wyoming Basins 

Dwarf Sagebrush 

Shrubland and 

Steppe

88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Grand Total 899,659 974,735 9,920 335,626 112,329 233,217 0 345,547 0 233,217 112,329

1Non-BLM acreage includes state lands, privately owned land, and other lands not managed. 2Alternative A avoidance acreage is existing protective habitat within BLM-administered lands. 3Neither is BLM-administered land outside of the ROW avoidance and exclusion areas that is not protective of GRSG habitat. 4Alternative B avoidance acreage is equal to BLM GH. 5Alternative B exclusion acreage is equal to BLM PH. 6Alternative C exclusion acreage is equal to BLM GH + BLM PH. 7Alternative D avoidance acreage is equal to BLM PH.
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-62 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Impacts from Range Management

As shown in Table 4-7, AUMs and Acres Available for Grazing in Decision 

Area, currently, 570,112 acres in the planning area are open for livestock 

grazing, with 103,806 available AUMs. Livestock grazing would remain closed on 

6,781 acres.

Table 4-7

AUMs and Acres Available for Grazing in Decision Area

Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Available AUMs n/a 69,408 0 69,408

Acres open to grazing

in planning area

n/a 337,165 0 337,165

Livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing grazing plans, 

with methods and guidelines from the existing RMPs followed. Continuation of 

these policies could indirectly preserve existing sagebrush habitat through 

consideration of vegetation potential, and adjustments to livestock use when 

necessary. This is in accordance with BLM grazing regulations 43 CFR, Part

4180, Fundamentals of Rangeland Health, which require appropriate action be 

implemented when current livestock grazing management is a significant factor 

in failing to achieve standards. Appropriate action would result in the significant 

progress toward fulfilling the standards and significant progress toward 

conforming to the guidelines. As discussed above under Nature and Type of 

Effects, grazing practices may have negative, neutral, or positive effects on 

vegetation; land health assessments and other management evaluations would be

intended to identify areas of concern to maintain or improve rangeland health, 

which would improve vegetation condition.

Noxious weed control would be the responsibility of the affected permittee or 

lessee under weed control cooperative range improvement agreements. Each 

year, they would provide the BLM with records and maps of treatment areas.

Riparian habitats would be managed to achieve PFC and the desired plant 

community. Livestock management would be compatible with achieving these 

conditions. Together, these management actions would help to enhance riparian 

vegetation health and reduce impacts caused by livestock, such as trampling and 

overuse of riparian areas.

Range improvements would be designed to meet both wildlife and range health 

objectives. Development of range improvements on erodible soils would be 

avoided in springs. These approaches would help protect sagebrush ecosystems 

by supporting rangeland health and reducing the likelihood of surface 

disturbance in sensitive areas.
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-63

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative A, fluid mineral development could occur on currently leased 

lands. Development in these areas would continue to cause impacts on 

vegetation as described under impacts described under Nature and Type of 

Effects, including removal or degradation of vegetation and potential spread of 

invasive species.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

No lands would be recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry 

under Alternative A (Table 4-8, Withdrawal from Locatable Mineral Entry in 

Decision Area). However, mitigation measures to prevent unnecessary 

degradation would be applied, which would reduce impacts on vegetation from 

surface disturbance, including those described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Table 4-8

Withdrawal from Locatable Mineral Entry in Decision Area

Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres for withdrawal

from locatable 

mineral entry

0 279,097 453,969 0

Note: Acres for withdrawal in PH/GH for Alternatives B, C, and D; no PH or GH is designated under Alternative A.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fire and fuels management under Alternative A would not specifically protect 

sagebrush vegetation, although prescribed burning may be used in support of 

resource management objectives, such as restoring grassland or shrubland, 

reducing conifer encroachment, or increasing age-class variety. As a result, 

vegetation condition and desired species composition would be improved in 

certain areas. Further, chemical weed treatments applied following prescribed 

burns would limit the expansion of weeds or invasive species in the burned area

and facilitate revegetation of native species. 

Intensive wildfire suppression in high-value areas, such as sagebrush, firesensitive woody riparian areas, and commercial forests, would protect mature 

vegetation in these areas, but could also increase fuel load. Impacts from fire, 

including those described under Nature and Type of Effects, would continue 

under Alternative A.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative A, BLM would continue to incorporate habitat restoration 

and vegetation objectives in management actions, which would improve 

vegetation conditions and increase the extent of native vegetation in areas 

where they are applied. In particular, BLM would manage for the benefit of 

vegetation that provides wildlife forage, forbs, and big and silver sage. Use of 
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-64 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

native species would be used when possible, but not required, allowing for some 

introduced species in areas where they are necessary for site stabilization. 

Impacts from ACECs

BLM would continue to manage 2,463 acres as the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC

to protect its unique pine forest and shale landscape.

4.4.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Travel and transportation management under Alternative B would likely reduce 

impacts on vegetation from roads and motorized vehicles by limiting motorized 

vehicles to existing roads and trails, evaluating the need to permanently or 

seasonally close roads or areas to traffic in PH and restoring roads by reseeding with appropriate seed mixes and considering the use of transplanted 

sagebrush. Restoration of sagebrush habitat and minimizing surface disturbances 

in sagebrush habitat would enhance vegetation and restore habitat to a greater 

extent than current policy under Alternative A.

Impacts from Recreation

Management proposed under Alternative B would reduce impacts on vegetation 

from recreation as described under Nature and Type of Effects by limiting 

issuance of SRPs in PH. Such management would restrict potentially damaging 

recreational uses of these areas associated with SRPs, although impacts from 

dispersed recreation, such as hiking, biking, or equestrian activities, would 

continue to disturb vegetation in areas where they occur.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Establishing ROW exclusion and avoidance areas would protect vegetation in 

areas where they are applied as described above under Nature and Type of 

Effects. Under Alternative B, BLM would manage PH as ROW exclusion areas 

(233,219 acres). GH would be ROW avoidance areas. ROW exclusion areas 

would protect vegetation from disturbance and fragmentation, but could also 

have the effect of pushing development onto adjacent private lands with less 

management oversight. Table 4-6 shows ROW avoidance and exclusion areas 

for sagebrush by ReGAP vegetation type. Measures under Alternative B would 

protect nearly 73 times more BLM sagebrush acreage than Alternative A in 

ROW avoidance or exclusion areas. In addition, reclamation of out-of-use 

ROWs would increase the extent and connectivity of vegetation communities.

Retention of BLM-administered lands in PH with limited exceptions would 

reduce the likelihood of vegetation removal or fragmentation associated with 

agricultural or urban development that could occur on state or private lands.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative B, there would be no change to the acreage open for grazing 

or available AUMs described under Alternative A, as shown in Table 4-7.
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-65

However, BLM would implement a number of management actions in PH to 

incorporate GRSG habitat objectives and management considerations into 

livestock grazing management. Appropriate action would result in the possible 

increase in the number of acres meeting Rangeland Health Standards. Together, 

these efforts would reduce, but would not eliminate, impacts from grazing on 

vegetation communities described under Nature and Type of Effects. In addition, 

such management would promote the health of GRSG habitats, including 

sagebrush steppe, riparian areas, and wet meadows. Impacts from noxious weed

control are the same as under Alternative A.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Additional restrictions on fluid mineral development proposed under 

Alternative B would reduce the impacts on vegetation compared to Alternative 

A. Exploration within PH would be permitted to obtain information for adjacent 

areas. RDFs and conservation measures would be applied as COAs to existing 

leases within PH in order to protect GRSG habitat from loss of sagebrush 

acreage and fragmentation of habitat. These restrictions on fluid mineral 

development would protect more acres of vegetation from associated activities 

compared to Alternative A, and would reduce the impacts from fluid mineral 

exploration and development described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Alternative B would reduce impacts on vegetation associated with solid mineral 

exploration and extraction activities compared with Alternative A (see Table

4-8). All PH would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry and 

closed to nonenergy leasable mineral leasing and to salable mineral disposal. 

BMPs would be applied to existing leases and locatable mineral claims, and 

restoration would be required for existing salable mineral pits. These policies 

would decrease the number of acres of vegetation potentially impacted by solid 

mineral development compared to Alternative A, and a reduction in the 

likelihood of impacts from solid mineral exploration and extraction described

under Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fire and fuel management policies proposed under Alternative B would be 

designed to protect sagebrush ecosystems by maintaining sagebrush cover, 

applying seasonal restrictions, protecting winter range, and requiring use of 

native seeds. Post-fuels treatments and ES&R management would be designed to 

ensure long-term persistence of seeded areas and native plants. These proposed 

modifications to fire and fuel management would result in an increase in the 

protection of sagebrush vegetation compared to Alternative A, and a reduction 

in the likelihood of impacts from fire and fuels management described under 

Nature and Type of Effects.

Prioritizing fire suppression in PH and GH would protect mature vegetation 

from the destructive effects of wildfire but could result in increased fuel load
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-66 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

and spread of noxious weeds, which lead to larger and more severe wildfires in 

the long term.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Habitat restoration and vegetation management actions under Alternative B 

would aim to improve vegetation conditions and prioritize restoration efforts to 

benefit sagebrush vegetation. As a result, the restoration and vegetation 

management actions would enhance vegetation extent and condition relative to 

Alternative A by requiring the use of native seeds, designing post-restoration 

management to ensure the long-term persistence of the restoration efforts, 

considering changes in climate, and monitoring and controlling invasive species.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts on vegetation in the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC would be similar to 

Alternative A. Additional RDFs and conservation measures in PH would further 

reduce impacts on vegetation, as described under the Nature and Type of Effects.

4.4.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts from travel and transportation management would be similar to 

Alternative B, although impacts on vegetation (as described under the Nature 

and Type of Effects) would be further reduced since protections would apply to 

both PH and GH, and the BLM would apply additional mitigation requirements.

Prohibiting road construction within four miles of a lek would reduce the 

amount of land available for future road construction and would help prevent 

fragmentation of vegetative communities.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts are the same as under Alternative A.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Similar to Alternative B, the measures proposed under Alternative C would 

reduce the impacts of ROWs on vegetation. PH and GH would be ROW 

exclusion areas (345,560 acres). ROW exclusion areas would protect vegetation 

on BLM-administered land, as described above under Nature and Type of Effects, 

but could have the unintended consequence of pushing development onto 

adjacent private lands. Table 4-6 shows vegetation type in ROW avoidance and 

exclusion areas by ReGAP vegetation type. Measures under Alternative C would 

protect both PH and GH sagebrush acreage (214,297 acres) as ROW exclusion 

areas, and since more GRSG habitat is located on land not administered by the 

BLM, ROW exclusion areas on BLM-administered land could push ROW 

construction onto adjacent private lands with less management oversight. This 

may result in fewer protections for vegetation and increased removal and 

fragmentation of sagebrush.
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-67

As under Alternative B, public ownership would be maintained in PH, but 

without the exceptions provided under that alternative. Private lands, when 

offered, may be acquired in ACECs to enhance the GRSG conservation value of 

existing lands. Although it is uncertain how much private land would be acquired 

to enhance GRSG habitat under Alternative C, this policy would increase the 

acreage where vegetation condition would be improved compared Alternative 

A, as no such measures have been provided under Alternative A.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative C, grazing would be removed on allotments within PH and 

GH (337,165 acres comprising 69,408 AUMs), resulting in zero acres and zero

AUMs available in the decision area (as shown in Table 4-7). Removal of 

permitted grazing uses would reduce the impacts on GRSG and their habitat, 

such as loss of herbaceous cover, discussed under Nature and Type of Effects.

However, grazing can be used to reduce fuel load and maintain vegetation health 

and diversity. Thus, removing grazing may diminish rangeland health and wildlife 

habitat quality in the long term. Action may result in the number of acres 

meeting Rangeland Health Standards being stable of potentially decreasing. 

Removing livestock grazing from BLM-administered land would also eliminate 

the opportunity to initiate weed control cooperative range improvement 

agreements for noxious weed control on affected lands. All noxious weed 

control efforts would be done by BLM personnel, which may increase weed 

distribution and patch sizes. Other impacts would be similar to those described 

under Alternative B.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Fluid minerals management under Alternative C would be similar to that 

described for Alternative B, but would include several more restrictive RDFs 

and conservation measures that would be applied to existing leases as COAs, 

thereby enhancing vegetation protection. In addition, actions would be applied 

to both PH and GH, which would increase the area of vegetation that would be 

protected. These measures would reduce habitat degradation and fragmentation 

associated with mineral extraction, including those impacts described under 

Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Impacts from solid minerals management would be the same as Alternative B, 

but would be applied to a larger area (PH and GH), and would thus provide 

greater protection for vegetation over the long term.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts from fire and fuels management would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B, but would be applied to a larger area (PH and GH), and would 

thus provide greater protection for vegetation over the long term.
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-68 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts from habitat restoration and vegetation management would be similar 

to those described for Alternative B, but would be applied to a larger area (PH

and GH), and would thus provide greater protection for vegetation over the 

long term.

Impacts from ACECs

ACECs to protect GRSG would be designated as sagebrush reserves on 96,246 

acres. Vegetation within areas designated as ACECs would be protected from 

surface disturbance by increased management focus and restrictions on surfacedisturbing activities in these areas.

4.4.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Measures proposed under Alternative D would reduce impacts on GRSG

habitat compared to Alternative A. Many management actions would be similar 

to Alternative B, with increased management flexibility incorporated to improve 

management and target those areas that need most protection. Overall, 

management under Alternative D would reduce impacts on vegetation from 

activities associated with travel and transportation in the planning area, including 

those described under Nature and Type of Effects, compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Lands and realty management proposed under Alternative D would provide 

increased protection of vegetation compared to Alternative A. PH would be 

ROW avoidance areas (233,219 acres) and ROWs would be allowed in GH

with appropriate mitigation measures. Table 4-6 shows acres of land in ROW 

avoidance and exclusion areas by ReGAP vegetation type. Measures under 

Alternative D would protect the same amount of PH as Alternative B (169,598 

acres) but in ROW avoidance areas, rather than ROW exclusion areas. These 

measures would protect vegetation, while providing more management 

flexibility to site ROWs in less sensitive locations. Mitigation measures applied in 

GH would reduce, but would not eliminate, impacts associated with ROW 

development described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from land tenure decisions would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative D, there would be no change to the acreage open for grazing 

or available AUMs, as shown in Table 4-8. Management under Alternative D 

would be similar to that described for Alternative B, with increased 

collaboration with stakeholders, guidance for prioritization of efforts, and 

increased tools available to improve flexibility in management. Appropriate 
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-69

action would result in the possible increase in the number of acres meeting 

Rangeland Health Standards. As such, impacts would likely be similar to 

Alternative B, though increased management flexibility may improve 

management and target those areas that need most protection. Impacts from 

noxious weed control are the same as under Alternative B.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative D, impacts would be reduced in comparison to Alternative A 

by applying RDFs and conservation measures as COAs to existing leases. The 

conservation measures would be designed to reduce surface disturbances 

associated with mineral extraction and would provide guidance for mitigation. 

Such management would reduce disturbance to vegetation associated with fluid 

mineral development described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Impacts under Alternative D would be similar to those described for Alternative 

B. However, proposed actions for locatable mineral development would be 

analyzed on a case-by-case basis in cooperation with the State of Montana and 

reviewed to avoid unnecessary degradation of GRSG habitat. These actions 

would reduce, but would not eliminate, impacts from locatable mineral 

development on vegetation compared to Alternative A, including those 

described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts from fire and fuels management would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B. In addition, fuels management projects in PH would be designed 

to incorporate greater flexibility to maximize the acreage protected and ES&R

treatments would be monitored. These proposed modifications to fire and fuel 

management would result in an increase in the protection of sagebrush 

vegetation compared to Alternative A, and a reduction in the likelihood of 

impacts from fire and fuels management described under Nature and Type of 

Effects.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts from habitat restoration and vegetation management under Alternative 

D would be similar to those described for Alternative B. However, this 

alternative includes consideration of other threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species, which may change the proportions of vegetation communities that 

would be protected in certain instances.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative B.
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

4-70 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

4.5 WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGY

4.5.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Table 4-9, Comparison of Wildland Fire Management and Ecology Indicators 

by Alternative, provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze 

the effects on wildland fire management and ecology under each alternative.

Table 4-9

Comparison of Wildland Fire Management and Ecology Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

Alteration of vegetative cover that 

is likely to result in a substantial 

shift in FRCC across the planning 

area

No change Minor 

increased 

possibility

Minor 

increased 

possibility

Minor 

increased 

possibility

A substantial change in the 

likelihood or severity of wildland 

fire (based on level of restrictions 

on uses that may introduce sources 

of ignition)

Fires more 

likely to 

occur, due 

to few 

restrictions

Fires less likely 

to occur, due 

to restrictions 

that reduce 

risk of fire

Fires are 

more likely as 

a result of 

increased fine 

fuels from 

removing 

grazing

Fires are less 

likely due to 

restrictions 

that reduce 

risk of fire

Management actions that 

substantially inhibit a response to 

wildland fire or appropriate 

treatments to prevent wildland fire

No change No change Increase No change

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• Fire is an important functional, natural disturbance in many of the 

ecological systems found in the planning area.

• A direct relationship exists between fuel loading and potential fire 

intensity and severity.

• Demand for fuels treatments would likely increase over the life of 

this plan.

4.5.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Impacts on wildland fire management result from changes in fire frequency and 

intensity, and the ability to employ fire-suppression methods, all of which would 

affect management of fire and related costs within the planning area. As 

discussed in Section 3.6 the majority of lands in the decision area have 

moderate to high level of departure from historic conditions and related fire 

risk. Actions which change condition class from highly altered ecosystems to 
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-71

one closer to historical conditions could reduce the risk of losing key 

ecosystems as well as decrease fire risk and management costs in the long term.

Many different resource uses may introduce additional ignition sources into the 

planning area, which increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence and the 

need for fire-suppression activities. Fire intensity can be affected by activities 

that decrease fuel loading, such as vegetation treatments and harvesting of 

timber products, and activities that alter the composition and structure of 

vegetation communities. High-intensity fires generally result in a greater loss of 

vegetation cover, changes to soil chemistry, damage to root structures, and a 

greater ability for non-native species to become established (Verma and 

Jayakumar 2012).

Transportation and travel management can impact fire frequency by changing 

the level of risk of human caused ignitions. The risk of ignition is increased 

where travel is less restrictive, particularly where motorized vehicles travel 

cross-country. All forms of travel encourage the spread of invasive weeds (CEC 

2012), particularly cheat grass, which can shift fire regimes and increase fire 

behavior potential. Conversely, if management restricts access, wildfire risk may 

be decreased. In addition, transportation management may impact fire 

suppression efforts; when routes are closed and rehabilitated, they become 

unavailable for response to wildfires, limiting access opportunities.

Similarly, the level and type of recreation permitted can impact fire risk. 

Increased recreational use may increase the probability of unintentional fire 

starts from human caused ignitions and the need for fire suppression. 

Recreation management may reduce this risk by providing targeted activities and 

outcomes.

Surface disturbance caused by development would generally contribute to the 

modification of the composition and structure of vegetation communities 

(including increases in noxious weed proliferation) in the vicinity of developed 

areas, which could then be more likely to fuel high-intensity fires. This could 

cause an increase in program costs because of the increased potential for fire.

Lands and realty actions may indirectly result in development and associated fire 

risk. For example, issuance of land use authorizations can result in indirect 

impacts by increasing the risk of human-caused ignition should construction of 

transmission lines, renewable energy projects, or other development occur.

Likewise, the development of energy and minerals resources could increase the 

risk of wildfires by introducing new ignition sources (Shlisky et al. 2007). 

Associated facilities, infrastructure and transmission lines can increase fire and 

fuels program costs while decreasing fire management flexibility with regards to 

suppression options. Energy development also poses hazards to firefighters, 

including unknown toxins, facility protection, evacuation of industry personnel, 

and dangerous overhead power lines. Fire programs could incur additional costs 
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

4-72 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

to train firefighting personnel for emergency situations associated with energy 

development. 

Limitations on mineral development would have an indirect effect of decreased 

fire but only when additional leasing would otherwise be likely to occur. This 

would be due to less development, fewer vehicles, and less construction 

equipment, all of which would decrease the chance of human ignition. In areas 

with limited potential for development, changes to mineral management are 

likely to have negligible impacts on fire management.

The potential for invasive species establishment or increase may follow 

construction and could impact fire management actions through increased risk 

of fire and need for fire management.

Range grazing management can impact the ability to manage fire as a natural 

process through changes in fine fuels availability (e.g., grasses). Livestock grazing 

reduces fuel loads, so retiring allotments may lead to increased fuels in site 

specific locations. Conversely, increasing AUMs could reduce fuel loads.

Vegetation and weed treatments that decrease standing vegetation could 

decrease the intensity of wildland fires and allow fires to be more easily 

controlled. For example, efforts to reduce incursion of nonnative annual grasses 

(primarily cheatgrass), and proliferation of other noxious and invasive weeds, 

would promote healthy plant communities and an associated lower risk of highintensity wildfire (USGS 2006). Used appropriately, prescribed fire would be 

compatible with noxious weed control; however, the presence of noxious 

weeds and the potential of weeds to spread after a prescribed fire would need 

to be monitored on a site-specific basis. Conversely, management actions that 

retain shrub and cover may result in increased fuel loading and increase the 

likelihood and intensity of wildland fire.

Management actions that are intended to improve, create, or re-establish 

healthy ecological conditions in various vegetation types benefit the fire and 

fuels program in the long term by promoting the most efficient use of fire and 

fuels fire management program resources. Conversely, prioritizing fire 

suppression can limit management options and increase costs for fire 

management programs.

Special designations, such as ACECs, and the management of sensitive resources 

can restrict fuels treatments on a site-specific basis. For example, in areas where 

preservation of particular species or habitats is emphasized, management 

options and fuels treatments may be limited.

Impacts from mineral split estate are covered under the discussions of impacts 

from fluid and solid minerals. As such, there is no further discussion of mineral 

split estate in this section.
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-73

4.5.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

As all alternatives would limit motorized and mechanized travel to existing 

routes, fire risk would be minimized due to lack of off-road motorized travel. In 

addition, site-specific travel management would be implemented with 

designation of roads as well as seasonal and permanent closures, where 

appropriate. Due to these management actions, impacts across all alternatives 

would have similarities, although the areas prioritized for travel designation 

planning would vary by alternative. Administrative access would be maintained 

for fire suppression and fire management activity except in the case of road 

closure and rehabilitation; therefore, the impacts on access would be minimal.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

There is currently no coal development in the planning area, but any coal 

development within the planning area would require a plan amendment EIS. Due 

to this, impacts on fire management from coal would be negligible across all 

alternatives.

4.5.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

As described under Impacts Common to all Alternatives, travel would be limited to 

existing routes and site specific travel management plans would be completed

slightly decreasing the likelihood of human caused ignition due to site-specific 

restrictions on access. Fire risk from human-caused ignitions would be 

minimized due to lack of off-road motorized travel.

Impacts from Recreation

Under Alternative A, there are no recreation management actions that would 

result in impacts on fire management.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Alternative A places the fewest restrictions on ROW development; restrictions

would be imposed on a case-by-case basis. Under this alternative, two areas in 

the decision area (9,708 acres) continue to be managed as ROW avoidance 

areas, with no land managed as a ROW exclusion area. As discussed under

Nature and Type of Effects, fire risk could be increased as a result of development 

from ROW authorizations; therefore, this alternative would have a high 

potential for impacts from lands and realty on fire management.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative A, grazing of all classes of livestock would be open on 

337,165 acres of BLM-administered land in the decision area. Additionally, 

Alternative A would allocate up to 69,408 AUMs in the decision area. Allowing 

grazing throughout the majority of the planning area may decrease the risk of 

wildfire due to the reduction in fuel load caused by livestock grazing. Land 
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

4-74 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

treatments for livestock forage would be conducted as needed to effectively 

manage livestock, treatments could reduce fuels and the risk of wildland fire as 

described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative A, fluid mineral could be developed on currently leased lands. 

Alternative A places the fewest restrictions on fluid minerals. Due to this, the 

chance of human ignition under this alternative would be the highest and could 

indirectly effect fire management through increased fire risk as discussed under 

Nature and Types of Impacts.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Alternative A has the greatest number of acres open to mineral exploration, 

development, and mining operations for salable minerals, nonenergy leasables,

and new locatable mineral development. This increases the risk of human-ignited 

fire. Alternative A could impact fire management through increased humancaused ignition where exploration development or mining occurred. There is 

currently no coal development in the planning area. Under Alternative A, the 

planning area would continue to be available for coal exploration licenses;

however, any coal development within the planning area would require a plan 

amendment EIS, so impacts would be minimal.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Alternative A would place few restrictions on fire and fuels management, and 

therefore would have the fewest impacts on fire management. Alternative A 

would allow for the continued use of prescribed burning in support of resource 

management objectives and would allow for the continued use of mechanical 

and chemical treatments. Intensive fire suppression would be applied to protect 

public safety and property an areas with high resource value.

Due to the flexibility in management of prescribed and wildland fires, fire 

suppression costs are likely to be the lower under Alternative A as compared to 

all action alternatives.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative A, surface disturbing activities greater than a 1/4 acre would 

require rehabilitation and re-vegetation using primarily native plants. The use of 

native plants under this alternative could contribute to healthy plant 

communities and an associated lower risk of high-intensity wildfire. Vegetation 

could be managed to alter fuel loads and management activities could be 

conducted as appropriate to meet resource needs under this alternative. 

Impacts on fire management would therefore be lower under Alternative A than 

under all action alternatives.

Impacts from ACECs

Under this alternative no new ACECs would be designated to protect GRSG

habitat; therefore, there would be no new restrictions on fire management from 
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-75

ACECs. This flexibility in GRSG habitat could allow fire and fuels management 

to function at greater efficiency and lower costs.

4.5.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

As described under Impacts Common to all Alternatives, travel would be limited to 

existing routes. Under Alternative B, route construction would be limited in PH, 

and the use of existing roads would be emphasized. Additional restrictions 

would be placed on upgrades, route construction, and realignment. This would 

further limit the risk of human-caused ignition in PH by reducing exposure to 

machinery, vehicles, and personnel. However, closing roads could have some 

impacts on the ability to respond to fire due to reduced access.

Impacts from Recreation

Alternative B would only allow SRPs in PH that have neutral or beneficial effects 

on PH areas. SRPs that have neutral or beneficial effects on PH areas would 

likely not include recreation involving motorized vehicles. As such, this 

management action would likely decrease the risk of human-caused ignitions and 

the subsequent strain on fire management.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

The number of acres managed as ROW exclusion areas and ROW avoidance 

areas combined would be larger under Alternative B than under any other 

alternative. Alternative B would manage 233,219 acres as ROW exclusion areas 

and 112,341 acres as ROW avoidance areas (102,633 acres more than under 

Alternative A). Managing PH as an exclusion area for new ROW authorizations 

would reduce the potential for development and the associated fire risk and 

suppression costs on BLM-administered lands. However, there could be 

increased development on private lands with associated fire risks.

Impacts from Range Management

Alternative B allows for the same number of AUMs as Alternative A; however, 

management actions may impact fire management.

Under Alternative B, retirement of permitted grazing uses could lead to 

increased fuels in those site-specific locations, as discussed under Nature and 

Type of Effects. In addition, only forage treatments which would also enhance 

GRSG habitat would be permitted, with additional potential for increase in fuels. 

However, management focused on achieving ecological site potential would 

likely reduce invasive species and increase habitat health, and could decrease the 

risk of fire and consequently reduce the need to respond to human-fueled 

ignitions in the area in the long term.

Assessment of land health and changes to grazing systems to achieve objectives 

would be prioritized in PH; therefore, the impacts of range management actions 

in Alternative B would be focused on these areas.
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

4-76 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative B, fluid mineral development could occur on currently leased 

lands. RDFs and conservation measures would be applied to existing leases as 

COAs in PH. These measures would limit surface occupancy on federal leases as 

well as impose seasonal limits on exploratory drilling. These measures would 

place restrictions on development in PH with a related decrease in fire risk in 

this portion of the planning area.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative B, surface mining of coal would be prohibited in PH and new 

mining leases would also be prohibited, unless all surface disturbances were 

placed outside of PH. PH would be closed to salable mineral disposal as well as 

nonenergy leasable and the area would be proposed for withdrawal from new 

locatable mineral development. These actions would reduce the impact from 

solid minerals on fire management within PH because development that could 

increase the risk of human-caused ignition would not occur in PH.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Under Alternative B, fuel treatments would be allowed on a limited basis with 

an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems in PH. Management 

options for fuels treatments in PH would be limited in this alternative. In 

addition, suppression of wildland fire to protect GRSG habitat would be 

emphasized along with public safety and property. Restrictions placed on fire 

and fuels management under this alternative, such as seasonal closures, no 

treatments in known winter range, and restrictions on the use of fire to treat 

sagebrush in low precipitation zones, could impact the ability to efficiently 

manage fuels and could increase costs of vegetation management and fire 

suppression.

Under this alternative the use of livestock to reduce fuel loads would be 

evaluated. This could provide one option to decrease the risk of wildfire and 

consequently reduce strain on fire management, particularly in PH.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative B, many of the management actions focus on the use of 

native plants in order to create landscapes that most benefit the GRSG. The

emphasis of native plants under this alternative could contribute to healthy plant 

communities and an associated lower risk of high-intensity wildfire. However, 

habitat parameters could also limit the options for fuels treatment and could 

therefore increase costs of treatment compared to Alternative A.

Specifically, fire and fuels management may be impacted by the requirement to 

use native seeds whenever possible for restoration. Since the introduction and 

establishment of exotic plants species can contribute to a departure from 

historic fire regimes, a focus on native plants can create a habitat that is less 

susceptible to wildfires; therefore, places less burden on fire management

programs (Hann and Bunnell 2001).
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-77

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A.

4.5.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Travel management actions would be similar to that described in Alternative B,

but would be applied to both PH and GH. Risk of human-caused ignition would 

slightly decrease for both PH and GH, as compared to Alternative A. Due to 

limitations on new roads in most PH, access for fire management may be 

reduced, resulting in increased time or cost for suppression compared to

Alternative A.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Alternative C would manage 345,560 acres as ROW exclusion area. Under this 

alternative, zero acres would be managed as ROW avoidance area. The 

restrictions placed on ROWs under this alternative would likely restrict the 

amount of construction and motorized travel to and from construction sites 

that would occur on GRSG habitat. Due to the restrictions on ROW 

development in PH and GH under this alternative, potential fire risks from lands 

and realty actions would be the least of any alternative.

Impacts from Range Management

Due to the reduced number of AUMs in PH and GH (0 AUMs permitted, 100 

percent less than Alternative A) and the large number of areas closed to 

livestock grazing under this alternative (337,165 acres), the fuel load in PH an 

GH would be higher and the risk of fire would be greater under this alternative 

than the others. In addition, grazing management actions to improve forage for 

livestock may indirectly reduce fuels on BLM-administered lands as well as 

adjacent private lands where grazing occurs. Leases/permittees can also act as 

important partners in fire suppression activities.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative C, fluid minerals could be developed on currently leased 

lands. Restrictions on fluid minerals would be similar to that described under 

Alternative B but would be applied to PH and GH. Seasonal restrictions would 

be further expanded, further decreasing the potential for human-related fire 

ignition from exploration and development.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Management actions under Alternative C would be similar to those described 

under Alternative B, except would extend to both PH and GH. This would 

result in a further reduced risk of human-caused ignition, which would result in 

an even lower risk of impacting fire management.
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

4-78 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Under Alternative C, impacts would be similar to those applied under 

Alternative B, but would be applied to both PH and GH. The restrictions placed 

on fire management would be more stringent under this alternative, which 

would result in greatest impacts on the fire and fuels management program.

Increases in restrictions on fire management could result in increased program 

costs. Costs of suppression are likely to be highest under Alternative C due to 

the emphasis of suppression within both PH and GH.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts under Alternative C would be similar to those under Alternative B,

except that management actions under Alternative C would apply to both GH

and PH; therefore, the potential for long-term benefits to ecosystem health 

could be slightly increased, but the costs for treatments also would increase.

Impacts from ACECs

Under Alternative C, an ACEC covering 96,246 acres would be designated to 

protect GRSG habitat. There could be reduced flexibility for hazardous fuels 

treatments on the 96,246 acres managed as an ACEC. The reduction in 

flexibility could result in higher program costs and could reduce the programs 

ability to efficiently suppress fires within the ACEC.

4.5.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts would be similar to that described under Alternatives B and C.

However, under Alternative D, new routes could be built if criteria are met. 

This would reduce the risk of human-caused ignitions because travel would be

on designated routes rather than potentially as cross-country travel.

Additionally, construction of new roads may increase access for fire 

management, resulting in decreased time or cost for suppression.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative B.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative D, 233,219 acres would be managed as ROW avoidance area,

which is 223,511 acres more than under Alternative A. ROWs would be 

allowed in GH with measures to minimize surface-disturbing and disruptive 

activities. Similar to Alternative A, no land would be managed as ROW 

exclusion areas, and no land would be identified for withdrawal. Development 

could still occur, resulting in the potential for human-related ignitions. Having 

only avoidance areas would allow for infrastructure in areas with the least 

impact on coordination with adjacent private lands.
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-79

Impacts from Range Management

Impacts under Alternative D would be similar to those under Alternative B, but 

with additional measures taking into account local conditions and resources and 

working with state and federal agencies. As a result, impacts on fire management

are similar to those described under Alternative B, but they may be more suited 

to site-specific conditions, resulting in improved ecological conditions and 

decreased fire risk. Costs and time for fire management activities may also be 

reduced.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Impacts under Alternative D would be similar to those in Alternative B for 

exploration activities. Conservation measures specific to GRSG management 

would be applied to existing leases as COAs, but with greater flexibility for site 

specific modifications. There would be potential for fire risk from development

activities, but risk should be decreased compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Locatable mineral exploration and some salable mineral disposal would be 

permitted. This would result in impacts similar to those described under 

Alternative A. Coal exploration licenses would be available, but due to the 

requirement for a plan amendment for coal development, impacts would be 

limited.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Under Alternative D, impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative 

C, with restrictions on fuels treatment options in both PH and GH. In 

Alternative D, the emphasis would also be placed on tailoring management 

objectives to local site conditions and monitoring sites to ensure treatments are 

helping to meet objectives; therefore, habitat may be further improved in the 

long term. Fire suppression actions and related impacts would be the same as 

described under Alternative B.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts under Alternative D would be similar to those in Alternative B, but 

would include provisions to restore habitat for other priority species in the 

project area and to consult with local landowners to coordinate management. 

As a result, actions may be undertaken in a manner consistent with local site 

conditions, improving the habitat and decreasing fire risk and costs in the long 

term.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A.
4. Environmental Consequences (Fluid Minerals)

4-80 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

4.6 FLUID MINERALS

4.6.1 Methods and Assumptions

Analysis of impacts on fluid minerals from this RMPA focuses on the impacts of 

RDFs and conservation measures to protect GRSG. These impacts may be 

direct or indirect. For example, a direct impact on fluid minerals would result 

from application of COAs on existing leases. An indirect impact would result 

from removal of a road, which would change the economic feasibility of 

developing a site. Additional actions or conditions that might cause direct or 

indirect impacts on fluid minerals are described under Indicators, below.

Indicators

Indicators were developed and used to analyze impacts of the management 

actions under each alternative on fluid minerals. Table 4-10, Comparison of 

Fluid Minerals Indicators by Alternative, illustrates how the indicators vary 

under each alternative.

Table 4-10

Comparison of Fluid Minerals Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

Application of COAs on fluid mineral

development activities on leased 

parcels for the protection of GRSG

No 

change

Increase Increase Increase

Restrictions on geophysical 

exploration in GRSG habitat

No 

change

Increase Increase No change

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• Oil and gas operations on existing federal leases, regardless of 

surface ownership, would be subject to COAs by the BLM 

Authorized Officer. The BLM can deny surface occupancy on 

portions of leases with COAs to avoid or minimize resource 

conflicts if this action does not eliminate reasonable opportunities 

to develop the lease.

• Valid existing leases would be managed under the stipulations in 

effect when the leases were issued.

• Management actions and conservation measures also apply to fluid

mineral leasing on lands overlying federal fluid mineral estate. This

includes federal mineral estate underlying BLM-administered lands, 

private lands, and state lands.

• New information may lead to changes in delineated GRSG habitat. 

New habitat areas, or areas that are no longer habitat, may be 
4. Environmental Consequences (Fluid Minerals)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-81

identified. This adjustment would typically result in small changes to 

areas requiring the stipulations or management actions stated in this 

plan. Modifications to GRSG habitat would be updated in the 

existing data inventory through plan maintenance.

• If an area has been leased, it could be developed; however, not all 

leases would be developed within the life of this RMPA.

• As the demand for energy increases, so would the demand for

extracting energy resources.

• As discussed in Section 3.7 the primary oil and gas fields within the 

planning area are largely played out. The level of oil and gas activity 

in the planning area is likely to remain relatively stable for the life of 

the Judith Resource Area (BLM 1994) and Headwaters (BLM 1984) 

Resource Management Plans with the possible exception of the 

Heath Shale play. Activity in the vicinity of the Heath Shale play 

could dramatically increase if this play proved to be economic.

4.6.2 Nature and Type of Effects

The following analysis describes the nature and type of impacts that could affect 

fluid minerals in the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS

planning area. Details on how the occurrence of each impact would vary by 

alternative are described under the various subheadings.

Buying out or cancelling leases in occupied habitat would prevent future 

development of existing oil and gas leases. However, in accordance with 43 CFR 

3108.3, leases may only be cancelled by the Secretary of the Interior when 1) 

the lessee has a nonproducing well and fails to comply with the provisions of the 

law, regulations, or lease; or 2) the lease was improperly issued. Cancellation of 

a lease with a producing well requires a judicial proceeding.

Applying COAs, which include RDFs (per Appendices C and D) and 

conservation measures outlined in Chapter 2 (Table 2-4), to existing leases 

would directly impact fluid mineral leasing. These RDFs and conservation 

measures would include standards such as noise restrictions, height limitations 

on structures, design requirements, water development standards, remote 

monitoring requirements, and reclamation standards. Application of these 

requirements through COAs would impact fluid mineral development by 

increasing its costs if it resulted in the application of additional requirements 

and/or use of more expensive technology (such as remote monitoring systems) 

than would otherwise have been used by operators. Impacts of these COAs 

would be mitigated where exceptions limit their application. This would occur 

where a COA was not applicable (e.g., a resource is not present on a given site) 

or where site-specific consideration merited slight variation. See Section 2.4.3, 

Elements Common to Alternatives B, C, and D, for more information on when 

these exceptions to RDFs would apply.
4. Environmental Consequences (Fluid Minerals)

4-82 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Placing limits on geophysical exploration could reduce the availability of data on 

fluid mineral resources and could increase costs of fluid mineral development if 

the limits required use of more expensive technology. Timing limitations on 

geophysical exploration would delay development activities and could cause 

equipment shortages because all exploration would be occurring during the 

same time period.

Requiring master development plans and unitization could cause direct impacts 

on fluid minerals through increased costs of fluid mineral extraction by delaying 

the permit approval process until such additional site-specific planning efforts 

are completed. However, unitization typically has been initiated at the 

operator’s discretion.

Requiring bonds in the amount necessary to cover full reclamation upon 

completion of the project could deter fluid mineral exploration and 

development by increasing up-front costs when these costs could have 

previously occurred after economic resources had already been recovered. 

Identification of areas in which to acquire additional surface or mineral estate 

containing GRSG habitat would have no impacts on fluid minerals because it 

would not result in application of management actions to additional acres of 

surface or fluid mineral estate. If areas for acquisition were identified, acquisition 

would occur only in areas containing existing federal mineral leases, which are 

already subject to BLM management actions applicable to both the surface and 

the mineral estate through the fluid minerals program.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on fluid minerals and are therefore not discussed in detail: travel and 

transportation management, recreation, lands and realty, range management, 

solid minerals, fire and fuels management, habitat restoration and vegetation 

management, and ACECs.

4.6.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Impacts from Fluid Minerals (Including Mineral Split Estate)

Under all alternatives, the BLM would continue to require a bond in accordance 

with 43 CFR 3104. The amount of the bond would have to be at least the 

minimum amount described in the regulations to “ensure...reclamation of the 

lease area(s) and the restoration of any lands or surface waters adversely 

affected by lease operations after the abandonment or cessation of oil and gas 

operations on the lease(s).”

4.6.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Fluid Minerals (Including Mineral Split Estate)

Under Alternative A, existing oil and gas leases would continue to be developed 

according to their lease terms. BMPs and COAs could be applied to mitigate or 
4. Environmental Consequences (Fluid Minerals)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-83

prevent impacts on BLM-administered lands or other resources. If COAs were 

applied, impacts would be the same type as those described under Nature and 

Type of Effects.

Geophysical exploration would continue to be allowed within the decision area 

under Alternative A.

4.6.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Fluid Minerals (Including Mineral Split Estate)

Under Alternative B, RDFs and conservation measures would be applied as 

COAs to existing leases on 42,717 acres of PH with federal mineral estate (48 

percent of the 89,761 acres of existing leases in the decision area). These 

actions would increase impacts on fluid minerals in comparison with Alternative 

A by requiring additional standards that could increase time and costs related to 

development. In addition to limitations on surface disturbance and timing of 

exploratory drilling, the COAs would require unitization when necessary to 

minimize harm to GRSG and may require the completion of Master 

Development Plans instead of processing individual APDs. Cost impacts of these 

required actions would be the same type as those described under Nature and 

Type of Effects. The BLM would not apply COAs that would eliminate reasonable 

opportunities to develop the lease.

Geophysical exploration would be allowed within the 385,693 acres of PH with 

federal mineral estate but would be subject to timing limitations (TLs) and other 

restrictions. Impacts would increase compared with Alternative A and would be 

the same type as those described under Nature and Type of Effects, including 

delays on development activities and could cause equipment shortages.

4.6.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Fluid Minerals (Including Mineral Split Estate)

Management actions under Alternative C would be similar to those under 

Alternative B, but they would apply to existing leases on 73,691 acres of PH and 

GH with federal mineral estate (82 percent of the 89,761 acres of existing leases 

in the decision area). Management of geophysical exploration would be the same 

as under Alternative B but would apply to 639,927 acres of PH and GH. In 

addition to applying the restrictive management to more acres, Alternative C 

would call for COAs implementing seasonal restrictions on vehicle traffic and 

human presence associated with exploratory drilling. This alternative also would 

limit new surface disturbance on existing leases to three percent per section, 

with some exceptions. Additionally, the BLM would explore amendment, 

cancellation, and buyout of leases. Impacts of requiring RDFs and conservation 

measures are similar to Alternative B. Possible cancellation or buyout of leases 

would prevent future development of existing oil and gas leases in those areas.
4. Environmental Consequences (Fluid Minerals)

4-84 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

4.6.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Fluid Minerals (Including Mineral Split Estate)

Under Alternative D, the BLM would apply the same RDFs to the same acreage 

as under Alternative B. However, the conservation measures applied would 

differ. No quantitative percentage limit, surface occupancy buffers, or TL would 

apply to surface disturbance; rather, surface disturbance would avoid or 

minimize disturbance to GRSG and their habitat. Operation costs could increase 

as described under Nature and Types of Impacts from application of conservation 

measures, but operators would be able to extract resources throughout the 

year and would maintain flexibility in siting options for ancillary facilities on their 

lease. Unitization would occur on a case-by-case basis in the same manner as 

described under Alternative A.

In addition to RDFs and limitations on disturbance, noise limitations and 

structure height restrictions would be applied as COAs under Alternative D. 

This would require additional standards that could increase time and costs 

related to development.

Impacts related to geophysical exploration are similar to those under 

Alternative B.

4.7 SOLID LEASABLE MINERALS

4.7.1 Methods and Assumptions

Solid leasable minerals in the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse 

RMPA/EIS planning area are coal and hardrock minerals underlying acquired 

lands (see Section 3.8).

Analysis of impacts on solid leasable minerals from this RMPA focuses on the 

impacts of conservation measures to protect GRSG. These impacts may be 

direct or indirect. For example, a direct impact on solid leasable minerals would 

result from managing an area as unacceptable for coal leasing or closed to

nonenergy solid mineral leasing. An indirect impact would result from removal 

of a road, which would change the economic feasibility of developing a site. 

Additional actions or conditions that might cause direct or indirect impacts on 

solid leasable minerals are described under Indicators, below.

Indicators

Table 4-11, Comparison of Solid Leasable Minerals Indicators by Alternative, 

provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the effects on 

solid leasable minerals under each alternative.
4. Environmental Consequences (Solid Leasable Minerals)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-85

Table 4-11

Comparison of Solid Leasable Minerals Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

The amount of land closed to 

nonenergy solid mineral leasing

0 279,097 453,969 0

Application of RDFs that can be 

placed on solid minerals

No 

change

Increase Increase Increase

Where information is available, consideration is given to the potential for solid 

leasable mineral resources on lands unacceptable for or closed to leasing. For 

example, an indicator of an impact on solid leasable minerals is if there were 

substantial reductions in federal leasing and development of solid mineral 

resources in high potential areas.

In areas that are acceptable or available for solid mineral leasing, factors that 

affect solid leasable mineral extraction include permitting, regulatory policy, 

public perception and concerns, travel management, transportation, proximity 

to sensitive areas, low commodity prices, taxes, and housing and other 

necessities for workers.

The amount of area that would fall under restrictions outlined in Chapter 2, 

and the impact of those restrictions on solid leasable mineral development, are 

considered below in the analysis of each alternative.

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• There are no existing coal leases in the Lewistown Field Office 

Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS planning area and no known coal 

potential in GRSG habitat.

• If an area is leased, it could be developed; however, not all leases 

would be developed within the life of this RMPA.

• As demand for energy increases, so would the demand for energy 

resources.

• Management actions and conservation measures also apply to solid 

mineral leasing on lands overlying federal solid mineral estate, which 

includes federal mineral estate underlying BLM-administered lands, 

privately owned lands, and state-owned lands. There are 453,969 

acres of federal solid mineral estate within the decision area 

(345,560 acres of BLM-administered surface with federal solid 

minerals and 108,409 acres of non-BLM administered surface with 

federal solid minerals).
4. Environmental Consequences (Solid Leasable Minerals)

4-86 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

4.7.2 Nature and Type of Effects

As discussed in Section 3.8 there has been no coal development within the 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS planning area, and there 

is no known coal development potential within GRSG habitat. As a result, coal 

resources in the planning area are not expected to be impacted by management 

actions proposed in this RMPA and are not discussed further in this section.

Management actions that close areas to nonenergy solid mineral leasing would 

directly impact nonenergy solid leasable minerals by reducing the area available 

for leasing. If the most lucrative resources were closed to leasing, prospectors 

may have to prospect and extract resources that are not as lucrative, thus 

decreasing profit. Prospecting and extraction operations may also move to 

nearby private minerals within GRSG habitat, where the BLM could not impose 

measures to protect GRSG.

Application of RDFs would increase the cost of nonenergy solid leasable mineral

development if it resulted in increased reclamation and mitigation expense, 

siting operations in less economical locations, or delays of operations.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on solid leasable minerals and are therefore not discussed in detail: 

travel and transportation management, recreation, lands and realty, range 

management, fluid minerals, mineral split estate, fire and fuels management, 

habitat restoration and vegetation management, and ACECs.

4.7.3 Alternative A

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Approximately 2,538 acres (less than one percent) of the federal solid mineral 

estate would remain closed to solid minerals, precluding future leasing in these 

areas. The types of impacts from these closures are the same as those discussed 

under the Nature and Type of Effects, reducing the area available to leasing and 

extraction.

Under Alternative A, prospecting permits would continue to be issued within 

the decision area on a case-by-case basis. Site-specific environmental review 

would continue to assess impacts and develop mitigating measures, which could 

result in increased restrictions.

4.7.4 Alternative B

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative B, all PH (279,097 acres, or 61 percent of the solid minerals 

decision area) would be closed to nonenergy solid mineral leasing. Once current 

prospecting permits expired, they would not be able to be renewed. Current 

prospecting permits could not lead to lease issuance. This would close all areas 

where nonenergy solid mineral prospecting has occurred within the planning 
4. Environmental Consequences (Solid Leasable Minerals)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-87

area in the past 20 years. Impacts on the nonenergy solid minerals program 

would increase compared with those under Alternative A and would be the 

same type as described under Nature and Type of Effects, reducing the area 

available to leasing and extraction.

RDFs outlined in Appendix C would apply to existing nonenergy solid mineral 

leases in PH. These RDFs would place limitations on road design, construction, 

and use; would restrict operations to minimize surface disturbance; would limit 

construction; would maximize reclamation efforts to meet GRSG habitat needs; 

and would place other standards and restrictions on solid mineral operations. 

Impacts would be the same type as those discussed under Nature and Type of 

Effects and could increase extraction costs

4.7.5 Alternative C

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Impacts under Alternative C are similar to those under Alternative B, except 

that more acres (453,969 acres, or 100 percent of the solid minerals decision 

area) would be closed to nonenergy solid mineral leasing. Also, more acres with 

existing leases would be subject to the mandatory application of the solid 

mineral RDFs outlined in Appendix C. Impacts would increase compared with 

those under Alternative A and would be the same type as described under 

Nature and Type of Effects. This includes fewer areas available for leasing and 

extraction and other standards and restrictions on solid mineral operations; 

these could also increase costs.

4.7.6 Alternative D

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Management of solid leasable minerals under Alternative D would be similar to 

that under Alternative A except that, under Alternative D, new prospecting 

permits would be subject to the RDFs outlined in Appendix D. These RDFs 

would place limitations on surface disturbing activities and human presence, 

require mitigation actions for habitat losses, limit siting options for facilities, and 

place other standards and restrictions on solid mineral operations. Impacts and 

costs would increase compared with those under Alternative A and would be 

the same type as described under Nature and Type of Effects.

4.8 SOLID MINERALS (LOCATABLE MINERALS)

4.8.1 Methods and Assumptions

Analysis of impacts on locatable minerals from this RMPA focuses on the 

impacts of conservation measures to protect GRSG. These impacts may be 

direct or indirect. For example, a direct impact on locatable minerals would 

result from withdrawal of an area from locatable mineral entry. An indirect 

impact would result from removal of a road, which would change the economic 

feasibility of developing a site. Additional actions or conditions that might cause 
4. Environmental Consequences (Solid Minerals (Locatable Minerals))

4-88 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

direct or indirect impacts on locatable minerals are described under Indicators, 

below.

Indicators

Table 4-12, Comparison of Solid Minerals (Locatables) Indicators by 

Alternative, provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the 

effects on locatable minerals under each alternative.

Table 4-12

Comparison of Solid Minerals (Locatables) Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

The amount of land withdrawn from 

locatable mineral entry

2,538 2,538 2,538 2,538

The amount of land recommended

for withdrawal

0 279,097 453,969 0

Application of restrictions, such as

BMPs and conservation measures, 

that can be placed on locatable 

mineral development activities to 

prevent unnecessary or undue 

degradation of GRSG habitat

No 

change

Increase Increase Increase

Where information is available, consideration is given to the potential for 

locatable mineral resources on lands recommended for withdrawal from entry. 

For example, an indicator of an impact on locatable minerals is if there were 

substantial withdrawals of locatable mineral resources in high potential areas.

In areas that are open to locatable mineral entry, factors that affect locatable

mineral extraction include permitting, regulatory policy, public perception and 

concerns, travel management, transportation, proximity to sensitive areas, low 

commodity prices, taxes, and housing and other necessities for workers.

The amount of area that would fall under restrictions outlined in Chapter 2, 

and the impact of those restrictions on locatable mineral development, are 

considered below in the analysis of each alternative.

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• There is no known locatable mineral potential within occupied

habitat in the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse 

RMPA/EIS planning area.

• Management actions and conservation measures also apply to 

locatable mineral development on lands overlying federal mineral 

estate, which includes federal mineral estate underlying BLM-
4. Environmental Consequences (Solid Minerals (Locatable Minerals))

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-89

administered lands, privately owned lands, and state-owned lands. 

There are 453,969 acres of federal solid mineral estate within the 

decision area (345,560 acres of BLM-administered surface with 

federal minerals and 108,409 acres of surface with federal solid 

minerals not administered by the BLM).

4.8.2 Nature and Type of Effects

As discussed in Section 3.9 no locatable mineral development potential has 

been identified within GRSG habitat in the current RMPs (BLM 1992, Appendix 

C [as amended]). As a result, locatable minerals in the planning area are not 

expected to be impacted by management actions proposed in this RMPA.

Withdrawal or closure of an area to mining development removes the mineral 

resources in that area from being able to be accessed and extracted. This 

represents an impact on the potential discovery, development, and use of those 

resources by decreasing the availability of mineral resources. Because there is 

no known locatable mineral development potential in GRSG habitat, 

withdrawing lands is not expected to impact the locatable minerals program.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on locatable minerals and are therefore not discussed in detail: travel 

and transportation management, recreation, lands and realty, range 

management, fluid minerals, mineral split estate, fire and fuels management, 

habitat restoration and vegetation management, and ACECs.

4.8.3 Alternative A

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative A, approximately 2,538 acres (less than one-percent of the 

total federal solid mineral estate for locatable minerals) would remain 

withdrawn to the location of mining claims. Impacts would be the same as those 

discussed under Nature and Type of Effects, whereas new exploration and mining 

would be precluded in these areas.

Under Alternative A, prospecting permits would continue to be issued within 

the decision area on a case-by-case basis. Site-specific environmental review 

would continue to assess impacts and develop mitigating measures.

4.8.4 Alternative B

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative B, approximately 101 acres of PH and 2,437 acres of the GH

(2,538 acres total, same as Alternative A) would remain withdrawn to locatable 

mineral entry, precluding new exploration and mining. Impacts would be the 

same as those discussed under Nature and Type of Effects, whereas new 

exploration and mining would be precluded in these areas. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Solid Minerals (Locatable Minerals))

4-90 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

To restrict locatable mineral development, the BLM must petition the Secretary

of the Interior for withdrawal actions, with subsequent valid existing rights 

reviews for existing claims. Under Alternative B, 279,097 acres of PH would be 

recommended for withdrawal. As discussed under Nature and Type of Effects, 

there is no known locatable mineral potential in GRSG habitat, so no effect on 

locatable minerals is anticipated.

In accordance with the FLPMA, it is the BLM’s responsibility to prevent 

“unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.” In addition to performance 

standards (described under Alternative A), BLM may apply BMPs (per 

Appendix C) and conservation measures outlined in Chapter 2 (Table 2-4)

to any Notice or Plan of Operations on a case-by-case basis. Application of 

these requirements would impact locatable mineral development by increasing 

its costs if it resulted in the application of additional requirements (e.g., GRSGsafe fences around sumps) and/or use of more expensive technology (e.g. 

burying power lines) than would otherwise have been used by operators.

4.8.5 Alternative C

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative C, approximately 101 acres of the PH and 2,437 acres of the 

GH (2,538 acres total, same as Alternative A) would remain withdrawn to 

locatable mineral entry, precluding new exploration and mining. Impacts would 

be the same as those discussed under Nature and Type of Effects, whereas new 

exploration and mining would be precluded in these areas.

To restrict locatable mineral development, the BLM must petition the Secretary

of the Interior for withdrawal actions, with subsequent valid existing rights 

reviews for existing claims. Under Alternative C, 453,969 acres of PH and GH

would be recommended for withdrawal. As discussed under Nature and Type of 

Effects, there is no known locatable mineral potential in GRSG habitat so no 

effect on locatable minerals is anticipated.

Applying BMPs and conservation measures to any Notice or Plan of Operations

would result in the same types of impacts as those described under Alternative 

B; however, these measures would apply to more acres under Alternative C.

4.8.6 Alternative D

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative D, approximately 101 acres of the PH and 2,437 acres of the 

GH (2,538 acres total, same as Alternative A) would remain withdrawn to the 

location of mining claims, precluding new exploration and mining. Impacts would 

be the same as those discussed under Nature and Type of Effects, whereas new 

exploration and mining would be precluded in these areas.
4. Environmental Consequences (Solid Minerals (Locatable Minerals))

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-91

Similar to Alternative A, no additional lands within PH or GH would be 

recommended for withdrawal.

Applying BMPs and conservation measures to any Notice or Plan of Operations

would result in the same impacts as those described under Alternative B (see 

Appendix D).

4.9 SOLID MINERALS (SALABLE MINERALS)

4.9.1 Methods and Assumptions

Analysis of impacts on salable minerals from this RMPA focuses on the impacts 

of conservation measures to protect GRSG. These impacts may be direct or 

indirect. For example, a direct impact on salable minerals would result from 

closure of an area to salable mineral sales. An indirect impact would result from 

removal of a road, which would change the economic feasibility of and demand 

for developing a site. Additional actions or conditions that might cause direct or 

indirect impacts on salable minerals are described under Indicators, below.

Indicators

Table 4-13, Comparison of Solid Minerals (Salable Minerals) Indicators by 

Alternative, provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the 

effects on salable minerals under each alternative.

Table 4-13

Comparison of Solid Minerals (Salable Minerals) Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

Acres closed to salable mineral 

disposal

2,538 279,097 453,969 2,538

Acres managed as ROW avoidance 

areas 

9,708 112,341 0 240,464

Acres managed as ROW exclusion 

areas

0 233,219 345,560 0

Application RDFs that can be placed 

on salable minerals

No 

change

No 

change

No 

change

Increase

Restrictions on salable mineral pits 

no longer in use

No 

change

Increase Increase Increase

Where information is available, consideration is given to the potential for salable

minerals on lands closed to salable mineral disposal. For example, an indicator of 

an impact on salable minerals is if there were substantial closures to salable

mineral disposal in high potential areas.

In areas that are open to salable mineral disposal, factors that affect salable

mineral development include permitting, regulatory policy, public perception and 
4. Environmental Consequences (Solid Minerals (Saleable Minerals))

4-92 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

concerns, travel management, transportation, proximity to sensitive areas, low 

commodity prices, taxes, and housing and other necessities for workers.

The amount of area that would fall under restrictions outlined in Chapter 2, 

and the impact of those restrictions on salable mineral development, are 

considered below in the analysis of each alternative.

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• Existing salable mineral permits would not be affected by the 

closures proposed under this RMPA.

• Management actions also apply to salable mineral development on 

lands overlying federal mineral estate, which includes federal mineral 

estate underlying BLM-administered lands and land not administered 

by the BLM. There are 453,969 acres of federal mineral estate 

within the decision area (345,560 acres of BLM-administered surface 

with federal minerals and 108,409 acres of split estate).

4.9.2 Nature and Type of Effects

The predominant mining method for salable minerals is surface mining; 

therefore, any restrictions on surface-disturbing activities effectively close the 

subject areas to salable mineral mining.

Demand for salable minerals is generated primarily from road maintenance 

needs. Closure of areas to salable mineral sales would result in pits relocating 

nearby. If demand for salable minerals cannot be met by pits operated on federal 

lands, pits could move onto private lands where the BLM would lose the ability 

to implement mitigation measures.

Application of RDFs would increase the cost of salable mineral development if it 

were to increase reclamation and mitigation expense, site pits in less economical 

locations, or delay operations.

Requiring reclamation of salable mineral pits no longer in use could increase 

costs on developers if the BLM requires them to pay for the reclamation.

Managing areas as ROW avoidance or exclusion could result in impacts on 

salable minerals because construction of new roads in these areas would likely 

decrease. As a result, demand for salable minerals needed for construction and 

maintenance would also decrease.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on salable minerals and are therefore not discussed in detail: travel 

and transportation management, recreation, range management, fluid minerals, 

mineral split estate, fire and fuels management, habitat restoration and 

vegetation management, and ACECs.
4. Environmental Consequences (Solid Minerals (Saleable Minerals))

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-93

4.9.3 Alternative A

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative A, 9,708 acres would continue to be managed as ROW

avoidance area. All other BLM-administered surface in the decision area would 

continue to be open to ROW authorization. The types of impacts from these 

closures would be the same as those discussed under Nature and Type of Effects,

whereas construction of new roads in these areas would likely decrease thereby 

decreasing demand for salable minerals needed for construction and 

maintenance.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Approximately 2,538 acres (less than one percent) of the federal solid mineral 

estate in the decision area would remain closed to the salable minerals disposal,

precluding future mining in these areas. The types of impacts from these 

closures would be the same as those discussed under Nature and Type of Effects,

reducing the area available for access and extraction.

4.9.4 Alternative B

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative B, 112,341 acres would be managed as ROW avoidance area

and 233,219 acres would be managed as ROW exclusion area. The types of 

impacts from these closures would be the same as those discussed under Nature 

and Type of Effects, whereas construction of new roads in these areas would 

likely decrease thereby decreasing demand for salable minerals needed for 

construction and maintenance.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative B, approximately 279,097 acres of federal mineral estate in 

PH (61 percent of the solid minerals decision area) would be closed to the 

salable mineral disposal. The types of impacts from these closures would be the 

same as those discussed under Nature and Type of Effects, reducing the area 

available for access and extraction. If demand for salable minerals cannot be met 

by pits operated on BLM-administered lands, pits could move onto private lands 

where the BLM would lose the ability to implement mitigation measures.

Solid mineral RDFs outlined in Appendix C would apply to existing salable 

mineral operations in PH. These RDFs would limit road design, construction, 

and use; would restrict operations to minimize surface disturbance; would limit 

construction; would maximize reclamation to meet GRSG habitat needs; and 

would place other standards and restrictions on salable mineral operations. 

Impacts would be the same type as those discussed under Nature and Type of 

Effects.

In PH, salable mineral pits no longer in use would be restored to meet GRSG

habitat conservation objectives. As described under Nature and Type of Effects, 
4. Environmental Consequences (Solid Minerals (Saleable Minerals))

4-94 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

restoring pits would increase costs on developers if the BLM requires them to 

pay for the reclamation.

4.9.5 Alternative C

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Approximately 345,560 acres in PH and GH (100 percent of BLM-administered 

surface in the decision area) would be managed as ROW exclusion areas under 

Alternative C. However, because all PH and GH would be closed to salable

minerals disposal under this alternative, the ROW exclusion areas would not 

impact the salable minerals program.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative C, approximately 453,969 acres of federal mineral estate in 

PH and GH (100 percent of the solid minerals decision area) would be closed to 

salable mineral disposal, the most of any alternative. The types of impacts from 

these closures would be the same as those discussed under Nature and Type of 

Effects, reducing the area available for access and extraction.

Similar to Alternative B, RDFs outlined in Appendix C would be applied to 

salable mineral operations in PH. Because more acres would be within PH and 

GH under Alternative C, the impacts of applying these RDFs would increase.

Similar to Alternative B, salable mineral pits no longer in use would be restored 

to meet GRSG habitat conservation objectives; however, under this alternative 

this measure would apply to both PH and GH, thereby increasing the area of 

impact. The types of impacts from restoring pits no longer in use would be the 

same as those described under Alternative B; however, they may be greater 

because of larger area.

4.9.6 Alternative D

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative D, 240,464 acres in PH (70 percent of BLM-administered 

surface in the decision area) would be managed as an ROW avoidance area. The 

types of impacts from these closures would be the same as those discussed 

under Nature and Type of Effects, whereas construction of new roads in these 

areas would likely decrease thereby decreasing demand for salable minerals 

needed for construction and maintenance.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Management under Alternative D would be similar to that under Alternative A 

except that RDFs outlined in Appendix D would be applied to new salable

mineral operations. These RDFs would limit surface disturbance and human 

presence, require mitigation actions for habitat losses, limit siting options for 

facilities, and place other standards and restrictions on salable mineral 
4. Environmental Consequences (Solid Minerals (Saleable Minerals))

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-95

operations. Impacts would increase compared with Alternative A and would be 

the same type as those described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Similar to Alternative B, salable mineral pits no longer in use would be restored 

to meet GRSG habitat conservation objectives. The types of impacts from 

restoring pits no longer in use would be the same as those described under 

Nature and Type of Effects, restoring pits would increase costs on developers if 

the BLM requires them to pay for the reclamation.

4.10 COMPREHENSIVE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT

4.10.1 Methods and Assumptions

Travel allocations and designations support resource programs and are designed 

to help achieve their objectives. Therefore, CTTM is not considered to be in 

conflict with those resource programs. Impacts on travel and transportation 

from other resource areas include altering the existing transportation system, 

for instance by removing routes (i.e., reclaiming and revegetating the ROW) or 

by limiting or closing routes to certain modes of travel (such as designating 

routes as closed to motorized travel).

Where a route closure would protect wildlife habitat, the impacts of the route 

closure (i.e., improved wildlife habitat) are to the wildlife resource program, not 

travel and transportation management. As a result, impacts of travel allocations 

on other resources and resource uses are discussed in the respective resource 

sections of this chapter. Therefore, while impacts on travel and transportation

management from other program areas do occur and are considered as part of 

travel management planning, this section does not address the impacts on travel 

and transportation management from other resources and resource uses.

Indicators

Table 4-14, Comparison of Comprehensive Travel and Transportation 

Management Indicators by Alternative, provides a summary of the indicators 

that were used to analyze the effects on travel and transportation management

under each alternative.

Table 4-14

Comparison of Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

Change in the types of transportation 

activities occurring on routes that 

may impact GRSG or habitat

No change No change No change No change

Change of designated motorized 

wheeled routes (such as from limited 

to closed)

No change No change No change No change
4. Environmental Consequences (Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management)

4-96 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 4-14

Comparison of Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

Number of acres where new road 

development would be allowed

No change No change, 

with 

mitigation

Decrease 

274,435

acres

No change, 

with 

mitigation

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• In the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS

planning area (233,219 acres of PH and 112,341 acres of GH), OHV

travel is, and will continue to be limited to existing routes until the 

BLM is able to complete site-specific travel management planning.

• The demand to increase and maintain travel routes on BLMadministered lands would continue to increase over 20 years, 

especially near communities and in areas of high-density oil and gas 

development.

• The BLM has no authority over federal, state, or county roads on 

BLM-administered lands, so those routes are not included in the 

analysis.

• The travel designations would not affect ROW holders, permitted 

uses, county or state roads, or other valid existing rights. Travel 

closures/limitations apply only to public access.

• The incidence of resource damage would increase with the

increasing use of BLM-administered lands.

• Administrative use authorizations are granted on a case-by-case 

basis with approval from the BLM.

• Implementation of a travel management plan would include 

increased public education, signing, enforcement, and resource 

monitoring in regard to travel management.

4.10.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Impacts on travel and transportation management are those that restrict or 

enhance travel (e.g., managing areas as closed or limited to motorized travel and 

seasonal travel limitations). Current BLM management limits motorized travel to 

existing roads and trails within the planning area. New travel and transportation 

management actions in response to GRSG habitat protection strategies could 

limit travel route miles and the types of activities allowed on those routes. 

Seasonal travel restrictions to prevent disruption of GRSG breeding and brood 
4. Environmental Consequences (Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-97

rearing activities would allow travel in defined areas only at specific times of the 

year. Additionally, management actions that restrict future route construction 

limit the ability of the travel network to accommodate increased travel demands 

over time. Conflicts among route users could increase if the existing network 

becomes congested.

CTTM decisions resulting in the closure or removal of routes in GRSG habitat 

areas would affect travel and transportation management throughout the entire 

planning area. Management for all other resources and uses would have 

negligible or no impact on CTTM and are therefore not discussed in detail.

4.10.3 Alternative A

Table 4-15, Areas Open/Closed to New Road Construction by Alternative, 

provides a comparison of acres open and closed to new road construction by 

alternative. Closed acres are based on the total area covered by four-mile 

buffers placed around active lek sites.

Table 4-15

Areas Open/Closed to New Road Construction by Alternative

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Area open to new 

construction (acres)

345,560 345,560 71,125 345,560

Area closed to new 

construction (acres)

0 0 274,435 0

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative A, existing travel opportunities would be maintained. The 

BLM would continue to manage for a total of 695 miles of roads and trails 

throughout the decision area. Through site-specific planning, the BLM would 

designate roads and trails for motorized use. Roads and trails would be 

inventoried, mapped, and analyzed to the degree necessary to evaluate and 

designate the roads and trails as open, seasonally open, or closed. Until such 

time, motorized wheeled travel would continue to be limited yearlong to 

existing roads and trails and no areas would be entirely open to cross-country 

motorized wheeled travel or entirely closed, resulting in continued existing 

impacts, as described above in the Nature and Types of Effects, into the 

foreseeable future.

4.10.4 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Alternative B could result in more restrictions on existing travel and 

transportation opportunities than Alternative A. For areas within PH, the BLM 

would develop a travel and transportation management plan within five years of 

the RMP ROD. The new plan would be used to evaluate the existing 
4. Environmental Consequences (Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management)

4-98 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

transportation network and as a basis for amending certain route designations.

Access in PH could be diminished if the new plan closes or restricts travel on 

certain routes. Alternative B would also prohibit new route construction unless 

associated with valid existing rights and would preclude upgrading of existing 

routes in PH where such action would result in loss of GRSG habitat. This 

would limit future enhancements to travel opportunities.

4.10.5 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative C, the BLM would develop a travel and transportation plan 

for areas in PH and GH within five years of the RMP ROD. The four-mile lek

buffers cover 274,435 acres (79 percent of the decision area). As a result, new 

road construction would be limited to 71,125 acres in the decision area. BLM 

management would also preclude upgrading of existing routes in PH and GH 

where such action would damage GRSG habitat. These actions would result in 

site-specific losses of opportunity for route construction and improved access. 

They would prevent the construction of new roads where they might otherwise 

be needed to improve access or functionality of the network.

4.10.6 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative D, the BLM would continue to limit travel to existing roads 

and trails on 345,560 acres. The BLM would prepare a travel and transportation 

management plan to address all resource uses that would be completed within 

five years of the signing of the ROD for the RMP. This plan would allow for 

subsequent route evaluation and designation of roads and trails. It would look at 

a range of alternatives for specific route designations to minimize impacts on

GRSG habitat. During route designation and travel planning in PH, CTTM would 

evaluate the need for permanent or seasonal road or area closures where OHV

use is causing or would cause considerable adverse effects upon habitat. Road 

reclamation would be determined on a case-by-case basis depending on whether 

the route provides specific benefits for public access and the route minimizes 

impacts on resources.

In PH, during site specific travel and transportation management planning, the 

BLM would limit route construction to realignments of existing routes if that 

realignment has a minimal impact on GRSG habitat, eliminates the need to 

construct a new road, or is necessary for motorist safety. All upgrades to 

existing routes would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and would be subject 

to valid existing rights. If valid existing rights cannot be accessed via existing 

roads, then any new road construction would be built to absolute minimum 

standard necessary. When reseeding roads, primitive roads and trails in PH, 

appropriate seed mixtures would be used and transplanting sagebrush would be 

considered. In PH, restoration of roads, primitive roads and trails would be 
4. Environmental Consequences (Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-99

conducted if they are not designated in the future travel management plans. 

Alternative D would minimize impacts on travel and transportation 

management, while providing mitigation options for the protection of GRSG

habitat.

4.11 RECREATION

4.11.1 Methods and Assumptions

Impacts on recreation can be direct or indirect. Management actions that alter 

or prohibit users’ opportunities to access recreation areas or participate in 

recreation would result in a direct impact. Indirect impacts are those that 

change the physical, social, or administrative setting within which recreation 

takes place. In SRMAs and ERMAs, where management prescriptions are in 

place to achieve or maintain desired settings and activities, a change to the 

setting or availability of recreation opportunities would result in an impact.

Indicators

Table 4-16, Comparison of Recreation Indicators by Alternative, provides a 

summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the effects on recreation 

under each alternative.

Table 4-16

Comparison of Recreation Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

Change in recreation 

activities and participation 

rates in the planning and PH

areas, especially those within 

SRMA and ERMA

No change Opportunity 

for increase 

due to 

restrictions on 

surface 

disturbance

Greatest 

opportunity for 

increase in 

nonmechanized 

activities and 

greatest 

opportunity for 

decrease of 

motorized 

activities due 

to restrictions 

on surface 

disturbance

Opportunity 

for increase 

due to 

restrictions 

on surface 

disturbance

Change in the number and 

type of SRPs issued on an 

annual basis within the 

planning area and PH

No change Decrease in 

SRPs that are 

not beneficial 

or neutral

Decrease in 

SRPs that are 

not beneficial 

or neutral

Decrease in 

SRPs that are 

not beneficial 

or neutral

Access No change Opportunity 

for a slight 

decrease in 

motorized 

access

Decrease in 

motorized 

access due to a 

decrease in 

roads

Opportunity 

for a slight 

decrease in 

motorized 

access
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

4-100 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• Traditional recreational uses in the planning area, such as hunting 

and fishing, would continue as people seek outdoor family-oriented 

activities; an active retired population spends its disposable time and 

income on recreation; and as other areas of the country become 

more urbanized.

• The LFO would continue to manage the Judith River SRMA and 13 

ERMAs in accordance with existing policies but with management 

constraints, particularly in the Judith River SRMA, due to noncontiguous land holdings.

• Outdoor recreation would continue to be an important component 

of the local economy.

• Substantial increases in recreation could negatively impact GRSG

habitat.

• The potential for resource impacts and conflicts between all types 

of users would increase with increasing use.

• Demand for SRPs would remain steady or gradually increase over 

time.

• The BLM would continue to issue SRPs on a discretionary basis.

4.11.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Impacts on recreation are frequently the result of management actions related 

to other resources and resource uses (for example, special status species 

habitat protection) and stipulations placed on resource uses. New management 

actions to preserve GRSG habitat would affect a variety of resources and uses,

which would in turn affect recreation.

BLM management of areas as unsuitable for public utilities (i.e., ROW exclusion 

areas) protects recreation opportunities. Depending on location, development 

in utility corridors impacts recreation opportunities during construction and 

operation. Managing areas as ROW avoidance can limit development that would 

be incompatible with nearby recreation uses.

On lands with existing oil and gas leases and facilities, the recreation setting 

would be altered during construction by equipment, noise, dust, vehicles, night 

lighting, pipelines, and human activity. Fluid mineral development that requires 

surface occupancy generally impacts recreation management objectives,

opportunities, and activities. Even with controlled surface use stipulations, oil 

and gas development can impact recreation opportunities if the development 

conflicts with existing recreation activities. However, applying NSO stipulations 

preserves the natural character of landscapes and protects GRSG habitat. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-101

Stipulations maintain current recreation settings and preserve recreation 

opportunities in those areas in the long term.

Minerals development and disposal result in short- and long-term impacts during 

construction and operations by displacing recreation opportunities. Closure of 

certain areas to mineral development decreases the likelihood for conflict with 

recreation users and maintains desired recreation settings.

Travel management affects recreation opportunities and the overall recreation 

experience by managing for access to areas where recreation activities take 

place. Closure of routes to motorized travel can decrease access to recreation 

uses, while at the same time reducing conflicts between motorized and nonmotorized recreation activities. Travel and transportation management policies 

that close routes to OHV use directly affect recreation opportunities in the 

closed area and can increase OHV impacts outside the closure boundary. 

Management actions that restrict future route construction limit the ability of 

the travel network to accommodate increased recreational demands, such as 

increased OHV use, over time. Conflicts among users could increase if the 

existing network becomes congested.

Where lands are open to livestock grazing, impacts on recreation can result. 

The intensity of the impact varies based on recreation activity, visitor

expectation, and nature of the grazing activity. Range improvements help to 

reduce conflicts by keeping grazing animals away from popular recreation areas, 

particularly SRMAs and ERMAs. Structural range improvements may also hinder 

cross-country movement by hunters, bird watchers, hikers, and other 

recreationalists.

Development of renewable energy projects, such as wind, could result in the 

loss of recreation opportunities. Management of certain areas as ROW

avoidance areas can minimize impacts from renewable energy projects.

BLM management for ACECs often includes restrictions on surface-disturbing 

activities within the ACEC boundary, which could directly or indirectly affect 

recreation opportunities within an ACEC. At the same time, management 

prescriptions for ACECs can help maintain the existing physical setting by 

preserving natural landscapes.

Implementing management for certain resources would have negligible or no 

impact on recreation and are therefore not discussed in detail. Resources not 

likely to have an effect on recreation include fire and fuels management, and 

habitat restoration and vegetation management. Impacts from mineral split 

estate are covered under the discussions of impacts from fluid and solid 

minerals. As such, there is no further discussion of mineral split estate in this 

section.
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

4-102 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

4.11.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under all alternatives, impacts on recreation opportunities from existing ROWs

would continue. The restoration of discontinued or abandoned ROWs pursuant 

to FLPMA guidelines would reduce the potential for long-term impacts. 

Particularly in situations where the ROW includes a linear obstruction such as a 

fence; removal of the feature could improve recreation user experiences.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Although BLM management prescriptions under the alternatives would vary, 

there is no foreseeable solid leasable (coal) or locatable mineral potential in the 

decision area which would result in no impacts on recreation across all 

alternatives.

4.11.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative A, through site-specific planning, the BLM would designate 

roads and trails for motorized use. Roads and trails would be inventoried, 

mapped, and analyzed to the degree necessary to evaluate and designate the 

roads and trails as open, seasonally open, or closed. As a result, the potential 

for conflicts among different types of recreation users, such as hikers and OHV

operators, would continue under Alternative A.

Impacts from Recreation

BLM management under Alternative A would result in no additional measures 

to protect GRSG habitat. No new impacts from BLM management actions to 

recreation would occur.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative A, 215 total miles of existing ROWs, including roads, 

telephone and power lines, pipelines, and railroads, would continue to impact 

recreation opportunities. A total of 9,708 acres associated with the Acid ShalePine Forest ACEC and Judith River Canyon would continue to be managed as 

ROW avoidance areas, concurrently protecting existing recreation 

opportunities in those areas.

BLM-administered lands would continue to be available for ROWs on a case-bycase basis, in accordance with Title V of FLPMA and 43 CFR, Part 2800. All 

ROW applications would be reviewed using the criteria of following existing 

corridors wherever practical and avoiding the proliferation of separate ROWs. 

Recreational opportunities could be diminished where new ROWs are 

authorized.
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-103

Renewable energy projects, such as wind facilities, would be authorized through 

the ROW authorization process. See Section 4.20 for impact analysis 

regarding renewable energy development.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative A, PH and GH would continue to be open to grazing. Impacts 

on recreationists would be consistent with the Nature and Types of Effects, 

especially where cattle grazing areas overlap prime big game hunting areas. 

Impacts of grazing on SRPs would continue to be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis through the SRP issuance process.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative A, oil and gas development would continue to impact 

recreational opportunities on 8,120 leased acres throughout the decision area, 

including 3,851 acres in PGH and 2,786 acres in PGH. Refer to Nature and Types 

of Effects, above for the nature of impacts on recreation from fluid mineral

development. Impacts on recreationists include activities and disturbance related 

to exploration, development, and operations.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

There are three existing sand and gravel pits in the decision area, each less than 

five acres in size. Under Alternative A, salable material disposal is expected to 

continue to have no impact on SRPs because the sand and gravel pits do not 

conflict with areas or activities currently experiencing demand for SRPs.

Impacts from ACECs

Under Alternative A, the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC would continue to 

provide a rural, undeveloped experience for popular recreation activities such as 

hunting, OHV use, hiking, birding, and nature photography.

4.11.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

BLM would evaluate the need for permanent or seasonal road closures under 

Alternative B. Should the BLM determine there is a need to close certain routes 

those closures could restrict route-based recreation opportunities. Areas 

where routes would be closed could include areas where permitted recreation 

activities take place.

Under Alternative B, the BLM would only allow new roads where access to 

valid existing rights is necessary and does not currently exist. While new roads 

could improve certain recreation experiences such as OHV operation, actions 

proposed under Alternative B would reduce the potential for new conflicts 

between motorized travel and existing recreation uses that do not require 

motorized vehicle operation.
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

4-104 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Impacts from Recreation

Under Alternative B, the BLM would consider the effects of SRPs on PH. 

Impacts on the number or types of SRPs would only occur if the BLM 

determines that a proposed SRP activity negatively affects PH. If SRPs are 

reduced, there would be a corresponding reduction in organized recreation

opportunities on BLM-administered lands in the planning area. Because BLM has 

not identified a conflict between hunting and PH, this alternative is anticipated 

to have little or no impact on big game or upland bird hunting SRPs. Only SRPs 

that are neutral or beneficial on PH would be allowed. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative B, PH would be designated as ROW exclusion area and GH

would be designated ROW avoidance area. Additionally, under Alternative B, 

the BLM would take advantage of opportunities to remove, bury, or modify 

existing power lines within PH areas. A long-term reduction in the amount of 

acres dedicated to ROWs and above-ground linear features, such as 

transmission lines and pipelines, would improve recreation opportunities as 

described under Nature and Types of Effects, potentially limiting development 

that would be incompatible with nearby recreation uses.

Impacts from Range Management

Impacts under Alternative B would be the same as those described above under 

Alternative A.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Restrictions such as TLs on fluid mineral development in PH under Alternative B 

would decrease the potential for oil and gas development conflicting with 

recreation users. The benefits of reduced surface disturbance and less 

construction activity associated with oil and gas development would be 

consistent with the effects described under Nature and Types of Effects. 

Restriction of geophysical exploration to helicopter-portable drilling methods 

could diminish the quality of certain recreation activities, such as hunting, if 

helicopter operations are in proximity to key big game or bird hunting areas or 

existing SRMAs and ERMAs.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Proposed BLM management actions for Alternative B would include the closure 

of all PH areas to salable mineral disposal. In addition, mineral pits no longer in 

use would be restored. Since there are only three small sand and gravel pit 

operations in the decision area, a reduction in salable mineral disposal would 

have a neutral effect or slightly enhance recreation opportunities by minimizing 

salable material extraction and hauling activities that have the potential to 

conflict with hunting, fishing, birding, camping, and other recreational activities. 

A change in the amount of salable material disposal under Alternative B would 

have a neutral effect on SRPs.
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-105

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts on recreation under Alternative B for ACECs are the similar to those 

described under Alternative A. In addition to management actions under 

Alternative A, Alternative B would include conservation measures consistent 

with the identified management actions and constraints identified for PH. This 

would provide additional opportunities for an undeveloped experience for 

popular recreation activities, such as hunting, OHV riding, hiking, birding, and 

photographing nature.

4.11.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts under Alternative C would the same as those described above under 

Alternative B, with the exception that Alternative C would include additional 

prohibitions on new road construction within four miles of active leks. Under 

this alternative, new roads would be allowed on 71,125 acres (21 percent) of 

the lands within the decision area. Limitations on new construction would limit 

motorized recreation access to existing roads and trails with resultant impacts 

consistent with those described under Nature and Types of Effects.

Impacts from Recreation

BLM management prescriptions under Alternative C for GRSG habitat 

protection would not directly affect the permitting criteria for SRPs. Direct and 

indirect impacts on recreation under Alternative C would result from new 

management actions for other resources and uses, particularly the designation 

of 96,246 acres as an ACEC to protect GRSG habitat (see Impacts from ACECs, 

below).

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative C, all GRSG habitat, with the exception of 843 acres of 

unitized areas, would be designated as ROW exclusion area for new ROW 

authorizations. Any new development would be allowed only if it could be 

contained within an existing ROW. Consistent with the impacts described 

under Nature and Types of Effects, the designation of the decision area as ROW 

exclusion area would benefit recreation uses. ROW exclusion area designations 

would also protect the desired settings in the Judith Valley SRMA and the 11 

ERMAs.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative C, 337,165 acres in PH and GH would be closed to grazing. 

As such, the potential for conflicts with recreationists would be reduced in 

those areas. Alternative C could also remove range improvements and prevent 

the construction of new water developments, which would further minimize 

potential conflicts with recreationists. However, additional fencing to keep 

livestock in designated non-GRSG habitat areas could conflict with certain 

recreation activities, such as hunting. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

4-106 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Restrictions on fluid mineral development in PH under Alternative C would 

decrease the potential for oil and gas development conflicting with recreation 

users. The benefits of reduced surface disturbance and less construction activity 

associated with oil and gas development would be consistent with the impacts 

described under Nature and Types of Effects and under Alternative B.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B.

Impacts from ACECs

Under Alternative C, the BLM would designate 96,246 acres of GRSG habitat as 

a new ACEC. Designation of the ACEC could affect recreation opportunities by 

limiting surface disturbing activities within the ACEC boundaries. For example, 

motorized recreation associated with popular hunting, fishing, camping, and 

hiking areas could be limited by the designation. The ACEC designation could 

also limit the number and type of SRPs within the ACEC.

Designation of a new ACEC would at the same time limit ROW development, 

grazing, and mineral development. Management prescriptions for the ACEC 

would be to preserve, protect, conserve, restore, and sustain sage-brush 

populations and the sagebrush ecosystem upon which the GRSG depend. As a 

result, recreation activities such as hunting, fishing, birding, and nature 

photography that create little to no surface disturbance and benefit from rural 

settings would likely be enhanced under Alternative C.

4.11.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative D, the BLM would complete a CTTM plan within five years of 

the signing of the ROD for the RMP. The plan would identify existing roads and 

trails and designate certain roads as open, closed or limited to motorized travel. 

The BLM would also consider permanently closing certain user-created roads 

and trails. Closure of certain routes could diminish route-based recreational 

opportunities, but could also reduce user conflict. Administrative off-road use 

for BLM personnel and BLM-authorized activities would be allowed. BLMimplemented CTTM would not apply to private or state lands within the LFO.

Impacts from Recreation

SRPs in PH may be allowed if they are neutral or beneficial for GRSG habitat. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B. This requirement would limit issuing 

SRPs for certain activities.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative D, PH would be managed as ROW avoidance areas for new 

ROW authorizations and wind energy projects. ROWs would continue to be 

allowed in GH. However, wind energy ROWs, would be managed as ROW 
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-107

avoidance areas in GH. Any new development would be allowed only if it could 

be contained within an existing ROW. Consistent with the impacts described 

under Nature and Types of Effects, the designation of PH as a ROW avoidance 

area would benefit recreation activities that take place in undeveloped settings.

Limitations on ROW development would also preserve the existing recreation 

settings in each of the 11 ERMAs in PH.

New ROWs in GH areas could conflict with dispersed recreation uses in those 

areas. The extent of the effects would be based on the location and type of any 

new ROW.

Impacts from Range Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative D, conservation measures would be applied as COAs to 

existing federal leases. These measures would limit disturbance, noise, and high 

profile structures that conflict with popular recreation activities in the planning 

area.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Denying salable mineral disposal applications that cannot provide adequate 

mitigation to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation would further limit 

potential conflict with recreational activities in the planning area.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternatives A and B.

4.12 RANGE MANAGEMENT

4.12.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Table 4-17, Comparison of Range Management Indicators by Alternative,

provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the effects on 

range management under each alternative.

Table 4-17

Comparison of Range Management Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

Permitted AUMs in GRSG habitat 69,408 69,408 0 69,408

Permitted AUMs in non-GRSG habitat 34,398 34,398 34,398 34,398

Prohibitions to the ability to construct 

or maintain range improvements and 

conduct treatments (infrastructure and 

vegetation)

No change Increase Increase Increase
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

4-108 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 4-17

Comparison of Range Management Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

Acres closed to livestock grazing 0 0 337,165 0

Acres open to livestock grazing in 

GRSG habitat

337,165 337,165 0 337,165

Acres open to livestock grazing in nonGRSG habitat248,435 248,435 248,435 248,435

Changes to timing, duration or 

frequency of permitted use

No change Potential 

increase

Increase Potential 

increase

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• All new and existing leases and permits would be subject to terms 

and conditions determined by the authorizing officer to achieve the 

management and resource condition objectives for BLMadministered lands and to meet range land health standards, in 

accordance with BLM grazing regulations.

• Range improvements (e.g., fences, pipeline, water wells, troughs, and 

reservoirs) could result in a localized loss of vegetation cover 

throughout the improvements’ useful life. Vegetation would be 

reestablished through reclamation practices along water pipelines 

within five years to the extent possible, whereas areas with fences, 

water wells, troughs, and reservoirs could contain a portion of the 

area disturbed during their useful life and would be revegetated 

when abandoned.

• The construction and maintenance of range improvements would 

continue in the decision area as needed. New range improvements 

could be subject to limitations, as defined in the plan. Range 

improvements lead to better livestock distribution and management, 

which would maintain or improve rangeland health and could 

benefit the forage base.

• Livestock grazing is a “diffuse” form of biotic disturbance that exerts 

repeated pressure over many years on a system; unlike point 

sources of disturbance such as fires, livestock grazing exerts 

repeated pressure across the landscape.

• Vegetation could be treated to allow the current level of AUMs to 

be maintained.
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-109

4.12.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Impacts on livestock grazing are generally the result of activities that affect 

forage levels, areas open to grazing, the class of livestock, the season of use and 

timing, the ability to construct range improvements, and human disturbance or 

harassment of livestock in grazing allotments. Key types of impacts are detailed 

below.

Protecting GRSG habitat may directly affect livestock grazing if management 

requires limitations to areas open to grazing or available AUMs, modification of 

grazing strategies, or changes to season of use, which could result in increased 

time and cost to leases/permittees. For example, management actions to 

enhance habitat for GRSG could affect livestock grazing by restricting grazing 

intensity, retiring permitted grazing uses in some areas, or changing livestock 

rotation patterns, in order to maintain residual herbaceous cover in sagebrush 

habitat (NTT 2011).

Management of vegetation resources to benefit GRSG, may, however, indirectly 

benefit livestock grazing by increasing vegetation productivity and improving 

forage in the long term, especially in cases where current conditions are not 

meeting or exceeding land health standards. For example, in allotments with a 

history of intensive grazing, transitions in the composition of sagebrush 

communities may have occurred that have reduced cover or forage for GRSG

(Cagney et al. 2010) and grazing livestock. However, when grazing management

is put into place to promote health and vigor of the herbaceous community for 

livestock, this would generally result in sufficient herbaceous cover to meet 

habitat requirements for breeding GRSG, such as those specified by Connelly et 

al. (2000).

Similarly, vegetation management designed to curb incursion of non-native 

annual grasses or encroachment of shrubs, could remove forage in the short

term. However, these treatments generally enhance rangeland conditions in the 

longer term (NTT 2011).

Unregimented livestock grazing can have adverse impacts on riparian

ecosystems (Armour et. al 1991); therefore, managing riparian habitat can 

directly impact livestock grazing through excluding livestock at specific sites, 

increasing herding, adding range improvements (such as cross fences and water 

gaps), and adjusting season of use and livestock numbers. Managing riparian 

habitat to maintain PFC would benefit grazing livestock by indirectly providing 

cleaner and more reliable water sources and more dependable forage 

availability.

Protecting water quality and watershed health could require changes in livestock 

management, such as deferring or shortening grazing periods, adding range 

improvements, excluding grazing from riparian areas, establishing riparian 

pastures, and increasing livestock herding. In areas requiring exclusion of 

livestock or other restrictions on livestock management, these limitations could 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

4-110 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

increase costs to lessees and permittees if changes were to reduce AUMs or 

result in more livestock movements.

Recreation can affect livestock grazing directly through human disturbance and 

indirectly through rangeland degradation. Direct disturbance can include 

undesired animal dispersing or trespassing due to gates left open by recreational 

users; animal displacement, harassment or injury from collisions or shooting; or 

damage to range improvements, particularly from the use of recreational 

vehicles or from recreational shooting. Disturbance could occur during the 

hunting season due to increased presence of people, vehicles, and noise. In 

addition, OHV use results in indirect impacts, such as increased dust on forage 

in high use areas, leading to lower forage palatability. Limitations on recreational 

use in GRSG habitat could indirectly benefit livestock by reducing direct 

disturbances.

Other direct long-term recreation impacts include disturbance caused by 

increased levels of human activities. The degree of impacts would vary with the 

intensity of recreation (that is, large numbers of people for SRP use would likely 

have a higher level of disturbance, as compared to frequent use by a small 

number of visitors), the timing of recreation activities (livestock could be more 

susceptible to disturbance during the spring when young are present), and 

location of recreation in the allotment (a higher level of disturbance could occur 

near areas frequented by livestock such as water sources or salt licks). As stated 

above, limitations on recreational use in GRSG habitat could indirectly benefit 

livestock by reducing direct disturbances.

Limits on construction or use of transportation routes may affect livestock 

grazing practices. Road construction may cause loss of forage, harassment, and 

displacement; therefore, reduction of these activities may benefit livestock by 

reducing disturbances. Closing roads or trails not leading to range 

improvements would also increase forage availability when the area is 

rehabilitated or when natural rehabilitation occurs. Administrative cross-country 

travel would continue to be granted to grazing lessees and permittees to access 

grazing allotments and range improvement projects. Travel management actions 

for GRSG protection generally involve increased limitations or restrictions on 

travel management.

Wildland fire alters sagebrush habitat due to the long time required for 

sagebrush to regenerate, which may allow for invasion of invasive species (NTT 

2011). Wildland fire would remove vegetation and forage over the short term 

but can result in short-term increases in forage post-fire. Impacts on livestock 

operations could also occur when BLM guidelines require a rest period 

following rehabilitation before grazing is reestablished. Changes in wildland fire 

suppression and fuels management to protect GRSG habitat would have varying 

effects on livestock grazing. Measures to protect sagebrush habitat might reduce 

the spread of wildland fire and the associated disruption to livestock. The 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-111

management of habitat for GRSG using natural disturbance regimes, such as fire, 

and using vegetative treatments to accomplish biodiversity objectives to 

improve plant community resilience, could also benefit livestock grazing in the 

long term by maintaining a balance of seral stages. In general, selectively thinning 

woodland species benefits livestock grazing by creating a healthier grass, forb, 

and shrub community.

Restrictions on ROWs or land transfers may indirectly impact grazing by 

reducing construction impacts from development of these ROWs (such as dust, 

displacement and introduction of noxious weeds). In addition, such restrictions 

can also inhibit the development of water sources for livestock use where 

power may be required. Lands and realty actions taken to protect GRSG habitat 

would involve avoiding or excluding ROWs (e.g., for power lines, pipelines, and 

other structures) or land transfers in PH or GH. However, the areas outside of 

GRSG habitat to which ROWs are relocated may see an increase in 

construction-related effects and associated disturbance or displacement of 

livestock.

Energy and mineral development could impact grazing as follows: During the 

exploration and testing phase of mineral development, the footprint of 

disturbance is usually small and localized; therefore, minimal acres available for 

grazing would be directly impacted. However, during the exploration phase 

impacts on livestock dispersal and trespass could occur, increasing time and cost 

to permittees and lessees. Outside of the exploration and testing phase, surfacedisturbing mineral development directly affects areas of grazing in the short 

term during construction of well pads, roads, pipelines, and other facilities. 

Potential impacts include changes in available forage, reduced forage palatability 

because of dust on vegetation, limitations on livestock movement, harassment, 

temporary displacement of livestock, and an increased potential for the 

introduction and proliferation of noxious weeds that lack the nutritional value 

needed for productive grazing practices. In the long term, a smaller amount of 

grazing acreage is permanently lost from mining operations following 

rehabilitation. Improving roads associated with mineral development could 

facilitate livestock management operations by maintaining or improving access 

to remote locations within allotments. Properly implemented BMPs and 

reclamation mitigation measures would help maintain rangeland health and 

forage levels for livestock.

Management for energy and mineral development on split estate lands would 

not impact lessees and permittees with BLM-administered land leases; however,

impacts could occur to livestock grazing on private, state or lands of other 

ownership as stated above.

Changes in livestock grazing management could impact grazing opportunities in a

variety of ways. For example, implementing particular livestock grazing 

management requirements to benefit GRSG could affect livestock grazing by 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

4-112 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

increasing operators’ costs or changing required management actions. Some 

management requirements may result in short-term and long-term costs to 

lessees and permittees could increase, or AUMs could decrease for some 

lessees and permittees due to the following:

• Implementation of a grazing strategy

• Change in season-of-use or livestock class

• Modification to grazing systems

• Construction or modification of range improvements.

These management requirements could result in economic impacts on 

individuals and the community at large, both direct and indirect. For example, if 

a ranch is dependent seasonally on federal forage, a reduction or eliminations of 

federal AUMS may create forage imbalances that produce a greater reduction in 

grazing capacity than just the loss of federal AUMS (Torell et al 2002).

Some management changes may require a short-term output of cost for lessees 

and permittees, but would result in long-term benefits. For example, 

construction of range improvements to improve livestock distribution and allow 

use of a larger portion of the rangeland would generally enhance rangeland 

health in the long term; however, it would have short-term costs. Constructing 

off-site water sources and fencing riparian and spring sources could keep 

livestock away from sensitive riparian areas and provide a cleaner more reliable 

source of water for livestock but would similarly represent an increased cost for 

lessees and permittees. See Section 4.21 for a discussion of socioeconomic

impacts on grazing.

ACECs may be designated to protect sensitive habitat for the benefit of GRSG. 

Grazing availability would depend on the designated ACEC management 

objectives. Restrictions can include total exclusion of grazing from the ACEC, 

limitations on the class of livestock animal, or the season, duration, or location 

that livestock are allowed to graze.

4.12.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under all alternatives, motorized vehicles would be designated as limited to

existing roads and trails, thereby limiting the impacts on livestock grazing from 

dispersed travel as discussed under Nature and Type of Effects. Impacts, such as 

loss of forage, harassment, or displacement, from motorized and mechanized 

travel could occur, as described in Nature and Type of Effects. Access to 

authorized BLM uses, such as grazing allotments, would not be impacted in any 

alternatives. Site specific travel management planning could, when completed, 

reduce the potential for conflicts between range management and travel 

management.
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-113

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

There are 55,880 acres of existing leases in the decision area; this acreage

would be consistent across all alternatives. Conflicts between livestock grazing 

and existing leases could be present as described in Nature and Type of Effects. 

Potential impacts include changes in available forage, reduced forage palatability 

because of dust on vegetation, limitations on livestock movement, harassment, 

temporary displacement of livestock, and an increased potential for the 

introduction and proliferation of noxious weeds that lack the nutritional value 

needed for productive grazing.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Across all alternatives, impacts from coal management on livestock grazing 

would be minimal due to the lack of coal development in the planning area.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Objectives for all alternatives for fire management set target sage-brush canopy 

forage cover at no less than15 percent cover, which is not necessarily optimal 

for range management as cover for livestock forage depends on a variety of site 

specific conditions.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Restoration of native plants under all alternatives has the potential to impact 

grazing management. In many cases, replacement of non-native plants with 

native plants would increase suitable forage for livestock and reduce the risk of 

wildland fire which has the potential to disrupt grazing should it occur. 

Restoration of crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) has the potential to 

impact the season of livestock grazing.

4.12.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts would be as described under Impacts Common to All Alternatives.

Impacts from Recreation

Direct impacts, such as human disturbance, and indirect impacts through 

rangeland degradation under Alternative A would be as described under Nature 

and Type of Effects. Under this Alternative there would be no new restrictions 

on SRPs in the decision area; therefore; livestock could be disturbed by 

recreational activities or groups in the planning area.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative A, approximately 9,708 acres of ROW avoidance areas would 

be present in the decision area in areas open to livestock grazing (see Table 4-

18, Impacts on Livestock Grazing from Lands and Realty Actions). As discussed 

under Nature and Type of Effects, disturbance of livestock could be decreased in 

this area from construction and operation of infrastructure within the ROW. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

4-114 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 4-18

Impacts on Livestock Grazing from Lands and Realty Actions

Management Action Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

ROW avoidance areas within 

PH and open to livestock 

grazing

2,463 0 0 232,964

ROW avoidance areas within 

GH and open to livestock 

grazing

7,123 106,508 0 7,123

ROW exclusion areas within 

GH and open to livestock 

grazing

0 0 0 0

ROW exclusion areas within 

PH and open to livestock 

grazing

0 230,501 0 0

Note: PH and GH for Alternatives B, C, and D, PPH and PGH for Alternative A (no PH or GH is presently 

designated).

No ROW exclusion areas or lands proposed for withdrawal are present in this 

alternative.

Impacts from Range Management

Grazing would be permitted within PPH or PGH, totaling 314 allotments with 

337,165 acres and 69,408 AUMs (Table 4-17). An additional 34,398 AUMS 

would be available on 248,435 acres open to grazing in non-GRSG habitat. Lands 

would be maintained and restored to maintain healthy ecological conditions, and 

BLM-administered rangeland management would be directed first to allotments 

not meeting rangeland health standards due to current livestock; therefore,

impacts on grazing management options or permitted AUMs would most likely 

change in these areas (approximately 105,437 acres).

Livestock grazing would continue to be managed through development and 

monitoring of AMPs or similar grazing plans and adjustment to grazing systems, 

with modification to the kind or class of livestock grazing on an allotment, the 

season of use, the stocking rate, or the pattern of grazing made as needed based 

on site-specific conditions and monitoring results. Permitted use levels would 

normally be reviewed and adjusted when permits and leases are renewed.

Vegetative manipulation projects would be designed to minimize impact on 

wildlife habitat and to improve it whenever possible, which could result in some 

costs for lessees and permittees, or limitations on manipulation for livestock 

forage. Long-term benefits to rangeland conditions could also result from these 

vegetation manipulation projects.

Noxious weed control would be the responsibility of the affected permittee or 

lessee under weed control cooperative range improvement agreements. Each 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-115

year, permittees and lessees would submit records and maps of treatment areas

to the BLM; therefore, tracking annual treatments may help to improve or 

maintain rangeland conditions.

The focus in riparian areas and wetlands would be to improve functioning-atrisk and non-functioning riparian areas and wetlands towards PFC; therefore,

there is potential for some impacts on grazing management options and related 

costs and time required for lessees and permittees in these areas.

Range improvements would be designed to achieve both wildlife and range 

objectives; however, no specific actions apply to modification for improvements 

for GRSG. Therefore, impacts on costs for modification of range improvements 

would likely be the lowest under this alternative.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative A, COAs may be applied to existing fluid mineral leases on a 

case-by-case basis. Approximately 45,018 acres of existing leases are located in 

areas open to livestock grazing; therefore, conflicts between grazing and mineral 

development would be more likely to occur in this area (see Table 4-19, Fluid 

Mineral Impacts on Range Management by Alternative).

Table 4-19

Fluid Mineral Impacts on Range Management by Alternative

Management Action Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres of existing fluid mineral

leases within areas open to 

grazing

45,012 29,778 0 29,778

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative A, development of locatable minerals, nonenergy leasable 

minerals, and salable minerals could be permitted after environmental review. 

Some restrictions may be put in place, such as requirements in Plan of 

Operations for locatable minerals, but this alternative would generally be the 

least restrictive on mineral development, with the highest potential for conflicts 

with range management. Impacts on livestock grazing would be as described in 

Nature and Type of Effects; however, the intensity would vary by site-specific 

conditions and restrictions. Potential impacts are changes in available forage, 

reduced forage palatability because of dust on vegetation, limits on livestock 

movement, harassment, temporary displacement of livestock, and an increased 

potential for the introduction and proliferation of noxious weeds.

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

Across all alternatives, federal lessees and permittees would not be impacted by 

split-estate lands; however, there is the potential for impacts on range 

management on other lands. Under Alternative A, some minimal regulations are 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

4-116 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

in place for mineral development on nonfederal surface lands, including 

permitting and reclamation requirements.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Under Alternative A, treatment for fuels management would allow for some 

burning to improve wildlife and livestock forage, allowing for management 

options of lessees and permittees. Impacts would vary based on site-specific 

management actions, but would fire could be utilized to maintain optimal forage 

for livestock in the long term.

A minimum rest period from livestock grazing of two growing seasons would be 

required after any major vegetative disturbance, including wild fire. Specific 

timing and the type of rest would be determined at the site-specific EA phase. 

As a result, livestock grazing would typically be excluded from areas following a 

fire, impacts on and costs and time for lessees and permittees would depend on 

location of fire in relation to grazing allotments.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative A, grazing methods would be designed and monitored to 

accomplish objectives and meet wildlife habitat needs, as determined in 

coordination with MFWP. Where objectives for wildlife did not correspond 

with needs for livestock forage, there is the potential for impacts on range 

management, specifically ability of lessees and permittees to effectively distribute 

livestock or fully utilize permitted AUMs.

Impacts from ACECs

No new ACECs would be designated under Alternative A; therefore, there 

would be no additional impacts on range management.

4.12.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative B, future travel plans would analyze PH for the need for road 

closures and limitations would be put in place on development of new roads. 

Some reduction in routes and limitations on new routes as well as upgrades to 

existing routes would be in place compared to Alternative A, which could result 

in indirect reduction in disturbance to livestock in PH.

Impacts from Recreation

Direct impacts, such as from human disturbance, and indirect impacts through 

rangeland degradation under Alternative B are similar to those described under 

Nature and Type of Effects. SRPs in PH would be limited when they were found 

to have negative impacts on GRSG; therefore, overall SRPs may be reduced 

with potential benefits to livestock grazing due to decreased disturbance.
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-117

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative B, approximately 106,508 acres of ROW avoidance areas and 

230,501 of ROW exclusion areas would be present in the decision area in areas 

open to grazing (see Table 4-18). As discussed under Nature and Type of 

Effects, disturbance of livestock from construction and operation of 

infrastructure could be decreased in this area as a result of these management 

actions.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative B, acres open to grazing and permitted AUMs would be the 

same as Alternative A (Table 4-17). All GRSG habitat objectives and 

management would be incorporated into AMPs and permit/lease renewals; 

therefore, impacts would occur at a site-specific level during the renewal 

process. Completion of land health assessments and permits/leases would be 

prioritized within PH. As a result, impacts on range management would be most 

likely to occur in these areas.

Retirement of permitted grazing uses would be an option in PH, resulting in 

potential reductions in AUMs in the planning area. Compensation for authorized 

range improvements would be provided as appropriate.

Vegetation treatments that benefit livestock forage could only be completed if 

these treatments would also conserve, enhance or improve GRSG habitat;

therefore, the management options in PH could be reduced and the ability to 

fully utilize permitted AUMs could be impacted. Land health assessment utilizing 

ecological site descriptions would be required to determine if standards of 

rangeland health as well as GRSG habitat objectives were being met. Impacts

from noxious weed control would be the same as those described under

Alternative A.

Under Alternative B, riparian areas and wet meadows would be managed for 

PFC within PH, with potential limitations on grazing within these areas or 

increased use of fencing/herding, seasonal limitations on grazing, creation of 

water developments or other measures to manage distribution of livestock so 

that pressure on these systems is limited; this could result in increased costs or 

time by lessees and permittees.

Under Alternative B, structural range improvements, such as fences and 

exclosures, would be allowed in PH, but they must be developed to conserve or 

enhance GRSG habitat. In addition, fences would require flagging to lessen risk 

for GRSG strike impacts; therefore, the cost of building or maintaining these 

structures may be increased as compared to Alternative A. Similarly, new water 

developments from diversion of spring or seeps would be permitted only when 

it also would benefit GRSG habitat. Therefore, lessees and permittees may not 

be able to fully use permitted AUMs if water were limited on a given allotment.
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

4-118 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative B, additional RDFs and conservation measures would be 

applied as COAs in PH to existing leases. These measures would limit surface 

occupancy on federal leases in PH as well as impose seasonal limits on 

exploratory drilling, resulting in a decrease in conflicts between livestock grazing 

and fluid mineral extraction, as described in Nature and Type of Effects. 

Approximately 29,778 acres of existing leases are open to livestock grazing (33 

percent less than alternative A), reducing the disturbance from mineral 

development under this alternative (see Table 4-19)

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative B, additional restriction would be put in place on mineral 

development as compared to Alternative A. PH would be closed to nonenergy

leasable mineral leasing as well as salable mineral disposal. In addition, lands in 

PH would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. As a result, 

disturbance of range management from mineral development on would 

decrease.

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

As described under Alternative A, there would be no impact on BLM 

permittees from mineral development of these lands. Impacts on private range 

management would likely decrease in PH due to the application of the same 

conservation measures as applied on BLM-administered lands.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Under Alternative B, suppression of fire would be prioritized when PH was 

threatened. As a result, disturbance to grazing could decrease because fewer 

wildfires require fewer post-fire rest periods. However, in the long term 

vegetative condition may become less than ideal for grazing as cover and 

sagebrush density would likely increase and available forage decrease.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative B, vegetation treatments would still occur, given special 

consideration for the protection and maintenance of sagebrush ecosystems. 

Projects would be prioritized in areas thought to be limiting GRSG abundance 

based on defined habitat parameters. Impacts could occur to range management 

when objectives for range management did not match with those for GRSG

habitat. Post restoration management requirements could also result in changes 

to grazing systems, AUM levels or other range management changes, with 

resulting potential for an increase in costs and time for lessees and permittees.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A.
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-119

4.12.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Due to the removal of grazing from PH and GH, impacts from travel 

management would be limited. However, the type of impacts described under 

Alternative A would still occur in areas that are PH or GH in the decision area.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts from recreation on grazing would be limited due to removal of grazing 

from all allotments in PH and GH under this alternative. However, the type of 

impacts described under Alternative A would still occur in areas that are not PH 

or GH in the decision area.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Impacts from lands and realty action on livestock grazing would be limited by 

the removal from grazing on all allotments in PH and GH. There is potential for 

indirect impacts on occur on BLM-administered lands outside of GRSG habitat 

should ROW grants and associated development and/or livestock grazing 

increase in this area.

Impacts from Range Management

Management under Alternative C would remove livestock grazing from all 

allotments in PH and GH, for a total of 337,165 acres closed to grazing in the 

decision area, on 305 allotments with 69,408 removed AUMs (see Table 4-17).

Like Alternative A, 34,398 AUMS would be available on 248,435 acres open to 

grazing in non-GRSG habitat.

Removal of grazing from all PH and GH would result in economic impacts on

lessees and permittees. As discussed under Nature and Type of Effects, lessees 

and permittees would be faced with reducing AUMs for their operations or 

locating replacement forage, often at higher costs than that currently obtained 

from BLM-administered lands, with potential impacts on individual 

leases/permits as well as the local community. Closures would also impact ability 

of lessees and permittees current seasonal rotations or other management 

strategies that utilize both BLM-administered and private lands.

Existing structural range improvements under Alternative C would require 

modifications or removal when determined to have a high risk of GRSG strike. 

In addition, management actions would allow no new water developments and 

could dismantle existing developments. Lessees/permittees who have 

investments on BLM-administered lands in PH and GH would be impacted and 

could be subject to compensation. In addition, the substantial range 

infrastructure installed by the BLM would fall into disrepair and the investments 

would be lost. Furthermore, approximately 3,400 additional miles of fencing may 

be required to exclude livestock from BLM-administered lands where grazing is 

excluded, representing potential additional costs.
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

4-120 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Removal of range improvements and water developments on PH and GH would 

also further restrict management options. Lessees and permittees who currently 

rotate pastures between private and BLM-administered lands may need to 

construct additional water developments or other structural range 

improvements on private pastures, resulting in increased time and costs.

As a result of removal of grazing from PH and GH, there is also the potential for 

increase conflicts between grazing and other resources and resource uses on 

lands of other surface ownership should livestock grazing increase in this area.

For example, under this alternative, if permittees and lessees were to lose the 

forage that the BLM currently provides, many of them would try to increase 

forage production on their private and other leased land. This could accelerate 

the conversion of private native range, including GRSG habitat, to agricultural or 

introduced grass production.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative C, due to the removal of livestock grazing from all PH and 

GH, impacts from mineral development on range management in this habitat 

would be negligible. There is potential for an increase in conflicts between 

grazing and mineral development in areas outside of PH and GH, should grazing 

and mineral development increase in this area.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative C, impacts from solid minerals on grazing would be negligible 

due to the limitations on mineral development and the removal of livestock 

grazing from all PH and GH. There is potential for an increase in conflicts 

between grazing and mineral development in areas outside of PH and GH, 

should grazing and mineral development increase in this area.

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

As in Alternative A, there is no impact of split estate mineral development on 

BLM lessees and permittees. It is likely that mineral development on split-estate 

PH and GH under this alternative would result in the least disturbance to 

private range management due to the application of conservation measures to 

these areas.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Under this Alternative, impacts on range management would be minimized due 

to the removal of livestock grazing from PH and GH. However, the type of 

impacts described under Alternative A would still occur in non-PH or GH in the 

decision area.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts on range management in PH and GH under this alternative would be 

minimized due to the removal of grazing from PH and GH. However, the type 

of impacts described under Alternative A would still occur in non PH or GH 

areas of the decision area.
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-121

Impacts from ACECs

Under Alternative C, 96,246 acres of the planning area would be designated as 

an ACEC to protect GRSG. Due to the removal of grazing from PH and GH, 

impacts from the ACEC designation would be limited.

4.12.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative D, impacts would be similar to those described under 

Alternative B, but with additional restrictions on upgrades, realignment of roads, 

and requirements for site-specific travel management planning completion 

applied to PH and GH. As a result, disturbance from travel management on 

livestock grazing would be limited.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative B.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative D approximately 240,087 acres would be proposed as a 

ROW avoidance area within areas open to livestock grazing. Impacts would be 

as described in Alternative A, but with increased intensity, due to the larger 

area that is less likely to be developed (see Table 4-18).

Impacts from Range Management

Similar to Alternative A, grazing would be allowed on all lands identified as 

suitable (see Table 4-17).

Within PH, the BLM would conduct land health evaluations and determinations 

that include (at a minimum) indicators and/or measurements of 

structure/condition/composition of vegetation specific to achieving GRSG

habitat objectives. Management actions would be developed if land health 

determinations indicate that an allotment is not meeting standards due to 

current livestock grazing. State objectives would be used for fine-scale analysis 

unless local objectives are developed at the field office level, in partnership with 

MFWP and USFWS. Similar to Alternative B, the BLM would prioritize 

completion of land health assessments in PH. Like Alternative B, management 

under Alternative D would focus forage treatments in PH.

Management objectives would require analysis of grazing systems during the 

grazing authorization renewal process to determine the best treatment for 

maintaining or improving PH. Modifications to grazing systems could be 

required, increasing costs to lessees and permittees. 

Impacts from noxious weed control would be the same as under Alternative B.

Actions to reduce grazing in riparian areas would include fencing and herding 

techniques or seasonal use or livestock distribution changes to meet GRSG
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

4-122 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

habitat objectives. Some grazing within these areas may be allowed at sitespecific locations when consistent with GRSG objectives. However, options for

permittees and lessees would be limited and their costs could be increased 

should additional fences be required.

Overall, impacts would be similar to Alternative B but would vary in site-specific 

implementation.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Acres of existing leases open to grazing would be the same as in Alternative B 

(29,778 acres, 33 percent less than Alternative A; see Table 4-19). RDFs and 

conservation measures applied as COAs to existing leases to limit fluid minerals

impacts would also be similar to those described under Alternative B, but under 

this alternative would have greater flexibility for site-specific modification. As in 

Alternative B, surface disturbing/disruptive activities in PH would avoid or 

minimize disturbance to GRSG or their habitat; therefore, conflicts between 

range management and fluid mineral development would be minimized in this 

area. In addition to the measures included under Alternative B, measures 

limiting placement of utility structures and noise would further reduce 

disturbance of livestock and livestock forge by mineral development as 

compared with Alternative A.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative D, impacts from solid mineral development would be similar 

to those described under Alternative A. Some additional site-specific restriction 

on nonenergy minerals and salable minerals could result in a reduction in 

development where not in the public interest; therefore, impacts on livestock 

grazing from mineral development could be slightly reduced as compared with 

Alternative A.

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

Under Alternative D, as described in Alternative A, there would be no impact 

on BLM lessees and permittees. Conservation measures would be applied when 

federal action (mineral exploration or development) occurs, resulting in some 

potential reduction in disturbance for livestock on lands not administered by the 

BLM.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Under Alternative D, no fuels treatments would be allowed in GRSG winter 

range unless they would benefit GRSG. Rest requirements would vary based on 

site-specific conditions. As a result, some site-specific locations could have 

restrictions on range management due to fire and fuels management.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative D, restoration projects to benefit GRSG habitat 

improvements would be prioritized. Impacts would be similar to that described 

in Alternative B. However, under this alternative, any changes required to 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-123

grazing systems, AUM levels or other changes to range management would be 

determined in consultation with lessees and permittees; therefore, the potential 

for impacts would be reduced.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A.

4.13 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

4.13.1 Methods and Assumptions

Direct impacts on ACECs are considered to be those that either impair or 

enhance the relevant and important values for which the ACEC was proposed 

for designation. This analysis focuses on the impacts on relevant and important 

values from the special management derived from ACEC designation or, under 

Alternatives A, B and D, where a GRSG ACEC is not proposed for designation, 

the management actions and allocations for other resources and resource uses. 

In this case, the relevant and important values considered are the unique pine 

forest and shale landscape of the existing Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC (which 

would continue to be managed as an ACEC under all alternatives) and GRSG

habitat in the proposed GRSG ACEC (Alternative C). All impacts discussed are 

direct impacts, though some may not occur immediately after implementation of 

management actions.

Indicators

Table 4-20, Comparison of ACEC Indicators by Alternative, provides a 

summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the effects to ACECs 

under each alternative.

Table 4-20

Comparison of ACEC Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

Changes in the size or 

location of ACEC boundaries 

No change No change New GRSG ACEC

results in net increase 

of 96,246 acres

No change

Specific management 

provisions designed to 

protect the relevant and 

important values for which 

the ACEC was designated 

No change No change Manage 96,246 acres 

of new GRSG ACEC

as ROW exclusion

area

No change

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• Permitted activities would not be allowed to impair the relevant and 

important values for which the ACEC(s) are designated. The 
4. Environmental Consequences (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern)

4-124 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

exception is locatable minerals; until withdrawn from mineral entry, 

a mining claim can be filed, and subsequent mining activities could 

have an impact. However, measures would have to be identified in a 

Plan of Operations to mitigate unnecessary and undue degradation.

4.13.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Special status species management objectives would prevent degradation of, and 

could improve, relevant and important values where a GRSG ACEC is 

designated to protect such values. BLM management could protect the relevant 

and important values in the GRSG ACEC independent of an ACEC designation. 

Refer to Section 4.2 for a discussion of impacts on GRSG habitat.

In general, management actions that protects resources—such as surfacedisturbance restrictions, management for desired habitats, travel restrictions 

and closures, livestock grazing, and recreation restrictions—would help maintain 

and improve the important and relevant values within ACECs. Management 

actions that create the potential for resource degradation—such as mineral 

development, livestock grazing, and infrastructure development—could impact 

the relevant and important values for which an ACEC is designated. Recreation 

and travel within ACECs could impact ACEC values. Limiting motorized travel

to existing routes and trails would reduce surface disturbance and the potential 

for related GRSG habitat loss. Dispersed recreation activities in the planning 

area affect the unique soils found within the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC. 

Management approaches that direct recreation to specific areas could result in 

more predictable and manageable impacts.

Identifying ACECs as ROW exclusion or avoidance areas would protect 

relevant and important values by reducing (for avoidance areas) or eliminating 

(for exclusion areas) impacts from development requiring a land use 

authorization, including utilities, access roads, and renewable energy projects. 

Impacts from such development on GRSG habitat include compaction, erosion, 

and potentially habitat fragmentation. Impacts from development on the Acid 

Shale-Pine Forest ACEC include soil compaction and erosion and removal or 

disruption of the ACEC’s unique plant community, which includes slow growing 

ponderosa pine trees. Due to the area’s severely erodible soils and lack of 

understory vegetation, development would impact ACEC values beyond the 

footprint of the grant.

Energy and mineral development could impact ACEC values by increasing soil 

erosion potential and through the removal or disruption of unique ponderosa 

pine trees. Where GRSG habitat exists, energy and mineral development could 

degrade and fragment habitat. Construction, operation, and maintenance 

activities could disturb GRSG populations. Closing ACECs to fluid minerals

leasing would help protect relevant and important values by eliminating surfacedisturbance associated with such development.
4. Environmental Consequences (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-125

Depending on their extent, location, and severity, wildfires could cause shortand long-term damage to ACEC values, particularly by removal of critical 

sagebrush habitats. ES&R techniques would be applied to minimize impacts 

where special values are at risk. If these techniques are successful, wildfires 

could also cause long-term improvement in ACEC values by maintaining natural 

vegetative ecosystem cycles.

Livestock grazing could impact ACEC values by increasing soil erosion potential 

and reducing understory plant species. Closing ACECs to livestock grazing

would help protect relevant and important values by eliminating soil and 

vegetation disturbance associated with grazing, but could also increase the risk 

for fire due to increased fuel loads.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on ACECs and are therefore not discussed in detail: solid minerals, 

mineral split estate, fire and fuels management, and habitat restoration and 

vegetation management.

4.13.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Alternative C is the only alternative under which the BLM proposes a new 

ACEC. As such, analysis of impacts common to all alternatives focuses on the 

relevant and important values of the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC, and impacts 

on these values from the special management derived from ACEC designation.

Impacts from Range Management

Under all alternatives, the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC would continue to be 

open to grazing. Impacts on the ACEC would be consistent with those 

described in Nature and Type of Effects, including soil erosion potential and 

reducing understory plant species.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under all alternatives, the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC would continue to be 

closed to fluid mineral leasing and development and would therefore be 

protected from the impacts, such as soil erosion and the removal or disruption 

of unique ponderosa pines. Where GRSG habitat exists, energy and mineral 

development could degrade associated with oil and gas development, as 

described under Nature and Types of Effects.

4.13.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative A, the BLM would continue to limit motorized travel to 

existing routes and trails within the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC. The types of 

impacts are the same as those described under Nature and Types of Effects, 

including limiting surface disturbance.
4. Environmental Consequences (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern)

4-126 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts from recreation on the relevant and important values for which the 

Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC was established would be the same as those 

described under Nature and Types of Effects. Dispersed recreation could affect 

soils within the ACEC.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

The Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC would continue to be managed as a ROW

avoidance area; impacts from ROW development, including soil compaction and 

erosion, and removal or disruption of the ACEC’s unique plant community, are 

described under Nature and Types of Effects.

Impacts from ACECs

Table 4-21, ACECs by Alternative, provides a comparison of ACEC acreages 

by alternative. Under Alternative A, the BLM would continue to manage the 

Acid Shale-Pine Forest as the only ACEC within GRSG habitat in the planning 

area. The Square Butte ACEC, Judith Mountains Scenic Area ACEC, and Collar 

Gulch ACEC are also located in the planning area, but are located outside 

GRSG habitat. Management activity to protect GRSG would not affect the 

relevant and important values for which the ACECs were established or the 

BLM management prescriptions for these ACECs. The BLM would continue to 

manage lands and PH in accordance with existing management policies.

Table 4-21

ACECs by Alternative

ACEC Alternative

A B C D

Acid Shale Pine Forest (acres) 2,463 2,463 2,463 2,463

GRSG ACEC (acres) 0 0 96,246 0

4.13.5 Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the BLM would continue to manage the Acid Shale-Pine 

Forest as the only ACEC in the planning area. The BLM would implement new 

management strategies to protect PH but without establishing an ACEC. Refer 

to Section 4.2 for a discussion of impacts on GRSG habitat.

4.13.6 Alternative C

Under Alternative C, in addition to the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC, the BLM 

would manage a new GRSG ACEC. As a result, the total ACEC acreage in the 

planning area would increase by 96,246 acres. BLM management for the Acid 

Shale-Pine Forest (2,463 acres) would continue to be tailored to protect the 

relevant and important values for which the ACEC was originally designated.

Management actions in the new GRSG ACEC would be the same as those 

actions proposed for GRSG habitat outside the ACEC, including ROW
4. Environmental Consequences (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-127

exclusion areas, closures to mineral entry, and livestock grazing limitations. 

Designation of the GRSG ACEC boundary would bring heightened management 

attention and public awareness to GRSG habitat, and would further the 

management objective of helping to maintain and improve the important and 

relevant values within ACECs.

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

The BLM would evaluate the need for permanent or seasonal road closures and 

would avoid new construction within ACECs. If the BLM determines there is a 

need to close certain routes, then those closures would benefit the values for 

which the ACECs would be designated. Effects on ACECs under Alternative C 

would be the same as those described under Alternative B, except that 

Alternative C would include additional road closures within four miles of active 

GRSG leks.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts from recreation to the relevant and important values for which the 

Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC was established would be the same as those 

described under Nature and Types of Effects.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative C, the Acid Shale-Pine Forest would continue to be managed 

as an ACEC, with the addition of the GRSG ACEC (96,246 acres), which would 

bring added restrictions to lands and realty actions to protect GRSG habitat to 

minimize surface-disturbing activities. The types of impacts are the same as 

those described under Nature and Types of Effects.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

In addition to the impacts described in Impacts Common to All Alternatives, under 

Alternative C, the BLM would also pursue options to buy out existing fluid 

minerals leases. Management to reduce fluid mineral development would also 

protect the new GRSG ACEC from the impacts associated with fluid minerals 

exploration, development, and production, described under Nature and Types of 

Effects.

Impacts from ACECs

The designation and management of the GRSG ACEC would be used as a way 

to protect GRSG habitat. Management prescriptions to protect habitat under 

this ACEC would be similar to protective prescriptions under Alternatives B 

and D but would have the added ACEC administrative boundary designation.

ACEC designation could heighten awareness of the resource and help prioritize 

BLM management. Acquisition of lands within a designated ACEC could help 

protect relevant and important values by bringing additional acres under BLM 

control and managing those acres according to special protection of GRSG

habitats.
4. Environmental Consequences (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern)

4-128 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

4.13.7 Alternative D

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B. 

4.14 AIR RESOURCES

4.14.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Table 4-22, Comparison of Air Resource Indicators by Alternative, provides a 

summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the effects on air 

resources under each alternative.

Table 4-22

Comparison of Air Resource Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

A substantial change in the 

likelihood or severity of 

wildland fire/management 

actions that substantially inhibit 

a response to or appropriate 

treatments to prevent fire

Fires more 

likely to occur

/no change

Fires less likely 

to occur /no 

change

Fires more 

likely to occur 

because, by 

removing 

grazing, fine 

fuels would 

increase

Fires more 

likely to 

occur/no 

change

Acres closed to new road 

construction

0 0 274,435 0

Acres closed to salable mineral 

disposal

2,538 279,097 453,969 2,538

Acres closed to nonenergy

leasing and salable mineral 

disposal

2,538 279,097 453,969 2,538

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• Air resource impacts can be localized or regional.

• Weather-related events and wildfires may cause or contribute to 

local or regional air resource impacts.

4.14.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Actions that reduce emissions of air pollutants improve air resources. Actions 

that initiate or increase emissions of air pollutants can degrade air resources, 

including increased concentrations of air pollutants, decreased visibility, 

increased atmospheric nitrogen and sulfur deposition on soils and vegetation, 

and acidification of sensitive water bodies.
4. Environmental Consequences (Air Resources)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-129

Emissions of hazardous air pollutants could potentially result in localized 

increased risk of impacts on human health. Criteria and hazardous air pollutants 

can negatively impact human health in a variety of ways. Exposure to air 

pollution most often affects the respiratory system, and is often also associated 

with pulmonary, cardiac, vascular, and neurological impairments (EPA 2010b). 

Children and other high-risk groups, such as the elderly, pregnant women, and 

individuals with chronic heart and lung diseases, are especially susceptible to 

impacts from air pollution (EPA 2010b).

Actions that increase emissions of air pollutants can result in negative effects on 

air quality related values, including visibility and atmospheric deposition. An 

increase in SO2, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions can result in decreased 

visibility, increased atmospheric nitrogen and sulfur deposition on soils and 

vegetation, and acidification of sensitive water bodies. Fugitive dust could 

potentially result in increases in ambient concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5

resulting in localized impacts on vegetation and increases in atmospheric 

deposition. Particulate matter also contributes to haze and limits visibility (EPA 

2012g). Ozone, which is formed by a chemical reaction between volatile organic 

compounds and nitrogen oxides, contributes to smog, which limits visibility 

(EPA 2012h).

Particulate matter emissions (fugitive dust) are primarily caused by earth-moving 

activities and vehicular traffic on unpaved roads and surfaces associated with 

development and operation.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on air resources and are therefore not discussed in detail: travel and 

transportation management (except for Alternative C), recreation, lands and 

realty, range management, fluid minerals, mineral split estate, habitat restoration 

and vegetation management, and ACECs.

4.14.3 Alternative A

Air resource impacts under Alternative A would be identical to impacts 

associated with current management as described above in Nature and Type of 

Effects. No changes to criteria air pollutant or hazardous air pollutant emissions 

would occur.

4.14.4 Alternative B

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fires, particularly uncontrolled fires, can significantly affect air quality by 

introducing large amounts of particulate, CO, atmospheric mercury, ozone

precursors, and volatile organic compounds into the air, affecting both visibility 

and human health (BC Air Quality 2013). Controlling fuel load through 

prescribed burns and vegetation treatments can reduce the risk of uncontrolled 

wildfire and resultant effects on air resources (Wiedinmyer and Hurteau 2010).
4. Environmental Consequences (Air Resources)

4-130 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Management under Alternative B would generally restrict prescribed burning 

within PH; however, fires would be less likely to occur compared with 

Alternative A because management actions would decrease the risk of humancaused ignitions and increase the level of fire suppression in PH. Management 

actions that would decrease human risk of fire include limiting route 

construction in PH, emphasizing nonmotorized recreation, and closing areas to 

mineral development. Because wildfires would be less likely to occur, there 

would be fewer fire-related impacts on air resources.

Habitat reconstruction or vegetation treatments used in fire and fuels 

management would cause negligible increases in exhaust and fugitive dust.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative B, 279,097 acres would be closed to salable material disposal 

and nonenergy solid mineral leasing. Development of these mineral resources 

results in short-term and long-term emissions of criteria and hazardous air 

pollutants during fuel combustion in vehicles and construction equipment; it also 

produces particulate emissions from surface disturbance. Closing areas with 

solid mineral potential to development would have the potential to result in 

fewer impacts on air resources, due to decreased emissions that would 

otherwise be associated with development of these mineral resources.

4.14.5 Alternative C

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts on air resources from fire and fuels management would be the same as 

described under Alternative B, except restrictions would be applied to PH and 

GH.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative C, 453,969 acres would be closed to salable material disposal 

and nonenergy solid mineral leasing. As described under Alternative B, closing 

areas with solid mineral potential to development would have the potential to 

result in fewer impacts on air resources, due to decreased emissions that would 

otherwise be associated with development of these mineral resources.

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative C, the BLM would close 274,435 acres of the planning area to 

new road construction compared with Alternative A. Road construction has 

short-term effects associated with construction of the roads, including fugitive 

dust emissions from surface disturbance and exhaust emissions associated with 

road construction equipment, worker vehicles, and material deliveries, and longterm effects associated with road use and maintenance. Prohibiting new road 

construction would likely result in fewer impacts on air resources, due to 

decreased emissions associated with road construction and use.
4. Environmental Consequences (Air Resources)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-131

4.14.6 Alternative D

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts on air resources from fire and fuels management would be similar to 

those described under Alternative B in that restrictions may decrease the risk of 

fire from human-caused resource use. Under Alternative D, emphasis would be 

placed on tailoring management objectives to local site conditions and 

monitoring sites to ensure fuels treatments are helping to meet objectives; 

therefore, habitat may be further improved in the long term, which may reduce 

the risk of significant wildfires.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative D, no new areas would be closed to salable material disposal 

and nonenergy solid mineral leasing. Impacts on air resources would be the 

same as those under Alternative A.

4.15 CLIMATE

4.15.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Table 4-23, Comparison of Climate Change Indicators by Alternative, provides 

a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the effects related to

climate change under each alternative.

Table 4-23

Comparison of Climate Change Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

A substantial change in the 

likelihood or severity of wildland 

fire / management actions that 

substantially inhibit a response to 

or appropriate treatments to 

prevent fire

Fires more 

likely to occur

/no change

Fires less likely 

to occur /no 

change

Fires are more 

likely because 

removing 

grazing would

increase fine 

fuels

Fires more 

likely to 

occur/no 

change

Acres closed to new road 

construction

0 0 274,435 0

Acres closed to salable mineral 

disposal

2,538 279,097 453,969 2,538

Acre s closed to nonenergy

leasing and salable mineral 

disposal

2,538 279,097 453,969 2,538

Assumption

The analysis assumes that there is a correlation between global concentrations

of GHGs and climate change.
4. Environmental Consequences (Climate)

4-132 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

4.15.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Management actions that could affect climate change would include actions that 

increase GHG emissions, actions that reduce GHG emissions, actions that 

create carbon sinks, and actions that eliminate or damage carbon sinks.

While GHG emissions or GHG sequestration may result from many of the 

proposed management actions, these changes would be quite small relative to 

annual state, national, or global GHG emissions. For reference, the amount of 

total gross emissions in Montana in 2005 was 36.8 million metric tons of carbon 

dioxide equivalents (MTDEQ 2007). Relative to state and national GHG 

emissions, emission changes due to management actions associated with this 

RMPA would be negligible. 

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on climate and are therefore not discussed in detail: travel and 

transportation management (except for Alternative C), recreation, lands and 

realty, range management, fluid minerals, mineral split estate, habitat restoration 

and vegetation management, and ACECs.

4.15.3 Alternative A

Climate impacts under Alternative A would be identical to impacts resulting 

from current management as described above in Nature and Type of Effects. No 

changes to GHG emissions would occur.

4.15.4 Alternative B

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fires, particularly uncontrolled fires, can emit large quantities of GHGs into the 

atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide (EPA 2012f, 

page 7-21 to 7-22); fires also remove vegetation that acts as a carbon sink. 

Controlling fuel load through prescribed burns and vegetation treatments could

reduce the risk of uncontrolled wildfire and resultant releases of GHG 

emissions (Wiedinmyer and Hurteau 2010).

Management under Alternative B would generally restrict prescribed burning 

within PH; however, fires would be less likely to occur compared with 

Alternative A because management actions would decrease the risk of humancaused ignitions and increase the level of fire suppression in PH. Because 

wildfires would be less likely to occur compared with Alternative A, there 

would be lower GHG emissions and smaller contributions to climate change 

than under Alternative A.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative B, 279,097 acres would be closed to salable material disposal 

and nonenergy solid mineral leasing. Development of these mineral resources 

results in short-term and long-term emissions of GHG pollutants during fuel 

combustion in vehicles and construction equipment; it also removes vegetation 
4. Environmental Consequences (Climate)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-133

and releases sequestered carbon. Closing areas with solid mineral potential 

would likely result in fewer GHG emissions in the planning area.

4.15.5 Alternative C

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts from fire and fuels management would be the same as described under

Alternative B, except restrictions on both resource use and fuels treatment 

options would be applied to PH and GH.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative C, 453,969 acres would be closed to salable material disposal 

and nonenergy solid mineral leasing. As described under Alternative B, closing 

areas with solid mineral potential would likely result in fewer GHG emissions, 

and fewer contributions towards climate change.

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative C, the BLM would close 274,435 acres of the planning area to 

new road construction compared with Alternative A. Road construction and 

use emits GHGs through the combustion of fuel in vehicles and construction 

equipment. Prohibiting new road construction could reduce GHG emissions 

associated with road construction and use.

4.15.6 Alternative D

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts from fire and fuels management would be similar to those described 

under Alternative B in that restrictions may decrease the risk of fire from 

human-caused resource use and associated GHG emissions. Under Alternative 

D, emphasis would be placed on tailoring management objectives to local site 

conditions and monitoring sites to ensure fuels treatments are helping to meet 

objectives; therefore, habitat may be further improved in the long term, which 

may reduce the risk of significant wildfires. This would have the potential to 

result in fewer emissions of GHGs and fewer contributions towards climate 

change, as well as improve carbon sequestration in vegetation.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative D, no new areas would be closed to salable material disposal 

and nonenergy solid mineral leasing. Impacts on climate change from solid 

minerals would the same as under Alternative A.
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

4-134 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

4.16 SOIL RESOURCES

4.16.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Table 4-24, Comparison of Soil Resources Indicators by Alternative, provides a 

summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the effects to soils 

resources under each alternative.

Table 4-24

Comparison of Soil Resources Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

Acres managed as ROW

avoidance areas

9,708 112,341 0 233,219

Acres managed as ROW exclusion

areas

0 233,219 345,560 0

Acres found unsuitable for surface 

coal leasing

0 385,693 639,927 0

Acres closed to nonenergy leasing 

and salable mineral disposal

0 279,097 453,969 0

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• Soils of the BLM-administered lands would be managed to maintain 

productivity and promote sustained yields while keeping erosion at 

minimal/acceptable levels and preventing physical or chemical 

degradation.

• Proposed surface-disturbing projects would be analyzed to 

determine suitability of soils to support or sustain such projects and 

designed to minimize soil loss.

• Prime Farmlands would be protected from unnecessary and 

irreversible conversion to nonagricultural uses through 

identification as such and special attention during construction and

reclamation.

• Achieving or maintaining Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management generally are effective 

in managing the effects on soils from livestock grazing. Adjustments 

to grazing authorizations would be made on a case-by-case basis 

when site-specific studies indicate changes in management are 

needed.

• BLM management actions and objectives would be consistent with 

soil resource capabilities.
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-135

• Fuels projects, as well as planned and un-planned fire, that 

contribute towards establishment of a more "natural" fire regime 

would have long-term benefits on soil health.

• Restoration would effectively mitigate long-term surface-disturbing 

effects.

• Surface-disturbing actions related to fluid mineral development 

would comply with Onshore Oil and Gas Orders and Gold Book 

surface operating standards and guidelines (and subsequent 

updates). These orders and standards and guidelines would mitigate 

most effects.

4.16.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Activities that disturb, compact, contaminate, mix soil horizons, or remove 

vegetation from soils are generally considered to negatively affect soil health. 

Impacts on soil resources can result from a number of causes, including 

improper livestock grazing, recreation, mineral resource activities, renewable 

energy development, and road construction. The intensity and extent of impacts 

on soil resources are determined in part by the type and location of the surfacedisturbing activities and surface occupancy. Impacts on soil resources can also 

be affected by any applicable stipulations and Plan of Operations that address 

site-specific environmental concerns and require mitigation to stabilize soil, to 

prevent unnecessary erosion, and to revegetate disturbed surfaces. 

Direct and indirect impacts from resource programs to soil resources are 

generally mitigated by avoiding or minimizing the impact using designations such 

as ROW exclusion and avoidance areas, and stipulations such as NSO. Impacts 

that cannot be avoided are generally minimized by the application of COAs, 

BMPs, and standard operating procedures.

Mixing of soil horizons is another concern with surface-disturbing actions, as is 

loss of the “A” horizon (i.e., top layer of the soil horizon or the topsoil) through

erosional forces (e.g., wind, water). Mixing of topsoil and subsoil and loss of the 

“A” horizon remove surface cover for erosion control and organic matter 

inputs for nutrient recycling. The result is decreased soil productivity in the long 

term, inhibiting revegetation, decreasing soil reclamation potential, and 

increasing susceptibility for noxious and invasive species.

Surface-disturbing activities and surface occupancy can impact soil resources by 

compacting soil. In some cases, soil compaction aids in plant establishment and 

growth. However, too much compaction decreases water infiltration rates and 

gas exchange rates. Decreased gas exchange rates can cause aeration problems, 

induce nitrogen and potassium deficiency, and negatively impact root 

development, which is a key component of soil stabilization. As soil compaction 

increases, the soil’s ability to support vegetation diminishes because the 

resulting increase in soil strength and change in soil structure (loss of porosity) 

inhibit root system growth and reduce water infiltration. As vegetative cover, 
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

4-136 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

water infiltration, and soil stabilizing crusts are diminished or disrupted, the 

surface water runoff rates increase, further accelerating rates of soil erosion.

Poor soil health generally limits the ability of an area to support vegetation, 

particularly native vegetation such as sagebrush. Any impacts that adversely 

affect soil health would also adversely affect sagebrush.

Travel across land by foot, bicycle, horse or OHV results in vegetation loss, soil 

compaction, and soil erosion. Management approaches that designate travel to 

specified routes can result in more predictable, localized and manageable 

impacts. Selectively locating travel routes away from areas of sensitive soil 

conditions can minimize the extent of these effects, ideally limiting them to the

footprint of the trail.

Most recreation on BLM-administered lands results in vegetation loss, soil 

compaction, and soil erosion. Management approaches that direct recreation to 

specific areas and avoid dispersed recreation can result in more predictable, 

localized and manageable impacts.

Lands and realty management decisions affect where ground disturbing activities 

can and cannot occur. Ground disturbing activities could result in the 

compaction of soils, the erosion of soils, or vegetation loss which reduces soil 

stability. ROW exclusion and ROW avoidance areas protect certain areas from 

compaction and erosion.

Fluid mineral development generally requires temporary roads, wells, and 

associated well pads. Local soil health and characteristics within project 

footprints are typically impacted by compaction and clearing of vegetation. 

Restoration and revegetation efforts can restore soil health over the long term 

once mineral extraction activities are complete.

Solid mineral development generally requires roads and large areas of soil 

excavation. Local soil health and characteristics within project footprints are 

typically impacted by excavation, compaction, erosion, and vegetation clearing 

Restoration and revegetation efforts can restore soil health over the long term 

once mineral extraction activities are complete, but landscapes are often 

scarred and areas of prior soil cover are often permanent altered through open 

pits, mineshafts, and other features.

Grazing is known to alter vegetation and biological soil crust communities. 

Livestock grazing can have adverse impacts on soils, particularly in the case of

high-intensity, low-duration, grazing systems in small pastures. Modified grazing 

management can be necessary to maintain soil health where soils are found to 

be sensitive to livestock disturbances (for example, soil on steep slopes and 

fragile soils). Properly managed grazing can protect soils and help provide 

healthy plant communities.
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-137

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on soil resources and are therefore not discussed in detail: fire and 

fuels management, and ACECs.

4.16.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under all alternatives habitat restoration would occur and would be 

implemented based on environmental variables that indicate areas most likely to 

succeed in restoration. Restoring habitat generally has a beneficial effect on 

soils, and soils that currently have a high restoration potential value would tend 

to support restorative vegetation easier due to proper soil conditions, such as 

low salt content, adequate water retention, and available rooting depth.

Table 4-25, Quantitative Impact Summary by Alternative for Soils, provides a 

comparison of the quantifiable impacts of each alternative to soils.

Table 4-25

Quantitative Impact Summary by Alternative for Soils

Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

ROW exclusion area

(acres)

0 233,219 345,560 0

ROW avoidance area

(acres)

9,708 112,341 0 233,219

Closed to livestock 

grazing (acres)

0 0 337,165 0

Unsuitable for surface 

coal mining (acres)

0 385,693 693,927 0

Closed to salable 

minerals (acres)

2,538 279,097 453,969 2,538

Closed to nonenergy

leasing (acres)

0 279,097 453,969 0

4.16.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Direct impacts on soils from travel and transportation management are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative A, 

motorized cross country travel would be restricted to existing roads and trails 

throughout the project area on BLM-administered lands, which would reduce 

new soil disturbances and localize further disturbance to existing travel routes.

Impacts from Recreation

Direct impacts on soils, including vegetation loss, soil compaction, and soil 

erosion, from recreation is discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. 

Under Alternative A, SRPs would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis 
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

4-138 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

throughout the project area. Management approaches that direct recreation to 

specific areas and avoid dispersing recreation could result in more predictable, 

localized, and manageable impacts. This would result in less vegetation loss, soil 

compaction, and soil erosion from recreation.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Direct impacts on soils from ground-disturbing activities related to ROW

development are discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. As shown in

Table 4-25, Alternative A has two ROW avoidance areas and no ROW 

exclusion areas. The ROW avoidance areas make up 9,708 acres and are 

associated with the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC and Judith River Canyon.

Surface-disturbing activities related to ROW development would be restricted

in the ROW areas, limiting impacts on soil resources.

Impacts from Range Management

Direct impacts on soils from range management are discussed above under 

Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative A, livestock grazing would 

continue to be managed through the development and monitoring of AMPs 

which use guidelines to maintain or enhance ecological condition, enhance 

vegetation production, maintain and enhance wildlife habitat, protect 

watersheds, and reduce bare ground by introducing soil stabilizing vegetation 

cover that is applicable to the soil subgroup type. Achieving or maintaining 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management generally are effective in managing the effects on soils from 

livestock grazing. Grazing would continue to alter vegetation and biological soil 

crust communities.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Direct impacts, such as erosion and compaction, to soils from fluid minerals

development are discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Alternative A 

does not prohibit surface occupancy on existing federal leases within the 

decision area and therefore does not protect any portions of the decision area 

from the expected associated impacts on soils. Local soil health and 

characteristics within project footprints would be impacted by compaction and 

vegetation clearing.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Direct impacts, such as erosion and compaction, to soils from solid minerals 

management are discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Under 

Alternative A, 2,538 acres would be closed to salable mineral disposal (see

Table 4-25). Management under Alternative A would allow for coal

exploration and does not identify any portions of the decision area as unsuitable 

or unacceptable for surface mining of coal, and does not provide for 

withdrawing any lands from mineral entry. Alternative A therefore does not 

protect most of the planning area from impacts on soils associated with solid 

mineral extraction.
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-139

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

Direct impacts on soils from mineral split estate are the same as those

discussed above for fluid and solid minerals under Nature and Type of Effects. 

Under Alternative A, lands where the BLM manages the subsurface mineral 

estate but not the surface would be administered and managed in each phase of 

mineral extraction to ensure that undue degradation to soil resources does not 

occur and that final restoration of the landscape is satisfactory to the surface 

landowner. Management actions would reduce the total surface disturbance and 

protect soils from unnecessary compaction, erosion, and vegetation loss.

4.16.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Direct impacts on soils from travel and transportation management are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under Alternative 

B would provide for protection measures on PH, which would provide for 

fewer and more localized disturbances to soils. In PH, motorized travel would 

be limited to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails and construction of new 

routes would be limited to specified needs. Construction of new routes or the 

upgrade of current routes would be limited to the realignment of existing 

designated routes if the realignment would eliminate the need for the 

construction of a new road, is necessary for motorist safety, or would have a 

minimal impact on GRSG habitat. The construction of new roads for access to 

valid existing rights would be limited to a cumulative total disturbance of less 

than three percent of the PH area, and restricted to the minimal road standard 

necessary. This would reduce overall soil disturbance from construction. Travel 

management would provide for the evaluation of roads and areas for permanent 

or seasonal closures, and for the restoration of travel routes using appropriate 

seed mixes, and possibly transplanted sagebrush. These actions would allow 

soils to return, over time and through the re-establishment of vegetation, to a 

more natural state and would reduce site-specific erosion.

Impacts from Recreation

Direct impacts on soils from recreation are discussed above under Nature and 

Type of Effects. Under Alternative B, SRPs in PH would only be approved when 

recreation would have a neutral or beneficial effect on PH. Such restriction on 

recreation could reduce impacts on soils from compaction, erosion, and 

vegetation loss.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Direct impacts on soils from lands and realty management are discussed above 

under Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative B, the BLM would manage

PH as ROW exclusion areas for new land use authorizations, and GH as ROW 

avoidance areas for new land use authorizations. These actions protect a larger 

portion of the decision area from surface disturbing activities and therefore 

would be more protective of soil resources from vegetation loss, soil 
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

4-140 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

compaction, and soil erosion than Alternative A, which does not provide for 

exclusion areas or as much acreage of avoidance areas (see Table 4-25).

Impacts from Range Management

Direct impacts on soils from range management are discussed above under 

Nature and Type of Effects. Alternatives B would be similar to Alternative A with 

the addition of GRSG habitat objectives and management considerations 

incorporated into all BLM AMPs within PH. Also, the option of voluntary 

retirement of permitted grazing uses in PH would be available. GRSG habitat 

objectives would manage or restore PH so that at least 70 percent of the land 

cover provides adequate sagebrush habitat to meet GRSG needs, and manage 

anthropogenic disturbances to cover less than three percent of the total GRSG

habitat which would protect soils from disturbances on 70 percent of the land 

cover within PH from surface disturbing activities that could result in soil 

compaction, soil erosion, and vegetation loss.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Direct impacts on soils from fluid minerals development are discussed above 

under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under Alternative B would apply 

RDFs and conservation measures as COAs on existing leases in PH. These 

measures would include surface use restrictions on existing federal leases within 

PH, which would protect portions of the decision area from the soil impacts 

associated with oil and gas exploration, development, and production.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Direct impacts on soils from solid minerals management are discussed above 

under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under Alternative B would find all 

PH unsuitable for surface mining of coal and would allow subsurface mining only 

if associated facilities were located outside of PH. Under Alternative B, the BLM

would also provide for withdrawing areas from mineral entry within PH, and 

closing PH to nonenergy mineral leases and salable mineral disposal. Closure to 

surface disturbing activities reduces the potential for impacts on soil resource 

through compaction, erosion, and contamination. The BLM would also provide 

for restoring salable mineral pits within PH, which would increase soil health 

and stability in those areas. Solid minerals management would be more 

protective of soils resources under Alternative B than under Alternative A, as 

seen in (Table 4-25).

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

Direct impacts on soils from mineral split estate would be the same as those

discussed above for fluid and solid minerals under Nature and Type of Effects. On 

lands where the BLM manages the surface, but not the subsurface mineral 

estate, appropriate fluid mineral RDFs would be applied in PH. This would 

protect a greater amount of soil resources from undue degradation through 

compaction, erosion, and vegetation loss than Alternative A.
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-141

On PH lands where the BLM manages the subsurface split estate, but not the 

surface, the same conservation measures applicable to solid minerals on BLMadministered lands would be applied. This includes closing PH to surface coal

mining, nonenergy mineral leases, and salable mineral disposal, which would 

reduce the potential for soil compaction, erosion and vegetation loss.

4.16.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Direct impacts on soils from travel and transportation management are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under Alternative 

C would provide the same measures as Alternative B in PH and GH, which 

would result in less disturbance to soils than under Alternative A. Management 

under Alternative C would also prohibit the construction of new roads within 

four miles of GRSG leks, would avoid new road construction where possible, 

and would require the mitigation of any impacts on GRSG habitat from the 

construction of new roads or the upgrade of existing roads by using measures 

that have been proven to offset GRSG habitat loss. These additional measures 

would further protect soils from surface-disturbing activities.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts on soil resources from recreation would be the same as under 

Alternative A.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Direct impacts on soils from lands and realty management are discussed above 

under Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative C, the BLM would manage 

PH and GH as ROW exclusion areas for new land use authorizations, which 

would reduce the potential effects of surface-disturbance on soils (see Table 4-

25). This would protect a larger portion of the decision area from surface 

disturbing activities and therefore would be more protective of soil resources 

from vegetation loss, soil compaction, and soil erosion than Alternative A.

Impacts from Range Management

Direct impacts on soils from range management are discussed above under 

Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative C livestock grazing would be 

removed from all allotments within PH and GH, totaling 337,165 acres and 

69,408 AUMs. Management under Alternative C would provide for the 

opportunity for improving PH and GH through striving to attain reference state 

vegetation relative to the ecological site description. The lack of grazing would 

provide the potential for soil health to improve in areas where Rangeland 

Health Standards are not met due to current livestock grazing.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Direct impacts on soils from fluid minerals development are discussed above 

under Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative C, the BLM would apply 

RDFs and conservation measures as COAs on existing leases in GH and PH. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

4-142 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

These measures would include surface use restrictions on existing federal leases 

within PH and GH, which would protect portions of the decision area from the 

soil impacts associated with oil and gas exploration, development, and 

production.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Direct impacts on soils from solid minerals management are discussed above 

under Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative C, the BLM would find both 

GH and PH as unsuitable for surface mining of coal and would allow subsurface 

mining only if associated facilities were located outside of PH and GH. 

Management under Alternative C would also provide for withdrawing areas 

from mineral entry within PH, closing PH to nonenergy mineral leases and 

salable mineral disposal, which would reduce the potential for soil impacts of 

compaction, erosion, and contamination. Management under Alternative C 

would also provide for restoring salable mineral pits within PH, which would 

increase soils health and stability in those areas. Solid minerals management 

would be more protective of soils resources under Alternative C due to more 

land closures than under Alternative A (see Table 4-25).

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

Direct impacts on soils from mineral split estate would be the same as those

discussed above for fluid and solid minerals under Nature and Type of Effects. On 

lands where the BLM manages the surface, but not the subsurface mineral 

estate, appropriate fluid mineral RDFs would be applied in PH and GH. This 

would protect a greater amount of soil resources from undue degradation 

through compaction, erosion, and vegetation loss than Alternative A.

In PH and GH where the BLM manages the subsurface split estate, but not the 

surface, the same conservation measures applicable to solid minerals on BLMadministered lands would be applied. This includes closing PH and GH to 

surface coal mining, nonenergy mineral leases, and salable mineral disposal, 

which would reduce the potential for soil compaction, erosion and vegetation 

loss. 

4.16.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Direct impacts on soils from travel and transportation management are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under Alternative 

D would be more protective of soils than Alternative A and similar to 

Alternative B. Management under Alternative D would result in additional 

closures and reclamation of roads, providing for less future disturbance and 

further mitigation of current disturbances of soils. Management under 

Alternative D would provide for, on a case-by-case basis, the reclamation of 

commercially or administratively used roads upon completion of site-specific 

projects. Roads that were user created and unauthorized would also be subject 
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-143

to closure for further restoration. Within PH, roads may be evaluated for 

permanent or seasonal closures where off-road vehicles may be causing adverse 

effects.

Impacts from Recreation

Direct impacts on soils from recreation are discussed above under Nature and 

Type of Effects. Management under Alternative D would be more protective of 

soils than Alternative A in that SRPs on PH would only occur if the recreation 

would have a neutral or beneficial effect on PH. This could result in less possible 

disturbance to soils and vegetation as these are key habitat features for GRSG. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Direct impacts on soils from lands and realty management are discussed above 

under Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative D, the BLM would manage 

PH as a ROW avoidance area for all land use authorizations (including wind 

energy). GH would also be managed as a ROW avoidance area for wind energy. 

Impacts on soil resources from construction could be reduced due to 

restrictions on development in ROW avoidance areas. Other ROW 

authorizations in GH would be authorized with appropriate mitigation and 

conservation measures, which would reduce the potential for effects of 

construction disturbances to soil resources. Management under Alternative D 

would provide for more protection than Alternative A.

Impacts from Range Management

Direct impacts on soils from range management are discussed above under 

Nature and Type of Effects. Management under Alternative D would be similar to 

Alternative A with the additional incorporation of GRSG habitat objectives into 

all AMPs, and the addition of GRSG management considerations into AMPs of 

allotments on PH. Management under Alternative D would provide for the 

opportunity for improving GH and PH through striving to attain suitable GRSG

seasonal habitats; therefore, soil conditions would improve in these areas.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Direct impacts on soils from fluid minerals development are discussed above 

under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under Alternative D would 

provide greater protection of soil resources by applying conservation measures 

as COAs to existing leases. The conservation measures would be designed to 

reduce surface disturbances associated with mineral extraction, which would 

reduce soil compaction, soil erosion, and vegetation loss.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Direct impacts on soils from solid minerals management are discussed above 

under Nature and Type of Effects. As with Alternative A, management under 

Alternative D would manage 2,437 acres of PH and 101 acres of GH as closed 

to salable mineral disposal. Under Alternative D, the BLM would allow for coal

exploration, does not identify any portions of the decision area as unsuitable or 

unacceptable for surface mining of coal, and does not provide for withdrawing
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

4-144 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

any lands from mineral entry. Alternative D provides for the restoration of 

salable mineral pits on PH which could locally improve soil health.

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

Direct impacts on soils from mineral split estate are the same as those 

discussed above for fluid and solid minerals under Nature and Type of Effects. As 

with Alternative A, Alternative D, would manage lands where the BLM manages 

the subsurface mineral estate, but not the surface, during each phase of mineral 

extraction to ensure that undue degradation does not occur and that final 

restoration is satisfactory to the surface landowner. Management actions would 

reduce the total surface disturbance and protect soils from unnecessary 

compaction, erosion, and vegetation loss.

4.17 WATER RESOURCES

4.17.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Table 4-26, Comparison of Water Resources Indicators by Alternative, 

provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the effects to

water resources under each alternative.

Table 4-26

Comparison of Water Resources Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

Acres managed as ROW

avoidance areas

9,708 112,341 0 233,219

Acres managed as ROW exclusion

areas

0 233,219 345,560 0

Acres found unsuitable for surface 

coal mining

0 385,693 639,927 0

Acres closed to nonenergy leasing 

and salable mineral disposal

0 279,097 453,969 0

Opportunity to restore or 

improve water sources for GRSG

and their habitat through range 

management

No change Increase Variablesee analysisIncrease

Opportunity for elimination of 

mosquito breeding water 

conditions

No change Increase Increase Increase

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-145

• Projects that help restore watersheds, desirable vegetation 

communities, or wildlife habitats (including surface disturbance 

associated with these efforts) would benefit water resources over 

the long term;

• Currently impaired streams would remain impaired; 

• The degree of impact attributed to any one disturbance or series of 

disturbances would be influenced by several factors, including 

proximity to drainages and groundwater wells, location within the 

watershed, time and degree of disturbance, reclamation potential of 

the affected area, vegetation, precipitation, and mitigating actions 

applied to the disturbance; 

• Fuels projects as, well as planned and un-planned fire, that 

contribute towards establishment of a more "natural" fire regime 

would have long-term benefits on water quality; and

• Surface-disturbing actions related to fluid mineral development 

would comply with Gold Book surface operating standards (and 

subsequent updates).

4.17.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Management actions could change the quality and accessibility of water features. 

Streams surrounded by poorly functioning riparian habitat do not have sufficient 

vegetation cover, forb diversity, or insect life to provide quality habitat that 

streams with riparian habitat in PFC could. Streams with poorly functioning 

riparian habitats are also more susceptible to stream bank erosion and cutting,

and poorer water quality due to a reduced ability to filter sediments, dissipate 

stream energy during high flow periods, and develop diverse ponding and 

channel characteristics to provide the habitat, water depth, duration, and 

temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding and other uses.

Management actions could also increase or decrease the ability of water sources 

to serve as mosquito breeding habitat, which could in turn increase or decrease, 

respectively, the risk of West Nile virus transmission to GRSG.

Surface water quality is influenced by both natural and human factors. Surface 

water quality concerns created by natural conditions are hard to control.

Surface water quality impacts can result from a number of causes, including 

transport of eroded soils into streams due to improperly managed livestock 

grazing, introduction of waste matter into streams from domestic livestock, and 

“low-water” crossing points of roads, routes, and ways used by motorized 

vehicles.

Livestock can cause decreases in water quality through the trampling of soils 

and vegetation along and within natural water features. At the same time, water 

supply structures throughout the landscape that have been established for the 
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

4-146 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

benefit of livestock also often provide seasonal foraging habitat (succulent forbs, 

grasses, and associated insects) for wildlife.

Mineral development is generally associated with the risk of impairments to 

local surface waters and groundwater. Mineral development disturbs soils and 

can result in increased erosion and contamination of waterways through runoff. 

Mineral development increases the presence of petroleum-using vehicles and 

equipment on the land, and increases the likelihood of chemical spills that can 

sink into the earth and contaminate groundwater. Mineral development can 

result in pools of standing water that can serve as mosquito breeding habitat, 

increasing the ability for West Nile virus to spread into a landscape otherwise 

not at risk to the pathogen.

Travel across land by foot, bicycle, horse or OHV results in vegetation loss and 

soil compaction, which can then lead to soil erosion and increased in sediment 

flow into waterways. Travel by vehicle also increases the presence of 

petroleum-using vehicles and equipment on the land, which increases the 

likelihood of chemical spills that could contaminate surface waters through 

runoff. Management approaches that designate travel to specified routes can 

result in more predictable, localized and manageable impacts. Selectively locating 

travel routes away from areas where water resources exist can minimize the 

extent of these effects.

Most recreation on BLM-administered lands results in vegetation loss, soil 

compaction, and soil erosion which can impact water resources by increasing 

sediment load and chemical contamination. Management approaches that direct 

recreation to specific areas and avoid dispersed recreation can result in more 

predictable, localized and manageable impacts.

Lands and realty management decisions affect where ground disturbing activities 

can and cannot occur. The use of ROW exclusion and ROW avoidance areas

limit the amount of man-made runoff of soils and chemicals into waterways 

within those areas, and are generally considered to be protective of water 

quality. ROW exclusion and avoidance areas are also seen to reduce the 

likelihood of chemical spills onto the ground, which can then sink into the earth 

and contaminate groundwater.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on water resources and are therefore not discussed in detail: fire and 

fuels management, and ACECs.

4.17.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under all alternatives habitat restoration would occur and would be 

implemented based on environmental variables that indicate areas most likely to 

succeed in restoration and therefore benefit GRSG. Restoring habitat generally 
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-147

has a beneficial effect on water quality through the reduction in runoff and 

sedimentation into surface waters. Restoration would include restoring streams 

to PFC, which would increase water quality by propagating proper channel 

widths, water temperatures, transportation of suspended and bedload 

sediments, and stream bank vegetation.

4.17.4 Alternative A

Table 4-27, Quantitative Impact Summary by Alternative for Water Resources, 

provides a comparison of the quantifiable aspects of each alternative with 

respect to soils.

Table 4-27

Quantitative Impact Summary by Alternative for Water Resources

Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

ROW exclusion 

area (acres)

0 233,219 345,560 0

ROW avoidance 

area (acres)

9,708 112,341 0 233,219

Closed to 

livestock grazing 

(acres)

0 0 337,165 0

Unsuitable for 

surface coal

mining (acres)

0 385,693 693,927 0

Closed to salable 

minerals (acres)

2,538 279,097 453,969 2,538

Closed to 

nonenergy leasing

(acres)

2,538 279,097 453,969 2,538

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Direct impacts on water resources from travel and transportation management 

are discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative A, 

motorized cross country travel would continue to be restricted to existing 

roads and trails throughout the project area on BLM-administered lands, which 

would reduce new soil disturbances and localize further disturbance to existing 

travel routes which would reduce the possibility of additional sediment load or 

chemical contamination into water resources.

Impacts from Recreation

Direct impacts, including vegetation loss, soil compaction, and soil erosion, to

water resources from recreation are discussed above under Nature and Type of 

Effects. Under Alternative A, SRPs would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis 

throughout the project area. Management approaches that direct recreation to 

specific areas and avoid dispersed recreation can result in more predictable, 

localized, and manageable impacts. This would result in less vegetation loss, soil 
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

4-148 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

compaction, and soil erosion from recreation, which could limit sediment load 

into waterways and disturbance to stream banks.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Direct impacts on water resources from ground-disturbing activities related to 

ROW development are discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. 

Alternative A has two ROW avoidance areas and no ROW exclusion areas as 

seen in Table 4-27. The ROW avoidance areas make up 9,708 acres and are 

comprised of the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC and Judith River Canyon.

Surface-disturbing activities related to ROW development would be restricted 

in the ROW areas, limiting impacts on water resources.

Impacts from Range Management

Direct impacts on water resources from range development are discussed 

above under Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative A, stream bank 

riparian habitat would be improved from unsatisfactory to satisfactory 

conditions. BLM would maintain PFC of riparian and wetland areas through 

proper livestock grazing systems and methods. Water sources would be 

developed where needed as indicated by allotment monitoring, and waters that 

are adversely affected by uncontrolled livestock use would be fenced.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Direct impacts, such as impairment of water quality from erosion and chemical 

spills, to water resources from fluid minerals development are discussed above 

under Nature and Type of Effects. It is presumed that water quality has been 

affected in the planning area due to fluid mineral exploration and development. 

It is also presumed that fluid mineral projects have resulted in standing water 

that has provided mosquito breeding habitat and increased the likelihood that 

GRSG could be infected with West Nile virus. Alternative A does not include 

any fluid minerals management actions for the protection of GRSG against West 

Nile virus.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Direct impacts, such as impairment of water quality from erosion and chemical 

spills, to water resources from solid minerals development are discussed above 

under Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative A, 2,538 acres are managed 

as closed to salable mineral disposal (Table 4-27). Alternative A does not 

include any locatable minerals management actions that would protect GRSG

against West Nile virus. Management under Alternative A would allow for coal

exploration and does not identify any portions of the decision area as unsuitable 

or unacceptable for surface mining of coal, and does not provide for the 

withdrawal of lands from mineral entry.

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

Direct impacts on water resources from mineral split estate are the same as 

those discussed above for fluid and solid minerals under Nature and Type of 

Effects. Under Alternative A, lands where the BLM manages the subsurface 
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-149

mineral estate, but not the surface, would be administered and managed in each 

phase of mineral extraction to ensure that undue degradation does not occur 

and that final restoration is satisfactory to the surface landowner. Management 

actions would reduce the possibility of man-made erosion, runoff and chemical 

contamination into surface and ground water features.

4.17.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Direct impacts on water resources from travel and transportation management 

are discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under 

Alternative B would provide for protection measures on PH, which would 

provide for fewer and more localized disturbances to water resources. In PH, 

motorized travel would be limited to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails 

and construction of new routes would be limited to specified needs. 

Construction of new routes or the upgrade of current routes would be limited 

to the realignment of existing designated routes if the realignment would 

eliminate the need for the construction of a new road, is necessary for motorist 

safety, or would have a minimal impact on GRSG habitat. The construction of 

new roads for access to valid existing rights would be limited to a cumulative 

total disturbance of less than three percent of the PH area, and restricted to the 

minimal road standard necessary, which would reduce overall soil disturbance 

from construction resulting in a reduced possibility of runoff into streams and 

springs. Travel management would provide for the evaluation of roads and areas 

for permanent or seasonal closures, and for the restoration of travel routes 

using appropriate seed mixes, and possibly transplanted sagebrush which could 

indirectly influence water quality by stabilizing soils and restoring restricted 

areas a natural state.

Impacts from Recreation

Direct impacts on water resources from recreation are discussed above under 

Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative B, SRPs in PH would only be 

approved when the recreation would have a neutral or beneficial effect on PH 

areas. Such restriction on recreation could reduce impacts on water resources 

from compaction and erosion of soils, and vegetation loss.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Direct impacts on water resources from lands and realty management are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative B, the BLM

would manage PH as ROW exclusion areas and GH as ROW avoidance areas 

for new land use authorizations. These actions protect a larger portion of the 

decision area from surface disturbing activities and therefore would be more 

protective of water resources than Alternative A (see Table 4-27).
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

4-150 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Impacts from Range Management

Direct impacts on water resources from range development are discussed 

above under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under Alternative B would 

provide greater potential for improvement of water quality sources in riparian

areas and wet meadows with PFC than Alternative A. Unlike Alternative A, 

management under Alternative B would provide the opportunity for improving 

PH through new water diversions from springs and seeps. Impacts from 

Alternative B would be of greater benefit than Alternative A through the 

analysis of existing water sources and the implementation of appropriate 

modifications to maintain the continuity of the predevelopment riparian area 

within PH. Management under Alternative B would provide GRSG with greater 

protection against West Nile virus than Alternative A through implementing 

RDFs when developing or modifying water developments in PH.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Direct impacts on water resources from fluid minerals development are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under Alternative 

B would apply conservation measures to PH for fluid mineral leasing. These 

measures would include limitations on surface disturbances in PH, which would 

decrease the chance for the contamination of surface and ground waters, and 

would decrease the likelihood for the creation of new mosquito breeding 

habitat and the risk of infection of GRSG with West Nile virus in these areas.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Direct impacts on water resources from solid minerals development are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative B, the BLM

would find all PH as unsuitable for surface mining of coal and would allow

subsurface mining only if associated facilities were located outside of PH. 

Management under Alternative B would also provide for withdrawing areas 

from mineral entry within PH, and would close PH to nonenergy mineral leases

and salable mineral disposal. This would reduce the chance for the 

contamination of water resources within PH, and would reduce the chance for 

forming mosquito breeding habitat and furthering the potential transmission of 

West Nile virus to GRSG. Overall, management under Alternative B would be 

more protective of GRSG with respect to water quality and West Nile virus 

transmission than Alternative A (see Table 4-27).

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

Direct impacts on water resources from mineral split estate would be the same 

as those discussed above for fluid and solid minerals under Nature and Type of 

Effects. On lands where the BLM manages the surface, but not the subsurface 

mineral estate, appropriate fluid mineral RDFs would be applied in PH. This 

would protect a greater amount of water resources from manmade runoff, 

sedimentation and chemical contamination, and would reduce the chance for 

forming mosquito breeding habitat and furthering transmission of West Nile 

virus to GRSG. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-151

On PH lands where the BLM manages the subsurface split estate, but not the 

surface, the same conservation measures applicable to solid minerals on BLMadministered lands would be applied. This includes closing PH to surface coal

mining, nonenergy mineral leases and salable mineral disposal, which would 

reduce the potential for contamination of water resources within PH and would 

reduce the chance for forming mosquito breeding habitat and furthering the 

potential transmission of West Nile virus to GRSG.

4.17.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Direct impacts on water resources from travel and transportation management 

are discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under 

Alternative C would provide the same measures as Alternative B in PH and GH,

which would result in fewer disturbances to water resources than under 

Alternative A. Under Alternative C, the BLM would also prohibit the 

construction of roads within four miles of GRSG leks, would avoid new road 

construction where possible, and would require the mitigation of any impacts 

on GRSG habitat from the construction of new roads or the upgrade of existing 

roads by using measures that have been proven to offset GRSG loss. These 

additional measures would further protect water resources from surfacedisturbing activities.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts on water resources from recreation activities would be the same as 

under Alternative A.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Direct impacts on water resources from lands and realty management are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Alternative C would manage 

PH and GH as ROW exclusion areas for new land use authorizations (see 

Table 4-27). This would protect a larger portion of the decision area from 

surface disturbing activities and therefore would be more protective of water 

resources than Alternative A.

Impacts from Range Management

Direct impacts on water resources from range development are discussed 

above under Nature and Type of Effects. Alternative C would remove livestock 

grazing from PH and GH totaling 337,165 acres and 69,408 AUMs. This would 

provide the potential for improved soil and vegetative health, and would reduce 

the amount of fecal coliforms being generated on the landscape that could then 

flow into waterways, and would overall move the landscape toward more 

natural conditions that support clean surface waters. Alternative C would 

improve surface water quality over existing conditions as represented by 

Alternative A.
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

4-152 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Alternative C would also provide greater potential for improvement of water 

quality sources than Alternative A by striving to attain reference state 

vegetation relative to ecological site descriptions in riparian areas and wet 

meadows on GH and PH. Compared with Alternative A, Alternative C may limit 

the BLM in its ability to improve water availability through banning the 

authorization of new water developments through diversions from seeps or 

springs in GRSG habitat. Alternative C would provide GRSG with greater 

protection against West Nile virus than Alternative A through implementing 

RDFs when developing or modifying water developments in PH.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Direct impacts on water resources from fluid minerals development are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Alternative C would apply 

conservation measures to both GH and PH areas for fluid mineral leasing. These 

measures would include surface use restrictions on existing federal leases, which 

would decrease the chance for the contamination of surface and ground waters 

and would decrease the likelihood for the creation of new mosquito breeding 

habitat and the risk of infection of GRSG with West Nile virus in these areas.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Direct impacts on water resources from solid minerals development are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Alternative C would find all 

GH and PH as unsuitable for surface mining of coal and would allow subsurface 

mining only if associated facilities were located outside of PH. Alternative C 

would also provide for withdrawing areas from mineral entry within PH, and 

would close both GH and PH to nonenergy mineral leases and salable mineral 

disposal. This would reduce the chance for the contamination of water 

resources within PH and would reduce the chance for forming mosquito 

breeding habitat and furthering the potential transmission of West Nile virus to 

GRSG. Overall, Alternative C would be more protective with respect to water 

quality and West Nile virus transmission than Alternative A (see Table 4-27).

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

Direct impacts on water resources from mineral split estate would be the same 

as those discussed above for fluid and solid minerals under Nature and Type of 

Effects. On lands where the BLM manages the surface, but not the subsurface 

mineral estate, appropriate fluid mineral RDFs would be applied in PH and GH. 

This would protect a greater amount of water resources from manmade runoff, 

sedimentation, and chemical contamination and would reduce the chance for 

forming mosquito breeding habitat and furthering transmission of West Nile 

virus to GRSG.

On PH and GH lands where the BLM manages the subsurface split estate, but 

not the surface, the same conservation measures applicable to solid minerals on 

BLM-administered lands would be applied. This includes closing PH and GH to 

surface coal mining, nonenergy mineral leases, and salable mineral disposal, 
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-153

which would reduce the potential for would reduce the chance for the 

contamination of water resources within PH and GH, and would reduce the 

chance for forming mosquito breeding habitat and furthering the potential 

transmission of West Nile virus to GRSG.

4.17.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Direct impacts on water resources from travel and transportation management 

are discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under 

Alternative D would be more protective of water resources than Alternative A 

and similar to Alternative B. Management under Alternative D would result in 

additional closures and reclamation of roads, providing for less future 

disturbance and further mitigation of current disturbances of water resources. 

Management under Alternative D would provide for, on a case-by-case basis, 

the reclamation of commercially or administratively used roads upon 

completion of site-specific projects. Roads that were user created and 

unauthorized would also be subject to closure for further restoration. Within 

PH, roads may be evaluated for permanent or seasonal closures where off-road 

vehicles may be causing adverse effects.

Impacts from Recreation

Direct impacts on water resources from recreation are discussed above under 

Nature and Type of Effects. Management under Alternative D would be more 

protective of soils than Alternative A in that SRPs on PH would only occur if the 

recreation would have a neutral or beneficial effect on PH areas. This would 

result in less disturbance GRSG habitat which would prevent impacts on water 

resources from runoff and stream bank erosion.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Direct impacts on water resources from lands and realty management are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative D, the BLM 

would manage PH as a ROW avoidance area for all land use authorizations 

(including wind energy). GH would also be managed as a ROW avoidance area 

for wind energy (see Table 4-27). Impacts on water resources from 

construction could be reduced by restricting development in ROW avoidance 

areas. Other ROW authorizations in GH would be authorized with appropriate 

mitigation and conservation measures, which would reduce the potential for 

effects of construction on water resources. Management under Alternative D 

would provide for more protection than Alternative A.

Impacts from Range Management

Direct impacts on water resources from range development are discussed 

above under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under Alternative D would 

provide similar potential for improvement of water quality as Alternative A.

Riparian-wetland habitats would be managed for PFC and the desired plant 
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

4-154 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

community, thereby mitigating many nonpoint source pollutants. Unlike 

Alternative A, management under Alternative D would provide the opportunity 

for improving PH through new water diversions from springs and seeps. 

Management under Alternative D would provide GRSG with greater protection 

against West Nile virus than Alternative A through implementing RDFs when 

developing or modifying water developments in PH.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Direct impacts on water resources from fluid minerals development are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Similar to Alternative B, 

conservation measures would be applied to provide greater protection of GRSG

from West Nile virus than Alternative A through managing water developments 

to reduce the spread of the virus within GRSG habitat areas, and through 

minimizing or avoiding surface disturbance.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Direct impacts on water resources from solid minerals development are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under Alternative 

D, as with Alternative A, would manage 101 acres of PH and 2,437 acres of GH

as closed to salable mineral disposal. Management under Alternative D does not 

include any locatable minerals management actions that would protect GRSG

against West Nile virus (see Table 4-27). Management under Alternative D 

would allow for coal exploration and does not identify any portions of the 

decision area as unsuitable or unacceptable for surface mining of coal, and does 

not provide for the withdrawal of lands from mineral entry.

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

Direct impacts on water resources from mineral split estate would be the same 

as those discussed above for fluid and solid minerals under Nature and Type of 

Effects. As with Alternative A, Alternative D, would manage lands where the 

BLM manages the subsurface mineral estate but not the surface each phase of 

mineral extraction to ensure that undue degradation does not occur and that 

final restoration would be satisfactory to the surface landowner. Management 

actions would reduce the total surface disturbance and protect soils from 

unnecessary compaction, erosion, and vegetation loss which would protect 

surface waters from additional runoff and sedimentation, as well as chemicals 

from mineral extraction.

4.18 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES – OTHER SPECIES OF ISSUE

4.18.1 Methods and Assumptions

Although data on known locations and habitats within the planning area are 

available, the data are neither complete nor comprehensive concerning all 

special status species known to occur nor potential habitat that might exist. 

Known and potential special status species and habitat locations were 

considered in the analysis; however, the potential for species to occur outside 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-155

of these areas was also considered and, as a result, some impacts are discussed 

in more general terms. See Section 4.2 for a discussion of impacts on GRSG.

Indicators

Table 4-28, Comparison of Special Status Species-Other Species of Issue 

Indicators by Alternative, provides a summary of the indicators that were used 

to analyze the effects on special status species under each alternative.

Table 4-28

Comparison of Special Status Species-Other Species of Issue Indicators by 

Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

ROW exclusion areas (acres) 0 233,219 345,560 0

ROW avoidance areas (acres) 9,708 112,341 0 233,219

Acres closed to livestock grazing 0 0 337,165 0

Available AUMs 69,408 69,408 0 69,408

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• The travel and transportation management analysis of impacts on 

special status species has an assumed road width of 10 feet. This 

width is an overestimate for two track roads and an underestimate 

for two-lane roads. Additionally, the existing route data are not 

surface management specific, it includes all ownerships.

• The exclusion or removal of livestock in grazing allotments as 

proposed in Alternatives B, C, and D would eventually require the 

installation of fences. In the short term, reduced grazing could lead 

to an accumulation of fuels thus increasing the risk of fire. In the 

long term, more fencing would be installed within the decision area 

that could lead to an increase habitat fragmentation, reducing the 

connectivity for animal movement across the decision area and 

limiting access to resources.

• Direct and indirect effects of reduced ROWs for each alternative 

within the ROW avoidance and exclusion areas were analyzed using 

data from BLM-administered land only. Potential increased 

development of ROWs on land not administered by the BLM would 

increase habitat fragmentation and increase the likelihood of 

spreading noxious weeds in these areas.

• Impacts on special status species would be more significant than 

impacts on common species because population viability is already 

uncertain for special status species.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-156 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

• Short-term effects would occur over a timeframe of two years or 

less and long-term effects would occur over longer than two years. 

4.18.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Habitat loss, competition, predation, disease, and other factors are causes of 

species decline and imperilment. Habitat loss or modification due to human 

activity is the greatest threat to ecosystems, particularly for species adapted to 

specific ecological niches. BLM land management practices are intended to 

sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of BLM-administered lands for the 

use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

Impacts on special status species would primarily result from surface-disturbing 

activities, such as construction of roads and facilities, construction of barriers 

and fences, resource extraction, cross-country motorized travel, wildfires, 

wildfire suppression, erosion, unauthorized collection or poaching, and 

trampling. Direct and indirect impacts on special status species result from 

surface-disturbing activity that alters habitats or disruptive activities that disturb 

animals. Without mitigation, surface-disturbing and disruptive activities can 

cause the flowing impacts on special status species: 

• Violation of the ESA, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or applicable state laws or BLM 

regulations (e.g., BLM Manual 6840 and related IMs)

• Harm, harassment, or adverse effects on any federally listed 

threatened or endangered species or federally proposed or 

candidate species

• Destruction or deterioration of federally listed threatened or 

endangered species’ or federally proposed or candidate species’ 

habitat, migration corridors, breeding areas, or designated or 

proposed critical habitat

• Decreased population viability or contribution to the need for a 

federal listing of any federal candidate species or BLM sensitive 

species

• Loss of habitat function or habitat value in BLM sensitive species

habitats

All federal actions would comply with ESA consultation requirements. All 

implementation actions would be subject to further special status species review 

before site-specific projects are authorized or implemented. Federal protections 

and BLM policy protecting threatened, endangered, and sensitive species are 

considered methods for reducing the potential impacts from permitted 

activities. If adverse impacts were identified, mitigation measures would be 

implemented to minimize or eliminate the impacts, or in some cases project 

authorization could be denied. However, even with the above administrative 

processes, not all impacts could be avoided.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-157

Types of Impacts—Special Status Wildlife Species

Special status wildlife habitats on BLM-administered lands within the decision 

area would be affected under all alternatives, and the condition of habitats is 

directly linked to vegetation conditions, water quality and quantity, and 

progression towards land health standards (Section 4.4 and Section 4.17).

The decision area provides a wide variety of habitat vegetation types for special 

status wildlife species across multiple ownerships (Table 3-2 and Table 3-3). 

Nearly 170,000 acres within BLM-administered PPH or PH consists of sagebrush 

followed by 4,807 acres of mixed-grass prairie. In BLM PGH or GH, 44,698 

acres consists of sagebrush and 8,377 acres of mixed-grass prairie. Special status 

species that occupy these dominant habitat types within PPH/PH and PGH/GH

would be the most affected by changes to habitat caused by the following three 

types of disturbances: 1) disturbance from casual use; 2) disturbance from 

permitted activities; and 3) changes to habitat conditions.

Disturbance from Casual Use

Substantial analysis and planning is used to determine the locations and types of 

casual use activities that would occur, such as recreation, motorized vehicle use, 

and use of authorized and unauthorized routes. However, these uses are not 

subject to site-specific environmental review and monitoring requirements, and 

impacts on habitats or species would not be apparent until after change has

occurred. Examples of impacts on special status wildlife from casual use include 

habitat modifications, fragmentation, or degradation; mortality or injury of 

animals; sedimentation of waterways; increased turbidity; decreased water 

quality; disturbance to species during sensitive or critical periods in their life 

cycle such as nesting or denning; short-term displacement; and long-term habitat 

avoidance by species that are sensitive to noise or human presence such as 

raptors. Some species may adapt to disturbances over time and could 

recolonize disturbed habitats. Conversely, changes to these habitats may 

promote the expansion of other species from adjacent habitats or the spread of 

invasive weeds. While no lands within the decision area are designated open to 

motorized travel, impacts would still occur in areas limited to designated routes 

due to noise disturbance, human presence, potential for weed spread and 

habitat modification, and the potential for injury or mortality to wildlife from 

vehicle collisions.

Both short-term loud noise (such as from vehicles or construction) and longterm low-level noise (such as from oil and gas development) have been 

documented to cause physiological effects on multiple wildlife species, including 

increased heart rate, altered metabolism, and hormones changes, foraging and 

antipredator behavior, reproductive success, density, and community structure 

(Radle 2007; Barber et al. 2009a). In addition, noise can impact wildlife species,

including mammals and birds, by disrupting communication and environmental 

cues (FHA 2011). 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-158 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Determining the effect of noise is complicated because different species and 

individuals have varying responses, and certain species rely more heavily on 

acoustical cues than others (Radle 2007; Barber et al. 2009b). Impacts would be 

both short term and long term, depending on the type and source of noise. 

On-site management of recreation and motorized activity and designation and 

closure of travel routes could prevent or reduce impacts on habitat. Seasonal 

closure of routes would prevent impacts on species during sensitive or critical 

times of the year, such as during winter or birthing. 

Disturbance from Permitted Activities

Permitted, surface-disturbing activities (e.g., mineral exploration and 

development and ROW authorizations) would result in short-term direct 

impacts through mortality, injury, displacement, and noise or human disturbance 

caused by increased vehicle traffic and use of heavy machinery. Displacement of 

species could increase competition for resources in adjacent habitats or 

promote the expansion of species from adjacent habitats. Over the long term, 

these activities would remove and fragment habitats due to road development 

and use, facility construction and placement, creation of well pads and pipelines, 

and construction within ROWs. Species could avoid developed areas over the 

long term, or may adapt and recolonize sites after construction. ROW

exclusion areas would eliminate habitat impacts on BLM-administered lands 

from infrastructure development activities, but they could shift impacts to 

private lands in the same vicinity. ROW avoidance areas would concentrate 

infrastructure development on BLM-administered lands which would increase 

direct impacts from ROW developments on special status species on federal 

lands but could reduce indirect impacts on those species on non-BLMadministered lands.

Bird mortality and injury could occur from collision or electrocution with 

transmission lines and other ROW structures. Similar development in areas 

where there are existing ROWs would reduce impacts, since resident birds may 

have adapted to the existing ROWs. COAs such as requiring flight diverters or 

following Avian Power Line Interaction Committee guidelines would be applied 

to new ROW authorizations to reduce impacts. Wind energy may also cause 

direct impacts on birds and bats, including blade strikes, barotrauma (injury or 

mortality caused by rapid or excessive pressure changes), habitat loss, and 

displacement. Indirect impacts may include introduction of invasive vegetation 

that may result in altered fire cycles, degraded land health conditions and habitat

fragmentation. Areas managed under NSO stipulations would limit surface 

disturbance and associated impacts in certain areas. 

Changes to Habitat Conditions

Changes to habitat conditions could occur from vegetation and weed 

treatments; livestock grazing; GRSG habitat enhancements; fire; fuels 

treatments; and range improvements. Overall, the BLM would aim to achieve or 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-159

trend toward achieving Rangeland Health Standard 5: Biodiversity, which would 

maintain and/or restore habitat values for wildlife. Over the short term, 

vegetation, fire, and weed treatments would alter habitat for existing species, 

and impacts would occur until the desired habitat was established. Over the 

long term, vegetation and habitat treatments would increase habitat structural 

and compositional diversity, increase cover and nesting habitat, prevent 

sedimentation of waterways, and retain riparian and wetland habitats. 

Depending on the extent and severity, fire can improve habitat for some species 

in the long term.

Wildlife species that use grazing habitat can benefit from the proper 

management of livestock. These benefits to wildlife include providing sustainable, 

diverse, and vigorous mixtures of native vegetation for forage and habitat. Also, 

proper management of grazing livestock can control noxious weeds and reduce 

fuel accumulations, protect intact sagebrush habitat, and increase habitat extent 

and continuity (NRCS 2011). If managed improperly, overutilization of forage by 

livestock could occur, leading to increased competition with wildlife for forage, 

and potentially reduced cover and nesting habitat for other species. Livestock 

could also spread weeds, which would degrade habitats. Special status wildlife 

could be displaced from their habitats, which could increase competition for 

resources in adjacent habitats. Impacts would vary depending on the extent of 

removal, type of vegetation impacted, and length of the grazing period. In 

general, the more acres that are open to grazing under a given alternative, the 

greater the risk for impacts. Livestock may degrade riparian areas, which could 

impact riparian-dependent, aquatic species. The complete closure of BLMadministered lands to grazing may reduce the impacts from livestock grazing on 

special status species; however, this action could significantly increase fencing 

requirements and therefore, impacts from habitat fragmentation would also 

increase. Additionally, the closure of BLM-administered lands to livestock 

grazing could lead to an increase in livestock numbers foraging on non-BLMadministered lands thus impacting special status species on those lands.

Unplanned fire ignitions could cause short- or long-term damage to habitats 

depending on the vegetation type affected, extent, and severity of the fire. In the 

short term, fire removes forage, nesting, and habitat cover and leaves bare areas 

that provide little habitat value. Sagebrush destroyed by fire takes years to 

become reestablished and could lead to long-term reductions in available habitat 

for sagebrush obligate special status species. Grasses can recover more quickly 

from wildfire; therefore, special status species that inhabit grasslands could have 

an increase in available habitat in the short term. 

Further, fire could displace species from suitable habitat, which could increase 

competition for resources in adjacent habitats. In the long term, wildland and 

prescribed fires, as well as fuels treatments, improve habitat by increasing 

structural diversity. Often, fire and fuels treatments lower the risk for an 

uncharacteristically large or severe wildfire that would destroy a large acreage 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-160 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

of wildlife habitats. For additional information on the effects of wildland fire on 

sagebrush habitat see Section 4.2.2.

Management actions that restrict surface-disturbing activities would reduce 

impacts such as habitat removal, fragmentation, and human disturbance. Such 

management actions include measures to protect GRSG; closure of areas to 

mineral leasing and development; ROW avoidance and exclusion areas; areas 

recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry; restrictions within ACECs; 

and route closure or restrictions.

Criteria would be used to guide land exchanges, disposals, and acquisitions, 

which could reduce the fragmentation of BLM-administered land in the planning 

area. This could improve the BLM’s ability to implement management actions 

that would result in improved habitats, undisturbed wildlife populations, and 

attainment of land health standards. However, lands identified for disposal could 

cause fragmentation and habitat loss if the disposed land is converted to other 

uses, such as agriculture or residential or industrial development.

Types of Impacts—Special Status Plant Species

The types of impacts that could occur on special status plant species include loss 

of vigor or reduced reproductive success, changes in habitat structure, 

competition, loss of pollinators or pollinator habitat, soil compaction, erosion or 

sedimentation, alteration of hydrologic conditions, and changes in fire regime.

Together, these impacts could lead to fewer and more fragmented special status 

plant populations that are more at risk for extirpation due to reduced habitat 

quality, diminished reproductive ability, and altered plant communities. Impacts 

would be more likely to occur on undiscovered special status plant populations.

Two sensitive plant species are likely to inhabit the planning area, little Indian 

breadroot (Pediomelum hypogaeum) and Platte cinquefoil (Potentilla plattensis).

Habitat for both of these herb species is very limited throughout the planning 

area (see Appendix L). Changes in management proposed under the action 

alternatives are not expected to impact these species; therefore, impacts on

special status plants are not discussed in the impacts by alternatives below.

4.18.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts that are common to all alternatives.

4.18.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

BLM-administered lands are designated limited yearlong for motorized wheeled 

vehicles which are restricted to existing roads and trails. The BLM would 

minimize or prevent road and trail development on crucial big game and upland 

bird habitat areas. Road and trail areas may be closed to off-road vehicles where 

harm to wildlife or habitat is occurring. These policies would protect special 

status species as described in Nature and Type of Effects.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-161

Ecological impacts would likely continue from roads and motorized trails include 

mortality due to collisions, behavior modifications due to noise, activity or 

habitat loss, alteration of physical environment, leaching of nutrients, erosion, 

spread of invasive plants, increased use, and alteration by humans due to 

accessibility.

Impacts from Recreation

Under Alternative A, the BLM would implement limited recreation management. 

Recreational use may result in human disturbance, degradation of habitat, or 

mortality, as described in Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative A, ROWs outside of the ROW avoidance areas and WSAs

are considered on a case-by-case basis. As a result, human disturbance- and 

infrastructure-related impacts described above in Nature and Type of Effects

would continue. There is a current policy to collocate grants when possible. 

This would reduce impacts on some special status species by reducing the 

extent of new disturbance. A total of 9,708 acres of habitat would continue to 

be managed as a ROW avoidance area which would protect special status 

species habitat (Table 4-29, Non-BLM Acreage, GH, and PH within Right-ofway Avoidance and Exclusion Areas by Alternative (Acres). GH and PH ReGAP 

Class 3 habitat composition details including associated acreages for each 

alternative are described in Section 4.1. There would be no ROW exclusion 

areas within the planning area.

Land tenure adjustments would be subject to current disposal/acquisition 

criteria in the Headwaters Resource Management Plan (BLM 1984) and Judith 

Resource Area Resource Management Plan (BLM 1994). This could include

retaining important wildlife habitat as well as nesting and breeding habitat for 

game animals which would benefit special status species. This would reduce the 

likelihood of habitat conversion to agriculture, urbanization, or other uses that 

would remove habitat.

Impacts from Range Management

Livestock grazing would continue to be managed through development and 

monitoring of AMPs, or similar grazing plans. Methods and guidelines from the 

Headwaters Resource Management Plan (BLM 1984) and Judith Resource Area 

Resource Management Plan (BLM 1994) would be followed to maintain 

ecological conditions, enhance vegetation production, maintain and enhance 

wildlife habitat, during implementation of grazing regimens. Livestock use would

be adjusted by changing the kind or class of livestock, the season of use, or 

distribution patterns if necessary to maintain the ecological conditions 

objectives. Monitoring would be used to maintain the effectiveness of these 

practices. As discussed in the Assumptions section above, grazing practices could

have negative, neutral or positive effects on special status species. Impacts from
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-162 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 4-29

Non-BLM Acreage, GH, and PH within Right-of-way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas by Alternative (Acres)

Non-BLM1 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

GH PH Avoidance2 Neither3 Avoidance4 Exclusion5 Neither3 Exclusion6 Neither3 Avoidance7 Neither3

899,659 974,735 9,708 335,852 112,341 233,219 0 345,560 0 233,219 112,341

Source: BLM 2012a

1 – Non-BLM acreage includes state lands, privately owned land, and other lands not managed by BLM.

2 – Alternative A avoidance acreage represents existing protective habitat within BLM-administered lands.

3 – Represents BLM-administered lands outside of the avoidance and exclusion areas.

4 – Alternative B avoidance acreage is equal to GH.

5 – Alternative B exclusion acreage is equal to PH.

6 – Alternative C exclusion acreage is equal to GH + PH.

7 – Alternative D avoidance acreage is equal to PH.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-163

grazing as described under Nature and Types of Effects would continue under 

Alternative A.

Riparian habitats would be managed to achieve PFC, maintain desired plant 

community or wildlife habitat, improve watershed conditions, and comply with 

the Clean Water Act. Grazing systems would consider riparian impacts, 

including seasonal avoidance of riparian zones, encouraging livestock to 

congregate away from riparian areas, or fencing-off riparian areas. Restricting 

livestock from riparian areas would benefit riparian vegetation health and 

therefore positively impact special status species.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative A, fluid mineral leasing and development would continue on 

previously leased lands. Development in these areas would continue to impact 

special status species by surface disturbance and occupancy, as described under 

Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Prior to approving coal exploration licenses or prospecting permits for 

nonenergy leasable minerals, project-specific environmental review would be 

required to assess impacts on resources and develop mitigation measures. 

Surface occupancy is generally prohibited within key wildlife areas, floodplains 

and ROWs. No known coal resources are located in the management area.

Therefore, no impacts are expected from coal.

For locatable minerals, mitigation measures to prevent unnecessary degradation 

would apply to the proposed Plan of Operations. The BLM would review these 

plans in withdrawn areas and would consider purchasing claims where activities 

threaten resource values, such as special status species and their habitat.

Prospecting permits would be issued for nonenergy leasable minerals after 

environmental review of impacts and development of mitigation measures.

Salable minerals contracts would be issued where disposal is deemed to be in 

the public interest while providing for reclamation of mined lands and 

preventing unnecessary impacts on nonmineral resources. Solid minerals 

management could improve other special status species habitat in the decision 

area. Impacts from surface disturbance and changes in habitat, as described 

under Nature and Type of Effects, would continue.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Prescribed burning may be used in support of resource management objectives, 

such as restoring grassland or shrubland, reducing conifer encroachment, or 

increasing age-class variety. The intention of prescribed burning is to improve 

wildlife habitat and vegetation production. Sagebrush treatments would be

designed to maintain sagebrush within the canopy at 15 to 50 percent and to 

increase succulent forbs. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-164 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Chemical weed treatments (herbicide) may also be applied following prescribed 

burns to limit the expansion of weeds or invasive species in the burned area. A 

minimum rest period from livestock grazing of two growing seasons would be 

required after major vegetative disturbance, such as re-seeding. Rest periods 

following wildfire or controlled burn would be determined on a site-specific 

basis.

Intensive wildfire suppression would be applied to high-value areas, such as 

sagebrush areas, fire-sensitive woody riparian areas, and commercial forests. 

Current fire management practices within the decision area would not reduce 

impacts on special status species as described under Nature and Type of Effects.

In some instances, habitat for some special status species would be lost to fire,

while other habitats would be protected from fuels management.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Grazing methods, land treatments and other improvements would be designed 

to accomplish habitat restoration objectives. Surface-disturbing activities greater 

than 0.25 acre require rehabilitation. Normally, native species would be used for 

re-seeding surface disturbances, unless nonnative species would better provide 

habitat stabilization. The BLM would manage for the benefit of succulent 

vegetation, forbs, and maintenance of big and silver sage in GRSG habitat areas.

These improvements would also affect special status species associated with 

sagebrush ecosystems. Sagebrush obligate populations would trend upward in 

the long term, while special status grassland species would likely decline.

Impacts from ACECs

Under Alternative A, the BLM would not designate any additional ACECs and 

therefore would not provide additional protection to other special status 

species’ habitats through ACEC management.

4.18.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Actions to limit motorized vehicles to existing roads and trails would continue 

until travel management planning is completed. Planning would evaluate roads in 

PH for permanent or seasonal closure. Route construction in PH would be 

limited to realignments of existing roads or would be built or upgraded to 

minimum standards necessary. This would reduce impacts from disturbance, 

habitat changes, and mortality on other special status species in these areas. The 

surface disturbance to vegetation associated with road-building would be part of 

the three percent maximum disturbance for that area. If closures were applied, 

the impacts from roads on special status species described in the Nature and 

Type of Effects section would be reduced in these areas.

Impacts from Recreation

To protect GRSG, SRPs would be issued in PH only where the effects of the 

recreational use were neutral or beneficial to GRSG habitat. This action would 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-165

reduce impacts, such as human disturbance, degradation of habitat, or mortality,

from recreation as described under the Nature and Type of Effects for special 

status species that occur in PH.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

ROW exclusion areas (233,219 acres) for PH would be established and could 

reduce impacts from disturbance and habitat changes as described under Nature 

and Type of Effects for other special status species that occur in these areas

(Table 3-2). Additionally, ROW avoidance areas (112,341 acres) would be 

included for GH under Alternative B (Table 4-29). See Table 3-3 for a 

description of vegetation types within PGH that would be included as ROW 

avoidance areas However, due to the large aerial extent and variety of 

ownerships (non-BLM) within PH (974,735 acres) and GH (899,659 acres), 

impacts from development on other special status species would still continue 

to occur on lands outside of BLM jurisdiction.

Public ownership would be retained in PH, with exceptions for increasing 

contiguous federal ownership patterns within PH, and in areas with effective 

mitigation or conservation easement for disposal of federal land. State or private 

lands may be acquired to enhance GRSG conservation value of existing federal 

lands. Ownership changes might positively or negatively impact special status 

species, depending on the proposed use of the land, as described under Nature 

and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative B, the number of acres open or closed for grazing and 

available AUMs would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts from grazing as 

described under Nature and Types of Effects would occur, including changes to 

habitat conditions.

Permit renewals and AMPs would be used to incorporate GRSG management 

objectives into grazing allotments. NEPA analysis of grazing permit renewals 

would include specific objectives to restore and improve GRSG habitat, and 

include an alternative that achieves this objective. Planning efforts would identify 

allotments where retirement of permitted grazing uses is potentially beneficial

to special status species habitat.

In PH, management would promote vegetation composition and structure 

consistent with GRSG habitat objectives. Grazing management actions, such as 

numbers or type of livestock, season of use or distribution may be considered 

to meet GRSG habitat objectives. Following drought periods, PH areas would 

be managed to allow for vegetation recovery. Wet meadows and riparian areas 

in PH would be managed to maintain forbs, edge cover, and species richness to 

facilitate GRSG brood rearing. Seasonal restrictions on livestock grazing would 

be used to reduce pressure on riparian vegetation used by GRSG in summer. 

Modifications to water developments would be considered to maintain 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-166 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

continuity of riparian areas within PH. This management could benefit other 

special status species that depend on these habitats.

Vegetation treatments to increase forage for livestock would only be allowed in 

PH if they conserve or enhance GRSG habitat. Structural range improvements 

would be designed to improve GRSG habitat through improved grazing 

management. Existing structural range improvements (e.g., fences) would be 

modified to minimize strikes on GRSG. Existing improvements and project 

planning for new improvements would reduce impacts described under Nature 

and Type of Effects for other special status species that occur in these areas.

However, sensitive grassland species may have reduced habitat as a result of 

GRSG habitat enhancements.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

The BLM would implement limitations on exploration within PH, which would 

reduce impacts on special status species and their habitats from exploration and 

development of fluid minerals (i.e., mortality, injury, displacement, noise or 

human disturbance, and habitat loss and fragmentation). RDFs and conservation 

measures would be applied as COAs on existing federal leases, limiting surface 

occupancy within PH, imposing seasonal restrictions, and restricting surface 

disturbance to three percent of the area. 

Impacts from Solid Minerals

All surface mining of coal would be found to be unsuitable in PH. Subsurface 

leases would be allowed if all surface facilities were placed outside PH. In 

existing lease areas, surface facilities would be located outside PH, or collocated 

in existing disturbed areas to the extent possible. In GH, surface disturbances 

would be minimized during activity level planning. Currently there is no coal 

potential in the management area. Therefore, no impacts are expected from 

coal.

For locatable minerals, areas in PH would be proposed for withdrawal from 

mineral entry based on risk to GRSG habitat. Existing claims would be subject 

to validity examination or buyout, mitigation would be applied to claims, and 

BMPs would be applied as conditions of approval.

PH would be closed to nonenergy leasable mineral leasing and to salable mineral 

disposal. BMPs would be applied to existing leases and restoration to any 

existing salable mineral pits. These proposed limitations would minimize impacts 

from surface disturbance and changes in habitat, as described under Nature and 

Type of Effects for other special status species that occur in these areas.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

The approach to prescribed burning would be as described under Alternative A.

Fuels treatments would be designed and implemented with an emphasis on 

promoting sagebrush. Sagebrush canopy would not be reduced below 15 

percent unless required for fuels management objectives, and seasonal 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-167

restrictions would be applied to fuels management. Rest periods would be 

required and invasive species controlled, with native seeds utilized for treatment 

wherever possible, including for emergency stabilization projects. Climate 

change potential would be considered in selection of seeding for restoration. 

Grazing livestock would be considered as an option to reduce fuel load. 

Fire suppression would prioritize GRSG habitat in PH and GH, after life and 

property, and BMPs would be followed. These restrictions would minimize 

impacts described under Nature and Type of Effects for other special status 

species that occur in these habitats. Together these actions would reduce the 

effects from wildfire. However, suppression over large areas could allow for 

fuels to build up and could lead to a large-scale fire over the long term.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Within the analysis area, vegetation treatments would continue to be used to 

achieve resource management objectives and considered for the protection of 

sagebrush ecosystems. Implementation of restoration efforts would be 

prioritized based on the proposed benefit to GRSG. Habitat restoration would 

attempt to meet GRSG habitat parameters as the highest priority. Native seed 

would be used for restoration unless precluded; climate change potential would 

be considered in selection of seeding for restoration. Sagebrush seed harvest 

areas may be established in areas prone to fire. Vegetation treatments and 

sagebrush ecosystem restoration efforts would minimize impacts on special 

status species in these areas as described under Nature and Type of Effects. This 

would improve habitat for other special status species that use the same habitat 

as GRSG.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would the same as under Alternative A.

4.18.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

New road construction would be prohibited within four miles of active leks and 

avoided in PH and GH. Road construction would be limited to realignments of 

existing routes in PH, if the realignment has minimal impact on GRSG habitat. 

No upgrading (e.g., paving of primitive roads) of existing routes would be 

allowed unless necessary for safety or to avoid construction of a new road. 

When roads or trails are closed, re-seeding would be done with native seed 

mixes and transplanted sagebrush would be required. All additional impacts 

would be the same as under Alternative B. Prohibiting or limiting road 

construction in the decision area would minimize impacts on special status 

species in these areas as described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Recreation

As under Alternative A, the BLM would continue to manage the area for 

dispersed recreation opportunities, such as hunting, camping, biking, and hiking; 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-168 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

therefore, no protection would be provided to other special status species’ 

habitats. Impacts would be similar to Alternative A.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

PH would be ROW exclusion areas (345,560 acres). No ROW avoidance areas 

would be established. Designation of PH and GH as a ROW exclusion area 

would improve protection of other special status species on BLM-administered 

lands from disturbance and habitat loss, as described under Nature and Type of 

Effects. Because of the current ownership patterns in PH (974,735 acres), the 

ROW exclusion areas proposed under Alternative C could increase habitat 

fragmentation on land not administered by the BLM. See Tables 3-2 and 3-3

for a description of vegetation types in PH and GH that would be designated 

ROW exclusion and avoidance areas respectively.

As under Alternative B, public ownership would be maintained in PH, but 

without the exceptions provided under that alternative. Private lands, when 

offered, may be acquired in ACECs to enhance GRSG conservation value of 

existing lands. Adding lands to ACECs would enhance protection of special 

status species in these areas.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative C, 337,165 acres of grazing lands would be removed within 

PH and GH, and would include the removal of 69,408 AUMs. This action would 

likely reduce the impacts from grazing as stated under the Nature and Type of 

Effects section. However, grazing practices contribute to noxious weed control 

efforts and grazing reduces fuels. Therefore, removing grazing could allow for 

noxious weeds to spread and fuels to accumulate, leading to an increase in 

wildfire risk in special status species habitat. Unplanned fire ignitions could lead 

to long-term reductions in the availability of sagebrush habitat. This could lead 

to a short-term increase in habitat for grassland special status species, including 

Sprague’s pipit, as described in Nature and Type of Effects. For a detailed list of 

species associated with sagebrush or grasslands habitat refer to Appendix L.

In addition, not allowing grazing on BLM-administered lands could substantially

increase fencing to avoid trespassing from private lands onto BLM-administered 

lands. This would result in over 3,400 miles of fencing and would both increase 

and decrease habitat quality described above. However, it would further 

fragment the landscape.

An indirect impact from excluding livestock grazing from BLM-administered

lands is the potential conversion of adjacent private grazing lands to agriculture 

or other land uses in the planning area, including development. This is especially 

a concern in areas with a mosaic of ownership boundaries, which would 

decrease available habitat for special status species that inhabit rangeland 

outside of BLM-administered lands.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-169

The complete exclusion of grazing from PH and GH would also eliminate the 

need for maintaining nearly 90 percent of stock water in the long term. A 

minimum amount of stock water ponds would be maintained for other wildlife 

management on BLM-administered lands in the planning area. Special status 

amphibians, shorebirds and waterfowl, and aquatic invertebrates that depend on 

stock water would decrease. However, the substantial reduction in stock water 

in GRSG habitat on BLM-administered lands under Alternative C would likely 

decrease the risk of mosquito-borne diseases. Stock water on land not 

administered by the BLMs would still be maintained.

Wet meadows and riparian areas in PH would be managed similarly to 

Alternative B but include maintaining productivity to facilitate GRSG brood 

rearing. At least six inches of stubble height would remain on herbaceous cover 

at all times. No new water diversions from seeps or springs would be permitted 

within GRSG habitat. Modifications to water developments, including 

dismantling, would be considered to maintain continuity of riparian areas within 

GRSG habitat. This management could benefit other special status species 

habitat. However, dismantling of human modifications within PH could remove 

man-made wetlands and riparian areas. Water developments in PH would use 

BMPs to mitigate potential impacts from West Nile virus.

Treatments would only be allowed in PH if they demonstrably benefit GRSG

habitat. Existing seedings in PH that are primarily introduced grasses would be 

considered for restoration to sagebrush. Treatment plans must include pretreatment data, nongrazing enclosures, and long-term monitoring. Soil cover and 

native herbaceous cover would be maintained in GRSG habitat. This 

management could benefit other special status species habitat.

Existing structural range improvements (e.g., fences) would be evaluated to 

ensure they conserve, enhance or restore GRSG habitat. Fences may be 

modified or removed to minimize strikes on GRSG. Existing improvements and 

project planning for new improvements would consider the potential for 

invasive species. The potential range management actions proposed in 

Alternative C would decrease the impacts described under Nature and Type of 

Effects for special status species in these areas.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Exploration within PH would be permitted to obtain information for adjacent 

areas. Only helicopter-portable drilling methods would be allowed for 

geophysical operations in PH, according to seasonal timing restrictions. No 

exploration would be conducted in habitat areas during their season of use by 

GRSG. As under Alternative B, RDFs and conservation measures would be 

applied as COAs on existing federal leases, limiting surface occupancy within PH

and GH, imposing seasonal restrictions to exploratory drilling, including vehicle 

traffic and other human activity, restricting surface disturbance to three percent

of the area, and making BMPs mandatory as COA.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-170 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Impacts from all actions on other special status species would be as described 

under Alternative B.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Land treatments within the decision area may be used in support of resource 

management objectives, given special consideration for the protection and 

maintenance of sagebrush ecosystems. Fuels treatments would be designed and 

implemented with an emphasis on promoting sagebrush ecosystems. Sagebrush 

canopy would not be reduced below 15 percent unless fuels management 

objectives required it, and seasonal restrictions would be applied to fuels 

management. Evaluate the benefits of the fuel break in the NEPA process versus 

the additional loss of sagebrush cover. These treatments could benefit special 

status species habitat.

Fuels treatments would not be allowed in winter range unless the treatment is 

designed to reduce wildfire risk and maintain habitat quality in the winter range. 

Establishing proper fire control lines and adequate preparation would be used in 

any fuel reduction project. Vegetation treatment plans would include 

pretreatment data, nongrazing exclosures, and long-term monitoring. These 

treatments could benefit special status species habitat.

The approach for fire suppression and emergency stabilization projects would 

be as described under Alternative B. Additional policies make efforts to assure 

availability of native seed, to establish grazing exclosures where possible to 

assess recovery post-fire, and exclude livestock from burned areas until GRSG

habitat objectives are met. These restrictions would minimize impacts described 

under Nature and Type of Effects for other special status species that occur in 

these areas. While this would reduce the likelihood of impacts from livestock 

on habitat and species, it could also allow for fuels to build up and could 

increase the likelihood of a large fire that would destroy special status species 

habitat.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

The approach is as described under Alternative B, with additional measures to 

prioritize restoration in seasonal habitats thought to be limiting GRSG and 

where factors causing degradation (e.g., livestock management) have already 

been addressed. In addition, native vegetation community composition and 

function would specifically provide for recovering GRSG habitat. Existing areas 

of exotic plant seedings would be interseeded and restored to recover 

sagebrush in order to expand occupied habitat. Vegetation treatments and 

sagebrush ecosystem restoration would minimize impacts on special status 

species that occupy these areas, as described under Nature and Type of Effects.

As a result, a greater area of habitat would be improved for some special status 

species.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-171

Impacts from ACECs

ACECs to protect GRSG would be designated as sagebrush reserves on 97,762 

acres. Vegetation within areas designated as ACECs would benefit from 

increased management attention to environmental resources in these areas.

4.18.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

In addition to measures described under Alternative A, a travel management

plan would be developed and would designate public roads and trails. Roads in 

PH would be evaluated for permanent or seasonal closure. Upon completion of 

projects, site-specific roads would be reclaimed unless the route provided 

specific public access benefits. Route construction would be limited to 

realignments that have minimal impact, as described under Alternatives B and C. 

Upgrading of existing roads would be allowed when there is minimal impact on

GRSG habitat. Restoration of roads not designated in travel management plans 

would occur as described under Alternative B. Prohibiting or limiting road 

construction in the decision area would minimize direct and indirect impacts on 

special status species in these areas as described under Nature and Type of 

Effects.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative B.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

PH would be ROW avoidance areas (233,219 acres), and PH and GH would be 

ROW avoidance areas for wind energy development. New authorizations would 

be collocated within existing disturbance areas or where impacts on GRSG and 

habitat are minimized. Authorizations would be allowed in GH with appropriate 

mitigation measures. These measures could offer an increased level of 

protection from disturbance and habitat loss than Alternative A.

Retired ROWs would be reclaimed by restoring habitat, which would benefit 

special status species and their habitat. Power lines would be removed or buried 

where feasible within PH, but this would be on a very limited basis. Burying 

power lines would cause short-term surface disturbances but would reduce 

long-term impacts for other special status species. Leases and permits for 

agricultural and other uses would be considered on a case-by-case basis, with 

PH a ROW avoidance area. In GH leases would be allowed with appropriate 

mitigation measures. 

Public land withdrawals would not be recommended within habitat areas unless 

land management would include GRSG conservation measures. Public 

ownership would be maintained in PH, except where land exchange would 

provide a greater benefit to GRSG. Ownership changes would reduce impacts 

described under Nature and Type of Effects for other special status species that 

occur in these areas.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-172 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Impacts from Range Management

Within PH, the BLM would conduct land health evaluations and determinations 

that include (at a minimum) indicators and/or measurements of 

structure/condition/composition of vegetation specific to achieving GRSG 

habitat objectives. Management actions would be developed if land health 

determinations indicate that an allotment is not meeting standards due to 

current livestock grazing. State objectives would be used for fine-scale analysis 

unless local objectives are developed at the field office level, in partnership with 

MFWP and USFWS. This management action could benefit other special status 

species that occupy GRSG habitat.

Under Alternative D, there would be no change to the acreage open for grazing 

or available AUMs: currently, 337,165 acres in the decision area are open for 

livestock grazing, with 69,408 available for AUMs. Impacts from grazing on 

habitat are described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Integrated ranch planning and land health assessments would be used as 

described under Alternative B. Allotments that have the best opportunities for 

GRSG habitat conservation, enhancement, or restoration would be high 

priorities for evaluation and management. Lands would be managed for 

vegetation composition consistent with ecological potential to achieve GRSG

habitat objectives. If an effective grazing system meeting GRSG habitat objectives 

is not in place, the permit renewal process would examine at least one 

alternative to restore this habitat. This management could benefit other special 

status species that occupy GRSG habitat. Drought issues would continue to be 

managed under Montana/Dakotas drought policy (Appendix I).

Wet meadows and riparian areas in PH would be managed to maintain forbs, 

edge cover, and species richness to facilitate GRSG brood rearing. Seasonal 

restrictions on livestock grazing would be used to reduce pressure on riparian 

vegetation used by GRSG in summer. New water diversions from seeps or 

springs would be authorized only when PH would benefit from the 

development. Modifications to water developments would be considered to 

maintain continuity of riparian areas within PH. Reservoirs and stock ponds with 

riparian and wetland characteristics would be managed to support wildlife to the 

extent possible, with consideration given to the original purpose of the 

development. This management could benefit other special status species that

occupy wet meadow and riparian habitat.

Vegetation treatments to increase forage for livestock would prioritize 

restoration of sagebrush steppe as budgets allow; sagebrush treatments would 

be justified for GRSG or other sensitive species and would be analyzed in 

subsequent NEPA documents. Vegetation treatments to increase forage for 

livestock would only be allowed in PH if they conserve or enhance GRSG

habitat. Allowances would be made for treatments with negative short-term 

effects but overall long-term benefits.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-173

Existing seedings in PH that are primarily introduced grasses would be 

considered for restoration to sagebrush, as described under Alternatives B and 

C. Appropriate monitoring would be established to evaluate success of the 

treatments. Structural range improvements would be designed to improve 

GRSG habitat as described under Alternative B.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

As under Alternative B, conservation measures would be applied as COAs on 

existing federal leases. The conditions would minimize noise, traffic, and other 

disturbance associated with mineral extraction. These measures would likely 

result in minor impacts on special status species, compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

The planning area would be available for coal exploration licensing; prior to 

licensing environmental review would be conducted to assess impacts and 

develop mitigation measures. Currently, there is no coal potential in the 

planning area. Therefore, no impacts are expected from coal.

Locatable minerals development would be managed as described under 

Alternative A. Prospecting for nonenergy leasable minerals would be permitted 

after appropriate environmental review with assessment of impacts and 

mitigation. Mineral pits would be restored as described under Alternative B. 

These actions would have minimal impacts on special status species.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fuels management would be designed and implemented as described in 

Alternative C, but would also include additional specific parameters governing 

selection of sites for prescribed burns. Invasive vegetation would be monitored 

and controlled post-burn, and livestock grazing deferral evaluated on a case-bycase basis.

Fire suppression would be prioritized, BMPs applied, ES&R procedures would be 

as described in Alternative B. Additional provisions would be implemented to 

protect vegetation to benefit GRSG in fire-prone areas. Together these actions 

would reduce the effects from wildland fire. However, suppression over large 

areas could allow for fuels to build up and could lead to a large fire in the long 

term. For fuels management, livestock grazing would be considered for fuel 

reduction efforts as described under Alternative B. These actions would 

minimize impacts on other special status species that occupy GRSG habitat.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

As described under Alternative B, habitat restoration would give special 

emphasis to protection of sagebrush ecosystems in designing vegetation 

treatments. Prioritization would occur as described under Alternative B, with 

emphasis given to other sensitive and listed species in addition to GRSG. 

Restoration projects would strive to meet GRSG habitat objectives for projects 

in PH, but those objectives would not be the highest priority as under
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-174 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Alternatives B and C. Restoration design seed mixes, landscape patterns and 

changes to grazing would be as described under Alternative B. However, this 

alternative includes management direction that other restoration projects may 

take precedence over sagebrush projects based on funding requirements, 

landowner cooperation, future ESA listings, and other factors. These actions 

would minimize impacts on other special status species, as described under 

Nature and Type of Effects, and would provide more protection for special status 

species and GRSG, compared to Alternatives B and C.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A.

4.19 FISH AND WILDLIFE

4.19.1 Methods and Assumptions

Methods of Analysis

Impacts on wildlife and their habitats include the following:

• Disturbance or changes to plant communities, food supplies, cover, 

breeding sites, and other habitat components necessary for any 

species to a degree that would lead to substantial population 

changes.

• Disturbance or changes in seasonally important habitat (e.g., critical 

for overwintering or successful breeding) to a degree that would 

lead to substantial population changes.

• Interference with a species movement pattern that decreases the 

ability of a species to breed or overwinter successfully to a degree 

that would lead to substantial population changes.

Impacts specific to aquatic species and their habitats include the following:

• Sediment and Turbidity. Increased sediment loading in waters 

containing sediment-intolerant species, loss of recruitment, stress, 

habitat alteration, and habitat loss.

• Habitat Alteration. Changes in habitat that make it nonfunctional for 

select species or more conducive to competitive species.

• Loss or Reduction of Streamside Vegetation and Cover. Increased 

temperatures, stress, reduced productivity, and impacts on food 

webs.

• Water Quality Alteration. Actions that alter important water quality

parameters, including pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, hardness, 

alkalinity/salinity, and turbidity.
4. Environmental Consequences (Fish and Wildlife)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-175

• Water Depletions. Loss of physical habitat, changes in water quality, 

sediment accumulation, habitat alteration, loss of habitat complexity, 

or food source reduction.

• Potential direct mortalities to aquatic wildlife from motorized travel.

Indicators

Table 4-30, Comparison of Wildlife Species Indicators by Alternative, provides 

a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the effects on wildlife 

species under each alternative.

Table 4-30

Comparison of Wildlife Species Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

ROW exclusion areas (acres) 0 233,219 345,560 0

ROW avoidance areas (acres) 9,708 112,341 0 233,219

Acres closed to livestock grazing 0 0 337,165 0

Available AUMs 69,408 69,408 0 69,408

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• The travel and transportation management analysis of impacts on 

wildlife species has an assumed road width of 10 feet. This width is 

an overestimate for two track roads and an underestimate for twolane roads. Additionally, the existing route data are not surface 

management specific, it includes all ownerships.

• The exclusion or removal of livestock in grazing allotments would 

eventually require that fences be installed. In the short term,

reduced grazing could lead to an increase in fire issues. In the long

term, more fencing could be installed within the decision area that 

could lead to an increase habitat fragmentation, reducing the 

connectivity for animal movement across the decision area and 

limiting access to resources. Alternative C could result in the 

greatest increase in fencing in order to exclude both PH and GH

from grazing.

• Direct and indirect effects of reduced ROWs for each alternative 

within the avoidance and exclusion areas were analyzed using data 

from BLM-administered land only. Potential development of ROWs 

on land not administered by the BLM would increase habitat 

fragmentation and increase the likelihood of spreading noxious 

weeds in these areas.
4. Environmental Consequences (Fish and Wildlife)

4-176 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

• Short-term effects would occur over a timeframe of two years or 

less and long-term effects would occur over longer than two years. 

4.19.2 Nature and Type of Effects

As discussed in Section 3.20, implementation of any of the alternatives would 

result in general and unquantifiable indirect beneficial effects for fish in terms of 

greater protection through new restrictions on surface and resource use 

resulting in reduced opportunities for surface disturbance or habitat disruption 

where they exist. Therefore, general fish species will not be discussed further in 

Chapter 4.

Similar to Section 4.18, Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue, wildlife 

habitats on BLM-administered lands would be affected under all alternatives

within the decision area. The condition of habitats is directly linked to 

vegetation conditions, water quality and quantity, and progression towards land 

health standards (see Sections 4.1 and Section 4.17).

Changes to wildlife and their habitats would be caused by the following three 

types of disturbances: 1) disturbance from casual use; 2) disturbance from 

permitted activities; and 3) changes to habitat conditions. Detailed descriptions 

of each disturbance type are provided in Section 4.18.2, Nature and Type of 

Effects. General impacts on wildlife are provided for each disturbance type 

below.

Disturbance from Casual Use

Casual use activities are not subject to site-specific environmental review and 

monitoring requirements, and impacts on habitats or species would not be 

apparent until after damage has occurred. Wildlife impacts from casual use 

include habitat loss, fragmentation, or degradation; mortality or injury of 

animals; sedimentation of waterways; increased turbidity; decreased water 

quality; disturbance to species during sensitive or critical periods in their life 

cycle such as spawning, nesting, or denning; short-term displacement; and longterm habitat avoidance by species that are sensitive to noise or human presence 

such as raptors.

Noise affects many wildlife species physiologically in a variety of ways, as 

described in Section 4.18.2. Generally, noise impacts would be both short

term and long term, depending on the type and source.

Some species may adapt to disturbances over time and could recolonize 

disturbed habitats. While no lands within the decision area are designated open 

to motorized travel, impacts would still occur in areas limited to designated 

routes due to noise disturbance, human presence, potential for weed spread 

and habitat degradation, and the potential for injury or mortality to wildlife from 

vehicle collisions. On-site management of recreation and motorized activity and 

designation and closure of travel routes could prevent or reduce impacts. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Fish and Wildlife)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-177

Seasonal closure of routes would prevent impacts on species during sensitive or 

critical times of the year, such as during winter or birthing.

Disturbance from Permitted Activities

Impacts from permitted, surface-disturbing activities, as described in Section 

4.18.2, would result in short-term direct impacts on wildlife through mortality, 

injury, displacement, and human disturbance. Long-term impacts would remove 

and fragment habitats due to the development and use of human infrastructure 

and development. Species could avoid developed areas over the long term or 

may adapt and recolonize sites after construction. ROW avoidance and 

exclusion areas would reduce or avoid habitat impacts and could reduce the 

total acreage of habitat disturbance and fragmentation.

Changes to Habitat Conditions

Wildlife could be impacted from changes to habitat from treatments or 

enhancement, changes in livestock grazing, and range improvements. The BLM 

would aim to achieve or trend toward achieving Rangeland Health Standard 5: 

Biodiversity, which would maintain or restore habitat values for wildlife. See 

Section 4.18.2 for general short-term and long-term descriptions of potential 

impacts on wildlife habitat from grazing, fire and fire treatment, and 

modifications to the management of surface-disturbing activities. 

4.19.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts that are common to all alternatives.

4.19.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Management would protect habitat and reduce impacts on wildlife species,

similar to the affects described in Section 4.18.4, Alternative A. In addition to 

these effects, the BLM would minimize or prevent road and trail development 

on crucial big game and upland bird habitat under this alternative. Roads and 

trails may be closed to OHVs where wildlife or habitat is being harmed.

Impacts from Recreation

The BLM would continue managing for dispersed recreation under Alternative 

A. Recreational use may result in human disturbance, degradation of habitat, or 

mortality, as described in Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Habitat loss and human-related disturbance effects on wildlife from development 

in ROWs are similar to Section 4.18.4, Alternative A.

Impacts from Range Management

Livestock grazing could have negative, neutral, or positive effects on wildlife 

species, as discussed in the Assumptions section above. Effects on wildlife from 

current grazing practices would continue, as described in Section 4.18.4. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Fish and Wildlife)

4-178 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Management goals within riparian habitats would be set to achieve PFC, to

maintain desired plant community or wildlife habitat, to improve watershed

conditions, and to comply with the Clean Water Act. Grazing systems would

consider riparian impacts, including seasonal avoidance of riparian zones, 

encouraging livestock to congregate away from riparian areas, or fencing-off 

riparian areas. Restricting livestock from riparian areas would improve riparian 

vegetation health and would therefore provide more suitable habitat for wildlife 

species.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Fluid mineral leasing and development would continue on previously leased 

lands and would continue to affect wildlife, as described under Section 4.18.4.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

There are no known coal resources in the planning area, so there would be no 

impacts from coal development. Surface occupancy is generally prohibited within 

key wildlife areas, floodplains, and public ROWs. Solid minerals management 

could improve habitat in the decision area, as described in Section 4.18.4.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Current fire management and suppression within the decision area would likely

reduce effects on wildlife, in ways similar to the impacts described in Section 

4.18.4.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Management to improve succulent vegetation, forbs, and big and silver sage

maintenance in GRSG habitat areas would increase habitat availability for 

sagebrush obligate species. However, these improvements would reduce habitat 

for grassland species.

Impacts from ACECs

No additional ACECs would be designated under Alternative A, so no additional 

protection for wildlife habitats would occur.

4.19.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Motorized vehicles would continue to be limited to existing roads and trails 

until travel management planning is completed. Roads in PH would be evaluated 

for permanent or seasonal closure. Route construction in PH would be limited 

to realignments of existing roads, built or upgraded to minimum standards

necessary. Approximately 12,937 acres of overlapping wildlife habitat for a 

number of big game including deer, elk, antelope, big horn sheep, and moose as 

well as upland species including Hungarian partridge, pheasant, other grouse 

species inhabit the proposed PH. An additional 3,839 acres of winter range 

habitat for big game species would be included in the proposed PH. GH include 

11,520 acres of wildlife habitat and 2,878 acres of winter habitat. Surface 
4. Environmental Consequences (Fish and Wildlife)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-179

disturbances to vegetation associated with road-building would be part of the 

three percent maximum disturbance cap for that area. Road closures would 

reduce the impacts on wildlife species described in Section 4.18.2.

Impacts from Recreation

SRPs would be issued in PH only where the effects of the recreational use were 

neutral or beneficial to GRSG habitat. This action would reduce impacts from 

recreation as described in Section 4.18.2 for those wildlife species that inhabit 

PH.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

PH would be managed as ROW exclusion areas (233,219 acres). These areas 

would reduce impacts described in Section 4.18.2 for those wildlife species 

that occupy these areas.

Ownership changes described in Section 4.18.5, Alternative B, could improve 

or degrade wildlife species and habitat, depending on the proposed use of the 

land.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative B, the number of acres open and closed for grazing and 

available AUMs would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts from grazing 

described in Section 4.18.2 would continue under Alternative B. Existing 

improvements and project planning for new range improvements would reduce 

impacts described under Nature and Type of Effects for those wildlife species that 

inhabit rangeland. Enhancement to increase GRSG habitat may increase available 

habitat for sagebrush obligates but reduce habitat for grassland species.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Limitations on exploration within PH would reduce impacts on wildlife species 

and their habitats, as described in Section 4.18.5. RDFs and conservation 

measures would be applied as COAs to existing fluid mineral leases within PH, 

restricting surface occupancy, imposing seasonal restrictions, and restricting 

surface disturbance to three percent of the area. 

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Currently there is no coal potential in the management area, so there would be 

no impacts from coal development. PH would be closed to nonenergy leasable 

minerals and to salable mineral disposal. BMPs would be applied to existing 

leases, and existing salable mineral pits would be restored. Together, these 

proposed limitations on solid mineral development would minimize the impacts 

described in Section 4.18.2 for those wildlife species that occupy these areas.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Under Alternative B, fire and fuels treatments would be managed, as described 

under Alternative A. Fire suppression would prioritize GRSG habitat in PH and 

GH, after life and property, and BMPs would be followed. These actions would 
4. Environmental Consequences (Fish and Wildlife)

4-180 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

minimize impacts described in Section 4.18.2 for those wildlife species that 

inhabit PH and GH.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Within the analysis area, vegetation treatments would continue to be used to 

achieve resource management objectives and would be considered to protect

sagebrush ecosystems. Restoration would be prioritized based on the proposed 

benefit to GRSG. In general, vegetation treatments and sagebrush ecosystem 

restoration would increase habitat for sagebrush obligates but would reduce 

grassland habitat, understory habitat, and habitat for species associated with 

adjacent encroaching conifers.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A.

4.19.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

New road construction would be prohibited within four miles of active leks and 

avoided in PH and GH. Road construction would be limited to realignments of 

existing routes in PH, if the realignment has minimal impact on GRSG habitat. 

Prohibiting or limiting new road construction in the decision area would 

minimize impacts on wildlife species in these areas, as described in Section 

4.18.2.

Impacts from Recreation

As under Alternative A, the BLM would continue to manage the area for 

dispersed recreation, such as hunting, camping, biking, and hiking; therefore, no 

protection would be provided to wildlife species’ habitats. Impacts would be

similar to Alternative A.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

PH would be managed as ROW exclusion areas (345,560 acres) and no ROW 

avoidance areas would be established. ROW exclusion areas would improve 

protection of wildlife species as described in Section 4.18.2. Private lands, 

when offered, may be acquired in ACECs to enhance GRSG conservation value 

of existing lands. Adding lands to ACECs would enhance protection of wildlife 

species in these areas.

Impacts from Range Management

Grazing would be would be removed on allotments within PH and GH (337,165 

acres, comprising 69,408 AUMs) under Alternative C. Impacts from grazing on 

wildlife species, as described in Section 4.18.2, would be reduced. However, 

the potential for more fine fuels to accumulate as a result of decreased grazing 

could increase wildland fires. In the long term, sagebrush habitat availability 

could be reduced, but grasses and habitat for grassland species could increase. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Fish and Wildlife)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-181

The total exclusion of grazing in PH and GH would also eliminate the need for 

maintaining nearly 90 percent of stock water in the long term. 

A minimum amount of stock water ponds would be maintained for other 

wildlife management on BLM-administered lands in the planning area. 

Amphibians, shorebirds and waterfowl, and aquatic invertebrates that depend 

on stock water would decrease. However, the substantial reduction in stock 

water in GRSG habitat on BLM-administered lands under Alternative C would 

likely decrease the risk of mosquito-borne diseases. Stock water on land not 

administered by the BLM would still be maintained. Additional impacts wildlife 

species from changes in range management under Alternative C are similar to 

those described in Section 4.18.6, Alternative C.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Fluid minerals management would apply RDFs and conservation measures as 

COAs to existing leases. This would limit surface occupancy within PH and GH,

would impose seasonal restrictions on exploratory drilling, including vehicle 

traffic and other human activity, and would restrict surface disturbance to three 

percent of the area. Seasonal surface limitations would decrease impacts on 

wildlife species that inhabit PH and GH, as described in Section 4.18.2.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Impacts from all actions on wildlife species would be the same as described 

under Alternative B.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fuels treatments would not be allowed in winter range unless the treatment is 

designed to reduce wildfire risk and maintain habitat quality in the winter range. 

Proper fire control and adequate preparation work would be used in any fuel 

reduction project. Vegetation treatment plans would include pretreatment data, 

nongrazing exclosures, and long-term monitoring.

Fire suppression and emergency stabilization projects would be as described 

under Alternative B and would result in similar effects on wildlife species.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Actions would be the same as under Alternative B. There would be additional 

measures to prioritize restoration in seasonal habitats thought to be limiting 

GRSG and where factors causing degradation have already been addressed. 

Vegetation treatments and sagebrush ecosystem restoration would increase 

available habitat for sagebrush obligates; however, grassland species habitat or 

species that inhabit encroaching conifers would likely decline.

Impacts from ACECs

ACECs to protect GRSG would be designated as sagebrush reserves in PH, 

consisting of 4,000-acre blocks of BLM-administered land, covering 96,246 acres. 

However, no additional protections would occur for GRSG or habitat that 
4. Environmental Consequences (Fish and Wildlife)

4-182 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

could reduce impacts on wildlife habitat with an ACEC designation since all 

conservation measures would be applied to both PH and GH under Alternative 

C.

4.19.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Prohibiting or limiting road construction in the decision area would minimize 

direct and indirect impacts on wildlife, as described in Section 4.18.2. Impacts 

on wildlife habitat from this proposed action are similar to those described for 

other special status species under Section 4.18.7, Alternative D.

Impacts from Recreation

The actions proposed under this alternative are similar to Alternative B. SRPs 

would be issued only in habitat areas where the effects of recreation were 

neutral or beneficial to GRSG habitat. This action would reduce impacts from 

recreation described in Section 4.18.2 for wildlife species that occupy PH.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Management actions proposed under this alternative could increase the

protection of wildlife, compared to those provided under Alternatives B and C,

by minimizing disturbance on the landscape (taking ownership patterns and 

private lands into account). Public ownership would be maintained in PH, except 

where land exchanges would provide a greater benefit to GRSG. Ownership

changes would reduce impacts described in Section 4.18.2 for wildlife species 

that inhabit PH.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative D, there would be no change to the acreage open for grazing 

or available AUMs. Currently, 337,165 acres in the decision area are open for 

livestock grazing, with 69,408 available AUMs. Within PH, the BLM would 

conduct land health evaluations and determinations that include (at a minimum) 

indicators and/or measurements of structure/condition/composition of 

vegetation specific to achieving GRSG habitat objectives. Management actions 

would be developed if land health determinations indicate that an allotment is 

not meeting standards due to current livestock grazing. State objectives would 

be used for fine-scale analysis unless local objectives are developed at the field 

office level, in partnership with MFWP and USFWS.

Wet meadows and riparian areas in PH would be managed by the LFO to 

maintain forbs, edge cover, and species richness to facilitate GRSG brood 

rearing. Seasonal restrictions on livestock grazing would reduce pressure on 

riparian vegetation used by GRSG in summer. New water diversions from seeps 

or springs would be authorized only when PH would benefit from the 

development. Modifications to water developments would be considered to 

maintain continuity of riparian areas within PH. Reservoirs and stock ponds with 

riparian/wetland characteristics would be managed to support wildlife to the 
4. Environmental Consequences (Fish and Wildlife)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-183

extent possible, with consideration given to the original purpose of the 

development.

Vegetation treatments to increase forage for livestock would only be allowed in 

PH if they conserve or enhance GRSG habitat. Allowances would be made for 

treatments with negative short-term effects but overall long-term positive 

impacts. Structural range improvements would be designed to improve GRSG

habitat, as described under Alternative B. The proposed actions described 

under Alternative D would restrict grazing in PH and would provide range 

enhancements to benefit GRSG. Sagebrush obligate species within PH would 

increase habitat quantity and quality under Alternative D.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

During implementation review, conservation measures would be applied in 

conformance with the approved RMP and a list of constraints and BMPs applied 

as COA to leases. The conditions are designed to minimize noise, traffic, and 

other disturbance associated with mineral extraction. These limited measures to 

reduce disturbance would likely have minimal impact on wildlife species 

compared to current practices.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

As there is no coal potential in the planning area, there would be no impacts 

from coal development. Locatable minerals development would be managed as 

described under Alternative A. Mineral pits would be restored as described 

under Alternative B. These actions would have minimal impacts on wildlife 

species.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fuels management would be designed and implemented as described in 

Alternative C. Fire suppression would be prioritized, BMPs would be applied, 

and ES&R procedures would be as described under Alternative B. Additional 

provisions would be implemented to protect vegetation to benefit GRSG in 

areas susceptible to fire. Livestock grazing would be considered for fuel 

reduction, as described under Alternative B. These actions would minimize 

impacts on sagebrush obligate species.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative D, habitat restoration would give special emphasis to 

protecting sagebrush ecosystems in designing vegetation treatments, similar to 

the actions proposed under Alternative B. Prioritization would occur as 

described under Alternative B, with emphasis given to other sensitive and listed 

species, in addition to GRSG. Restoration projects would strive to meet GRSG

habitat objectives for projects in PH, but those objectives would not be the 

highest priority, as under Alternatives B and C.

This alternative includes the caveat that other restoration projects may take 

precedence over sagebrush projects, based on such factors as funding 
4. Environmental Consequences (Fish and Wildlife)

4-184 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

requirements, landowner cooperation, and future ESA listings. Compared to

Alternatives B and C, the actions proposed under Alternative D would provide 

more protection for wildlife habitat that overlap with other special status 

species’ and GRSG habitat.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would the same as under Alternative A.

4.20 RENEWABLE ENERGY

4.20.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Table 4-31, Comparison of Renewable Energy Resource Indicators by 

Alternative, provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the 

effects on renewable energy under each alternative.

Table 4-31

Comparison of Renewable Energy Resource Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

Acres with “Good” or better wind potential 

within ROW exclusion areas

0 43,728 49,322 0

Acres with “Good” or better wind potential 

within ROW avoidance areas 

0 5,595 0 49,322

Acres with “Good” or better solar potential 

within ROW exclusion areas

0 0 0 0

Acres with “Good” or better solar potential 

within ROW avoidance areas 

0 0 0 0

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• “Good” or better wind potential is classified as wind speeds of 7.0 

meters/second at 50 meters height or at wind power density of 

above 400 watts/meter (NREL 2012a).

• “Good” or better solar potential is classified as having average 

annual solar energy above 6.0 kilowatt-hours/square meter/day or a 

solar power density above 400 watts/square meter (NREL 2012b).

• Existing ROWs may be modified on their renewal, assignment, or 

amendment if the requested actions meet the objectives of the 

amended RMP.

• ROW holders may continue their authorized use as long as they are 

in compliance with the terms and conditions of their grant.
4. Environmental Consequences (Renewable Energy)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-185

• The demand for ROWs would increase over the life of the 

amended RMP.

• Renewable energy resources include solar, wind, and biomass 

facilities. Biomass projects are generally authorized under the 

forestry regulations, unless a new facility is being authorized for 

biomass generation, which would likely be authorized under lands 

and realty regulations. Based on recent trends (see Chapter 3), the 

development of biomass facilities within the planning area is unlikely; 

therefore, impacts from biomass production facilities are not 

analyzed.

Alternatives were evaluated for acres of ROW avoidance, acres of ROW 

exclusion, and areas where new road construction is prohibited or to be 

avoided. All of these factors are considered to be impediments to solar and 

wind development. Alternatives with greater acreages of such restrictions are 

considered to have a greater impact on solar and wind development potential 

than alternatives with fewer acres of such restrictions.

4.20.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Impacts on solar and wind projects are generally related to where ROW

authorizations are allowed to occur, the mitigation measures required for 

specific project siting, and special stipulations required for resource protection.

ROWs can only occur on lands that are not ROW exclusion areas. Alternatives 

with greater ROW exclusion acreages would have long-term direct impacts on 

the ability for solar and wind projects to be developed.

As discussed in Section 4.3, ROW applications may be filed within ROW 

avoidance areas; however, projects proposed in such areas may be subject to 

restrictions that would add application processing time and increased project 

costs. Alternatives with greater ROW avoidance areas are considered to have 

short-term direct impacts (e.g., special surveys, reports, and construction and 

reclamation BMPs) and long-term direct impacts (e.g., potential operation and 

maintenance requirements) on the development of renewable energy resources.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on renewable energy and are therefore not discussed in detail: travel 

and transportation management, recreation, range management, fluid minerals, 

solid minerals, mineral split estate, fire and fuels management, habitat 

restoration and vegetation management, and ACECs.

4.20.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

The acreages of ROW exclusions and avoidances vary across alternatives and 

are provided in Table 4-32, BLM-Administered Lands Managed as ROW

Exclusion and Avoidance Areas.
4. Environmental Consequences (Renewable Energy)

4-186 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 4-32

BLM-Administered Lands Managed as ROW Exclusion and Avoidance Areas

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

ROW exclusion

area (acres)

0 233,219 345,560 0

ROW avoidance

area (acres)

9,708 112,341 0 233,219

As stated in Indicators, there is no “Good” (6.0 kilowatt-hours/square 

meter/day) or better solar potential within the planning area. As such, none the 

alternatives would result in impacts on solar energy development potential.

Table 4-33, “Good” or Better Wind Potential That Would Be Managed as 

ROW Exclusion and Avoidance Areas, provides an overview of impacts across 

alternatives on wind development potential through showing the number of 

acres of “Good” or better (Class 4 or higher) wind potential within ROW 

exclusion and avoidance areas.

Table 4-33

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

Avoidance Areas

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

ROW exclusion

area (acres)

0 43,728 49,322 0

ROW avoidance

area (acres)

0 5,595 0 49,322

Collocating utilities would reduce land use conflicts by grouping similar facilities 

and activities in specific areas and away from conflicting developments and 

activities. It would also clarify the preferred locations for utilities on BLMadministered lands, would make construction and maintenance of the facilities 

easier, and would simplify the application process for new facilities.

4.20.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative A, zero acres of lands with “Good” or better wind potential 

would be affected by ROW exclusion or avoidance areas. All lands with such 

potential would continue to be open for ROW applications on a case-by-case 

basis.
4. Environmental Consequences (Renewable Energy)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-187

4.20.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative B, 233,219 acres would be managed as ROW exclusion areas 

and would not be open for ROW applications. Within this exclusion area, there 

are 43,728 acres considered to have “Good” or better wind potential. This 

represents 70 percent of lands with “good” or better wind potential that exist 

within the decision area. Management under Alternative B would result in 

43,728 fewer acres open to wind energy development than under Alternative A.

Therefore, 70 percent of lands with “Good” or better wind potential that are 

open for ROW applications within the decision area under Alternative A would 

become ROW exclusion areas under Alternative B and would not be available 

for wind development.

Under Alternative B, an additional 102,633 acres would be managed as ROW

avoidance areas. Within this ROW avoidance area there are 5,595 acres 

considered to have “Good” or better wind potential. This represents nine 

percent of lands with “good” or better wind potential that exist within the 

decision area. Management under Alternative B would result in 5,595 fewer 

acres available for wind development without substantial restrictions. Therefore, 

under Alternative B, nine percent of lands with “Good” or better wind potential 

available for ROW applications within the decision area would be subject to 

substantial restrictions when compared with Alternative A. 

Table 4-34, Wind Potential Affected by Alternative B, provides a detailed 

overview of how these ROW restrictions relate to individual wind classes.

Table 4-34

Wind Potential Affected by Alternative B

Wind Potential (square 

meters at 50 meters)

Total Acres on 

BLMAdministered 

Land

ROW Exclusion 

(percent of 

total)

ROW Avoidance 

(percent of total)

Class 4 “Good” 7.0-7.5 55,951 41,601.4 (74%) 5,247.1 (9.4%)

Class 5 “Very Good” 7.5-8.0 5,700.3 2,120.6 (37%) 301.2 (5.3%)

Class 6 “Excellent” 8.0-8.8 965.7 5.7 (0.6%) 45.2 (4.7%)

Class 7 “Best” 8.8 & above 318.5 0 (0%) 1.2 (0.4%)

Total Classes 4-7 62,935.5 43,727.7 (70%) 5,594.7 (8.8%)

Source: NREL 2012a; BLM 2012a

4.20.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative C, 345,560 acres would be managed as ROW exclusion areas

and would not be open for ROW authorizations. Within this exclusion area 

there are 49,322 acres considered to have “Good” or better wind potential. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Renewable Energy)

4-188 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

This represents 79 percent of lands with “good” or better wind potential that 

exist within the decision area. Alternative C would result in 49,322 acres open 

to wind energy development than under Alternative A. Therefore, 79 percent of 

lands with “Good” or better wind potential that are open for ROW applications 

in the decision area under Alternative A would become ROW exclusion areas

under Alternative C and would not be available for wind development.

Table 4-35, Wind Potential Affected by Alternative C, provides a detailed 

overview of how these ROW restrictions relate to individual wind classes.

Table 4-35

Wind Potential Affected by Alternative C

Wind Potential

(square meters at 50

meters)

Total Acres on BLMAdministered LandROW Exclusion 

(percent of total)

ROW Avoidance 

(percent of total)

Class 4 “Good” 7.0-7.5 55,951 46,848.4 (84%) 0

Class 5 “Very Good” 7.5-8.0 5,700.3 2,421.8 (42%) 0

Class 6 “Excellent” 8.0-8.8 965.7 50.9 (5.3%) 0

Class 7 “Best” 8.8 & above 318.5 1.2 (0.4%) 0

Total Classes 4-7 62,935.5 49,322.3 (79%) 0

Source: NREL 2012a; BLM 2012a

4.20.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative D, no acres would be managed as ROW exclusion areas and 

would not be open for ROW applications. Therefore, the same acreage would 

be open to wind energy development as under Alternative A.

Under Alternative D, an additional 233,219 acres would be managed as ROW

avoidance areas. Within this ROW avoidance area there are 49,322 acres 

considered to have “Good” or better wind potential. This represents 79 

percent of lands with “Good” or better wind potential that exist within the 

decision area. Management under Alternative D would result in 49,322 fewer 

acres available for wind development without substantial restrictions. Therefore,

under Alternative D 79 percent of lands with “Good” or better wind potential 

available for ROW applications would be subject to substantial restrictions 

when compared with Alternative A.

Table 4-36, Wind Potential Affected by Alternative D, provides a detailed 

overview of how these ROW restrictions relate to individual wind classes.
4. Environmental Consequences (Renewable Energy)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-189

Table 4-36

Wind Potential Affected by Alternative D

Wind Potential

(square meters at 50 

meters)

Total Acres on BLMAdministered LandROW Exclusion 

(percent of total)

ROW Avoidance 

(percent of total)

Class 4 “Good” 7.0-7.5 55,951 0 46,848.4 (84%)

Class 5 “Very Good” 7.5-8.0 5,700.3 0 2,421.8 (42%)

Class 6 “Excellent” 8.0-8.8 965.7 0 50.9 (5.3%)

Class 7 “Best” 8.8 & above 318.5 0 1.2 (0.4%)

Total Classes 4-7 62,935.5 0 49,322.3 (79%)

Source: NREL 2012a; BLM 2012a

4.21 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

4.21.1 Methods and Assumptions

The analysis of economic effects considers job and labor income in an economic 

impact analysis. Economic impact analysis is used to evaluate potential direct, 

indirect, and induced effects on the economy. The analytical technique used by 

the BLM to estimate employment and income impacts is "input-output" analysis 

using the IMPLAN Pro software system. Input-output analysis is a means of 

examining relationships within an economy both between businesses and 

between businesses and final consumers. It captures all monetary market 

transactions for consumption in a given time period. The resulting mathematical 

representation allows one to examine the effect of a change in one or several 

economic activities on an entire economy, all else constant. This examination is 

called economic impact analysis. IMPLAN translates changes in final demand for 

goods and services into economic effects, such as labor income and employment 

of the affected area’s economy. The IMPLAN modeling system requires one to 

build regional economic models of one or more counties for a particular year.

The model for this analysis uses 2010 IMPLAN data and the impact area for this 

analysis includes Chouteau, Fergus, Judith Basin, Meagher, and Petroleum 

counties.

The impacts on the local economy from the RMPA are measured by estimating 

the employment (full- and part-time jobs) and labor income generated by grazing 

on allotments potentially affected and recreation under the alternatives. The 

direct employment and labor income benefit employees and their families and 

therefore directly affect the local economy. Additional indirect and induced 

multiplier effects (ripple effects) are generated by the direct activities. Together 

the direct and multiplier effects comprise the total impacts on the local 

economy (Table 4-37, Employment and Labor Income Generated from 

Recreation and Grazing under the RMPA). The multiplier effects tied to grazing 

and recreation were estimated using IMPLAN. Potential limitations of these 

estimates are the time lag in IMPLAN data and the data intensive nature of the 

input-output model. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Social and Economic Conditions)

4-190 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 4-37

Employment and Labor Income Generated from Recreation and Grazing under the 

RMPA

Employment (full and part time 

jobs)

Labor Income (thousands of 2013 

dollars)

Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D

Wildlife related 

recreation

8 less 

than 

Alt A

less than 

other 

Alts

less than 

Alt A

$192 less than 

Alt A

less than 

other 

Alts

less than 

Alt A

Non-Wildlife 

related

recreation

12 less 

than 

Alt A

less than 

other 

Alts

less than 

Alt A

$289 less than 

Alt A

less than 

other 

Alts

less than 

Alt A

Grazing 201 201 66 201 $2,810 $2,810 $931 $2,810

Source: IMPLAN 2010

4.21.2 Alternative A

A summary of impacts on employment and labor income across alternatives is 

provided in Table 4-37. Details of analysis are provided below by resource and 

resource use.

Impacts from Range Management

Livestock grazing would continue to be managed under the existing RMPs and 

Standards for Rangeland Health. Consequently, current economic contributions 

from allocated grazing on allotments covered under this RMPA would continue. 

Use of allocated forage on these allotments would generate 201 total jobs 

(direct, indirect, and induced) and $2.8 million in labor income (direct, indirect 

and induced) on an average annual basis within the impact area economy (refer 

to Table 4-37). On an annual basis use of the allocated forage and associated 

employment and income can be less based on market conditions, drought or 

range practices to protect other resources. As noted in the discussion of 

employment specialization above, the five-county impact area can be considered 

specialized with respect to the grazing sector. Direct employment generated as 

a result of grazing under this alternative would provide 128 jobs which would 

comprise about 29 percent of employment in this sector.

Impacts from Lands and Realty 

Currently, there are no ROW exclusion areas within the decision area. As a 

result, land use authorizations would continue to be analyzed and if approved 

could continue to support area communities and economies under this 

alternative. There are two ROW avoidance areas within the decision area. One 

is within PH and one in GH. Under this alternative, land use authorizations 

could continue within avoidance areas with implementation of proper mitigation 

measures.
4. Environmental Consequences (Social and Economic Conditions)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-191

Impacts from Recreation

Under Alternative A, BLM management would result in no additional measures 

to protect GRSG habitat. As a result, no impacts on recreation on BLMadministered lands would occur and associated economic contributions to the 

five-county impact would continue. Approximately eight jobs (direct, indirect,

and induced) are associated with wildlife related recreation and 12 jobs (direct, 

indirect and induced) are associated with recreation not related to wildlife in 

the five-county impact area (refer to Table 4-37). Direct employment 

generated as a result of wildlife and recreation not related to wildlife under this 

alternative would comprise about one percent of employment in sectors 

specifically attributable to tourism and recreation.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management and 

ACECs

Management under this alternative would not specifically protect GRSG habitat. 

Grazing methods, land treatments and other improvements would continue to 

be designed to accomplish habitat restoration objectives. Continuation of these 

policies would promote sagebrush habitat, but less than under Alternatives B or 

C. No ACECs to protect GRSG habitat would be included in this alternative. As 

a result, well-being and non-market values associated with GRSG habitat would 

be less than Alternatives B and C.

4.21.3 Alternative B

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative B, there would be no change to the acreage open for grazing 

or available AUMs. AMPs and permit renewals would be used to incorporate 

GRSG management objectives into grazing allotments. Consequently, it is 

anticipated that current economic contributions from allocated grazing on 

allotments covered under this RMPA would continue. Use of allocated forage 

on these allotments generates 201 total jobs (direct, indirect and induced) and 

$2.8 million in labor income (direct, indirect and induced) on an average annual 

basis within the impact area economy (refer to Table 4-37). On an annual basis 

use of the allocated forage and associated employment and income can be less 

based on market conditions, drought or range practices to protect other 

resources. In addition, further reductions could occur with voluntary retirement 

of allotments under Alternative B, which would further reduce economic 

contributions. As noted in the discussion of employment specialization, the fivecounty impact area can be considered specialized with respect to the grazing 

sector. Direct employment generated as a result of grazing under this 

alternative would provide 128 jobs which would comprise about 29 percent of 

employment in this sector.

Impacts from Lands and Realty and Energy Development

Under Alternative B, 233,219 acres (67 percent) of the decision area associated 

with PH would be managed as ROW exclusion areas for new ROW 
4. Environmental Consequences (Social and Economic Conditions)

4-192 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

authorizations. Further, GH would be identified as ROW avoidance areas.

ROW development and land use authorizations within ROW avoidance areas 

would generally avoid habitat areas, but authorizations are possible if proper 

mitigation measures are implemented as part of the development and 

authorization to offset any loss of general GRSG habitat if impacted. In addition, 

new ROWs in PH may only be authorized if they are collocated completely 

within the footprint of an existing authorized ROW. Further, under this 

alternative, development associated with valid existing rights (an authorized 

ROW which needs improvement) would only be allowed to the absolute 

minimum standards. All new disturbances would be limited so not to exceed a 

disturbance of three percent for that area. Therefore, this alternative may limit 

new ROWs or energy development within the planning area and would 

consequently support communities and economies less than under Alternative 

A.

Impacts from Recreation

Under Alternative B, BLM would consider the effects of SRPs on PH. If future 

SRP applications were denied (if not found to be neutral or beneficial to GRSG) 

under this alternative, there would be a less organized hunting opportunities on 

BLM-administered land in the decision area as compared with Alternative A. As 

a result, economic contributions could be less than current contributions 

depicted under Alternative A.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management and 

ACECs

Under this alternative, restoration projects would be prioritized based on 

benefit to GRSG habitat. Vegetation treatments would continue to be used for 

resource management objectives such as protection of sagebrush ecosystems.

These actions would enhance GRSG habitat. No ACECs to protect GRSG

habitat would be included in this alternative. 

4.21.4 Alternative C

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative C, livestock grazing would be removed from all allotments in 

PH and GH resulting in a 66 percent reduction in AUMs relative to Alternative 

A. Consequently, it is anticipated that economic contributions from allocated 

grazing on allotments covered under this RMPA would be less than currently 

contributed. As a result of the reductions employment would decrease from 

201 to 66 total jobs (direct, indirect and induced) and labor income would 

decrease from $2.8 million to $931,000 (direct, indirect and induced) on an 

average annual basis within the impact area economy (refer to Table 4-37). 

Decreases may not be as large since actual use of BLM is not equal to allocated 

use levels analyzed here. For example on any given year actual employment 

associated with billed use could be less than 201 jobs if actual use of BLM forage 

is less than allocated (possible due to increases in prices of factors of 
4. Environmental Consequences (Social and Economic Conditions)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-193

production, drought, market conditions, etc.). In addition, the decrease 

portrayed here could be less if alternative sources of forage is found for willing 

permittees. As noted in the discussion of employment specialization above, the 

five-county impact area can be considered specialized with respect to the

grazing sector. Direct employment generated as a result of grazing under this 

alternative would decrease from 128 jobs to 42 jobs which would correspond 

to a decrease from 29 percent to 10 percent of employment in this sector.

Impacts from Lands and Realty and Energy Development

Under Alternative C, 345,560 acres of the decision area associated with PH and 

GH would be managed as ROW exclusion area for new ROW grants. As a 

result, current land use authorizations would be relocated which could decrease 

the degree to which area communities and economies depend on current 

authorizations under this alternative. In addition, new applications in PH may 

only be authorized if they are collocated completely within the footprint of an 

existing authorization. Further, under this alternative, development associated 

with valid existing rights (an authorization which needs improvement) would 

only be allowed to the absolute minimum standards. All new disturbances would 

be limited so not to exceed a disturbance of three percent for that area.

Therefore, this alternative may limit new authorizations or energy development 

within the planning area and would consequently support communities and 

economies less than under Alternative A.

Impacts from Recreation

Under Alternative C, implementation of a travel plan could change access 

important for current recreation activities in the decision area. If changes to 

recreation access occurred there would be a reduction in recreation visitation 

on BLM-administered lands in the decision area. As a result, economic 

contributions could be less than current contributions (depicted under 

Alternative A) and the other alternatives.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management and 

ACEC

Under this alternative, additional actions would promote expansion of GRSG

habitat at levels greater than the other alternatives. In addition, ACECs to 

protect GRSG habitat would be designated under in this alternative. These 

policies would promote expansion of GRSG habitat. As a result, well-being and 

non-market values associated with GRSG habitat would be protected to a 

greater degree than the other alternatives.

4.21.5 Alternative D

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative D, there would be no change to the acreage open for grazing 

or available AUMs. GRSG habitat objectives would be considered when 

evaluating land health standards. Consequently, it is anticipated that current 
4. Environmental Consequences (Social and Economic Conditions)

4-194 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

economic contributions from allocated grazing on allotments covered under this 

RMPA would continue. Use of allocated forage on these allotments generates 

201 total jobs (direct, indirect and induced) and $2.8 million in labor income 

(direct, indirect and induced) on an average annual basis within the impact area 

economy (refer to Table 4-37). On an annual basis use of the allocated forage 

and associated employment and income can be less based on market conditions, 

drought or range practices to protect other resources. Unlike Alternative B, 

further reductions from voluntary retirement of allotments would not occur 

consequently this alternative is likely to sustain current contributions to a 

greater degree than Alternative B. As noted in the discussion of employment 

specialization above, the five-county impact area can be considered specialized 

with respect to the grazing sector. Direct employment generated as a result of 

grazing under this alternative would provide 128 jobs which would comprise 

about 29 percent of employment in this sector.

Impacts from Lands and Realty and Energy Development

Under Alternative D, PH (233,219 acres within the decision area) would be 

managed as an avoidance area for new applications for ROWs, leases, or 

permits. In GH (112,341 acres), Alternative D would allow for the issuance of 

ROWs, leases, and permits with appropriate conservation and mitigation 

measures on a case-by-case basis. As a result, local communities and economies 

(as well as individuals who may live in remote locations) may be impacted,

depending on the degree to which they rely on local electricity or utility 

services. 

Further, under this alternative, development associated with valid existing rights 

(an authorization that needs improvement) would be allowed only to minimum 

standards. Therefore, this alternative would provide less support to the 

communities than Alternative A but more than Alternatives B or C.

Impacts from Recreation

Under Alternative D, impacts on recreation would be the same as discussed 

under Alternative B. As a result, economic contributions would be the same as

Alternative B.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management and 

ACECs

Under this alternative, other restoration projects associated with threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive species would be considered when prioritizing 

projects, which could reduce the potential to improve GRSG habitat. In 

addition, no ACECs to protect GRSG habitat would be included in this 

alternative. As a result, well-being and non-market values associated with other 

threatened and endangered species habitat would be more than Alternatives B 

and C. Due to uncertainty in how restoration projects are prioritized, a relative 

comparison to Alternative A cannot be made.
4. Environmental Consequences (Environmental Justice)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-195

4.22 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

While minority and low-income populations may exist in the area, the 

alternatives are not expected to have a disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects on these communities. Impacts on local 

communities are expected to be negligible, and there is no reason to suspect 

that any impacts would disproportionately affect minority and low income 

populations. For example, decreases in employment and income anticipated 

under Alternative C would be distributed amongst all segments of the 

population regardless of minority or poverty status.

4.23 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Section 102(C) of NEPA requires disclosure of any adverse environmental 

effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented. 

Unavoidable adverse impacts are those that remain following the 

implementation of mitigation measures or impacts for which there are no 

mitigation measures. Some unavoidable adverse impacts occur as a result of 

implementing the Lewistown Field Office Greater-Sage-Grouse RMPA. Others 

are a result of public use of the decision area lands. This section summarizes 

major unavoidable impacts; discussions of the impacts of each management 

action (in the discussion of impacts by alternatives for each resource topic) 

provide greater information on specific unavoidable impacts.

Surface-disturbing activities would result in unavoidable adverse impacts under 

current BLM policy to foster multiple uses. Although these impacts would be 

mitigated to the extent possible, unavoidable damage would be inevitable. Longterm conversion of areas to other uses such as mineral and energy development 

would increase erosion and change the relative abundance of species within 

plant communities, the relative distribution of plant communities, and the 

relative occurrence of seral stages of those communities. Where habitat areas 

are not protected by stipulations, oil and gas development would result in 

unavoidable long-term wildlife habitat loss where developed.

Wildlife and livestock would contribute to soil erosion, compaction, and 

vegetation loss, which could be extensive during drought cycles and dormancy 

periods. Conversely, unavoidable losses or damage to forage from resource 

development in the planning area would affect livestock and wildlife. Some level 

of competition for forage between these species, although mitigated to the 

extent possible, would be unavoidable. Instances of displacement, harassment, 

and injury could also occur.

Recreational activities, mineral resource development, and general use of the 

planning area would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, 

which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence and the need 

for suppression activities. These activities, combined with continued fire 

suppression, would also affect the overall composition and structure of 
4. Environmental Consequences (Unavoidable Adverse Impacts)

4-196 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

vegetation communities, which could increase the potential for high-intensity 

wildland fires.

As recreation demand increases, recreation use would disperse, creating 

unavoidable conflicts as more users compete for a limited amount of space. In 

areas where development activities would be greater, the potential for displaced 

users would increase.

Numerous land use restrictions imposed throughout the planning area to 

protect sensitive resources and other important values, by their nature, affect 

the ability of operators, individuals, and groups who use BLM-administered lands 

to do so freely without limitations. These restrictions could also require closing 

roads or trails or limiting certain modes or seasons of travel. Although attempts 

would be made to minimize these impacts by limiting them to the level of 

protection necessary to accomplish management objectives, and providing 

alternative use areas for affected activities, unavoidable adverse impacts would 

occur under all alternatives.

4.24 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Section 102(C) of NEPA requires a discussion of any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources that are involved in the proposal should it be 

implemented. An irretrievable commitment of a resource is one in which the 

resource or its use is lost for a period of time (e.g., extraction of any solid

mineral ore or oil and gas). An irreversible commitment of a resource is one 

that cannot be reversed (e.g., the extinction of a species).

Implementing the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA

management actions would result in surface-disturbing activities, including

permitted recreation activities, mineral and energy development, and 

development in ROWs, which result in a commitment to the loss of irreversible 

or irretrievable resources. Mineral extraction or sale eliminates a nonrenewable 

resource, thereby resulting in irreversible and irretrievable commitment of the 

resource. Surface disturbance associated with energy development is reclaimed 

after the resource is removed. However, surface disturbances from gas storage,

and road ROWs, and wind development are a long term encumbrance of the 

land. Soil erosion or the loss of productivity and soil structure may be 

considered irreversible commitments to resources. Surface-disturbing activities, 

therefore, would remove vegetation and accelerate erosion that would 

contribute to irreversible soil loss; however, management actions, RDFs, and 

BMPs are intended to reduce the magnitude of these impacts and restore some 

of the soil and vegetation lost. Primarily because of the number of acres 

available for energy and mineral development, and development in ROWs, such 

disturbances would occur to the greatest degree under Alternative A; 

management under Alternative D would be similar but with more stipulations 

for surface-disturbing activities. Alternative B, and to a greater extent 
4. Environmental Consequences (Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-197

Alternative C, contains additional conservation measures, mitigation measures, 

and stipulations to protect planning area resources.

Across all alternatives, an irreversible commitment of nonrenewable fossil fuels 

(e.g., oil, gas), solid minerals, and salable materials would occur from 

development over the life of the Headwaters Resource Management Plan and 

Judith Resource Area Resource Management Plan.

4.25 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY

Section 102(C) of NEPA requires discussion of the relationship between local, 

short-term uses of the human environment, and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity of resources. As described in the 

introduction to this chapter, “short term” is defined as anticipated to occur 

within one to five years of the activity’s implementation. “Long term” is defined 

as following the first five years of implementation, but within the life of the 

Headwaters Resource Management Plan and Judith Resource Area Resource 

Management Plan.

Across all alternatives, management actions would result in various short-term 

effects, such as increased localized soil erosion, fugitive dust emission, 

vegetation loss or damage, and wildlife disturbance. Surface-disturbing activities, 

including utility construction and mineral resource development would result in 

the greatest potential for impacts on long-term productivity. Management 

prescriptions, RDFs, and BMPs are intended to minimize the effect of shortterm commitments and reverse change over the long term. These prescriptions 

and the associated reduction of impacts would be greatest under Alternative C 

and are present to a lesser extent under Alternative B for resources such as 

vegetation and wildlife habitat. However, BLM-administered lands are managed 

to foster multiple uses, and some impacts on long-term productivity could 

occur.

The short-term use of potential habitat for energy and minerals, and 

development in ROWs could also affect the long-term sustainability of some 

special status species. Special status species could be affected by habitat 

fragmentation associated with short-term resource uses and road construction 

and use.
4. Environmental Consequences (Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity)

4-198 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPTER 5

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-1

CHAPTER 5

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the likely cumulative impacts on the human and natural 

environment that could occur from implementing the alternatives presented in 

Chapter 2. This chapter is organized by topic, similar to Chapter 3 and 

Chapter 4.

Cumulative impacts are effects on the environment that result from the impact 

of implementing any one of the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse 

RMPA/EIS alternatives in combination with other actions outside the scope of 

this plan, either within the planning area or adjacent to it. Cumulative impact 

analysis is required by CEQ regulations because environmental conditions result 

from many different factors that act together. The total effect of any single 

action cannot be determined by considering it in isolation, but must be 

determined by considering the likely result of that action in conjunction with 

many others. Evaluation of potential impacts considers incremental impacts that 

could occur from the proposed project, as well as impacts from past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Management actions could be 

influenced by activities and conditions on adjacent public and non-public lands 

beyond the planning area boundary; therefore, assessment data and information 

could span multiple scales, land ownerships, and jurisdictions. These assessments 

involve determinations that often are complex and, to some degree, subjective.

5.1.1 Cumulative Analysis Methodology

The cumulative impacts discussion that follows considers the alternatives in the 

context of the broader human environment – specifically, actions that occur 

outside the scope and geographic area covered by the planning area. Cumulative 

impact analysis is limited to important issues of national, regional, or local 

significance.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Introduction)

5-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Because of the programmatic nature of the RMPA and cumulative assessment, 

the analysis tends to be broad and generalized to address potential impacts that 

could occur from a reasonably foreseeable management scenario combined with 

other reasonably foreseeable activities or projects. Consequently, this 

assessment is primarily qualitative for most resources because of a lack of

detailed information that would result from project-level decisions and other 

activities or projects. Quantitative information is used whenever available and as 

appropriate to portray the magnitude of an impact. The analysis assesses the 

magnitude of cumulative impacts by comparing the environment in its baseline 

condition with the expected impacts of the alternatives and other actions in the 

same geographic area. The magnitude of an impact is determined through a 

comparison of anticipated conditions against the naturally occurring baseline as 

depicted in the affected environment (see Chapter 3) or the long-term 

sustainability of a resource or social system.

The following factors were considered in this cumulative impact assessment:

• Federal, nonfederal, and private actions.

• Potential for synergistic impacts or synergistic interaction among or 

between impacts.

• Potential for impacts across political and administrative boundaries.

• Other spatial and temporal characteristics of each affected 

resource.

• Comparative scale of cumulative impacts across alternatives.

The geographic scope for the cumulative impact analysis extends to the planning 

area boundary. For Section 5.1.3, Greater Sage-Grouse, the cumulative impact

analysis includes an analysis at the WAFWA MZ 1 (Great Plains) and MZ IV 

(Snake River Plains) levels, in addition to the planning area analysis. WAFWA 

management zones are biologically based delineations that were determined by 

GRSG populations and sub-populations identified within seven floristic 

provinces. Analysis at this level enables the decision maker to understand the 

impacts on GRSG at a biologically meaningful scale.

5.1.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are considered in the 

analysis to identify whether and to what extent the environment has been 

degraded or enhanced, whether ongoing activities are causing impacts, and 

trends for activities in and impacts on the area. Projects and activities are 

evaluated on the basis of proximity, connection to the same environmental 

systems, potential for subsequent impacts or activity, similar impacts, the 

likelihood a project will occur, and whether the project is reasonably 

foreseeable.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Introduction)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-3

Projects and activities considered in the cumulative analysis were identified 

through meetings held with cooperators and BLM employees with local 

knowledge of the area. Each was asked to provide information on the most 

influential past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. Additional 

information was obtained through discussions with agency officials and review of 

publicly available materials and websites.

Effects of past actions and activities are manifested in the current condition of 

the resources, as described in the affected environment (see Chapter 3) and in 

Table 5-1, Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects, Plans, or 

Actions that Comprise the Cumulative Impact Scenario. Reasonably foreseeable 

future actions are actions that have been committed to or known proposals that 

would take place within a 10-year planning period. Table 5-1 provides a list of 

future actions considered in the cumulative effects analysis.

Reasonably foreseeable future action scenarios are projections made to predict 

future impacts – they are not actual planning decisions or resource

commitments. Projections, which have been developed for analytical purposes 

only, are based on current conditions and trends and represent a best 

professional estimate. Unforeseen changes in factors such as economics, 

demand, and federal, state, and local laws and policies could result in different 

outcomes than those projected in this analysis.

Other potential future actions have been considered and eliminated from 

further analysis because there is a small likelihood these actions would be 

pursued and implemented within the life of the plan or because so little is 

known about the potential action that formulating an analysis of impacts is 

premature and/or speculative. In addition, potential future actions protective of 

the environment (such as new regulations related to fugitive dust emissions) 

have less likelihood of creating major environmental consequences alone, or in 

combination with this planning effort. Federal actions such as species listing 

would require BLM to reconsider decisions created from this action because 

the consultations and relative impacts might no longer be appropriate. These 

potential future actions may have greater capacity to affect resource uses within 

the planning area; however, until more information is developed, no reasonable 

estimation of impacts could be developed.

Data on the precise locations and overall extent of resources within the 

planning area are considerable, although the information varies according to 

resource type and locale. Furthermore, understanding of the impacts on and the 

interplay among these resources is evolving. As knowledge improves, 

management measures (adaptive or otherwise) would be considered to reduce 

potential cumulative impacts in accordance with law, regulations, and Judith 

Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Headwaters Resource 

Management Plan.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Introduction)

5-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 5-1

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects, Plans, or Actions that Comprise the 

Cumulative Impact Scenario

National Greater 

Sage-Grouse 

planning strategy

The BLM and Forest Service are preparing several EISs with associated plan 

amendments to address a range of alternatives focused on specific conservation 

measures across the range of the GRSG. Several on-going RMP revisions will also 

be addressing specific conservation measures. The amendments will be 

coordinated under two administrative planning regions across the entire range of 

the GRSG; Rocky Mountain Region and the Great Basin Region. The Rocky 

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

Wyoming, and Colorado and in portions of Montana and Utah. The Great Basin 

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

portions of Utah and Montana.

Other land use plans The Judith Resource Area Resource Management Plan (BLM 1994) and 

Headwaters Resource Management Plan (BLM 1984) set management, protection, 

and use goals and guidelines for the Lewistown and Butte Field Offices and are 

currently being revised in a new RMP planning effort. The expected decision date

for the revised LFO Resource Management Plan is 2016. The Billings, Miles City, 

and South Dakota Field Offices and Hi-Line District Office are also currently

revising their RMPs. Those three plans are expected to be completed in 2014.

Energy and minerals 

development

Oil and Gas Leasing. The BLM routinely offers land parcels for competitive oil and 

gas leasing to allow exploration and development of oil and gas resources for 

public sale. Continued leasing is necessary for oil and gas companies to seek new 

areas for oil and gas production, or to develop previously 

inaccessible/uneconomical reserves. Since 1988, the LFO has been deferring 

nominated oil and gas lease parcels that require a special lease stipulation to 

protect important wildlife values. These deferrals are based on a protest 

resolution decision associated with existing RMPs in place for the field office.

There are currently 55,880 acres of existing BLM surface/federal minerals and 

33,881 acres of private state, or other surface/federal mineral leases within the 

RMPA planning area.

Vegetation 

Management

17, 437 acres of vegetation treatments were recorded in the LFO from 2002-

2012. Treatments include prescribed fire, weed control and mechanical 

treatments such as thinning, mastication, twist-spiking, and restoration of nonnative fields.

Hazardous fuels reduction. Fuels treatments, including prescribed fires, chemical 

and mechanical treatment, and seeding, would likely continue and potentially 

increase in the future. Approximately 1,000 acres of crested wheatgrass 

restoration, clubmoss and mechanical treatments have been proposed. 

Approximately 129,000 acres of prescribed fire and maintenance burning have 

been proposed and could potentially be implemented within the life of this plan.

Livestock grazing Livestock grazing has a long history in the region. Generally, livestock use has 

decreased over the past 100 years. Grazing in portions of the RMPA planning area 

has either remained stable or declined in the recent past, and demand on BLMadministered lands has remained stable between 2002 and 2012. Grazing on 

private lands within the RMPA planning area is expected to remain stable or 

slightly decrease as residential and recreational development increases. Drought 

and water availability in the planning has a significant impact on livestock grazing.

Infrastructure constructed on BLM-administered lands to support livestock 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Introduction)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-5

Table 5-1

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects, Plans, or Actions that Comprise the 

Cumulative Impact Scenario

grazing within the 5-county planning area from 2002-2012 is as follows:

• 26 miles of stockwater pipeline

• 42 watering sites which may include reservoirs, reservoir reconstructions, 

pits, or stocktanks 

• eight cattleguards

• 58 fences which may include 3-wire, 4-wire, woven or electric fence 

totaling 97.4 miles.

The following range improvement projects have been proposed within the 

planning area:

• 21 fences totaling 65 miles; three miles are proposed for removal

• 84 miles of stockwater pipeline (estimated)

• 87 stockwatering sites

Recreation and 

visitor use

The primary recreational activities in the LFO are hunting, fishing, hiking, 

horseback riding, sight-seeing, and target shooting. Recreation-based visitor use in 

the LFO is expected to maintain or increase on BLM- and non-BLM-administered

lands.

Unauthorized travel. Travel off of designated or existing routes as well as the 

creation of social trails has occurred and would likely continue to occur within 

the decision area.

Lands and realty Applications for ROW authorizations may increase to accommodate 

development, such as residential development and communication site usage for 

public safety and homeland security. In the project planning area (five counties),

the number of ROW actions (based on authorizations) has steadily increased 

since 2006 (seven) to a high of 17 in 2009 and mostly recently there were 14 in 

2012. The average for the past five years is approximately 13 actions per year. 

The FY2012 actions included:

• One temporary use (film) permit for 5.0 acres of temporary occupancy;

• Five road ROWs for 10.5 acres of disturbance;

• One communication site ROW for 0.04 acres of disturbance

• Two powerline ROWs for 1.6 acres of disturbance;

• Three buried telecommunications ROWs for 58.8 disturbed acres; and

• Two ROWs classified as ‘other’ (snow fence and weather station) for 0.19 

acres of disturbance.

Total 2012 surface disturbance of approximately 76.1 acres.

Thus far in 2013 LFO has authorized ROW authorizations which include eight 

actions:

• One powerline ROW in Chouteau County which is partial buried and 

partial overhead for 16.8 acres of disturbance

• One powerline ROW in Petroleum County which is overhead (replacing 

an overhead line) for 20.3 acres of disturbance

• Two film permits in Fergus County for 34,296.2 acres of temporary 

surface occupancy
5. Cumulative Impacts (Introduction)

5-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table 5-1

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects, Plans, or Actions that Comprise the 

Cumulative Impact Scenario

• One road ROW in Fergus County for 3.6 acres of disturbance

• Two renewals of ROWs for telecommunications in Fergus County, one

buried for 0.8 acres and one overhead service pole for 0.1 acres of 

disturbance

• One ROW for buried telecommunications line in Fergus County for 1.2 

acres of disturbance

Total 2013 surface disturbance of approximately 34,339 acres (34,296 of 

which is temporary surface occupancy)

Currently, there are seven land decisions in a pending status. These applications 

include:

• One land exchange in Petroleum County for 240 acres

• One land donation in Chouteau County for 760 acres

• One land donation in Chouteau County for approximately 120 acres

• Two road ROW applications in Fergus County for approximately 3 acres

• Three road ROW applications in Petroleum County for approximately 7

acres

Total of surface disturbance of approximately 1,130 acres

All data for this ROW section is for the project planning area only –

(five counties) and does not include all eight counties covered by the 

LFO.

Some ROWs will encumber land in more than one county. When more than one county is involved in a 

ROW, it may physically cover more than one county, or a township/range may be split among two counties 

and the computer system will note all counties rather than one or the other. In order to accurately record 

acres, acreage is reported total for the ROW, not for all counties involved.

ROWs have specific size or geographic locations. For instance, a ROW may cover a two-track road which 

physically covers approximately 15 feet wide by a certain length. However, the ROW may authorize a width 

of 20 feet in width in order for maintenance to be completed. Therefore, the ROW acreage calculation will 

be based on the 20 feet rather than the 15 feet, which will appear to be a higher number of acres disturbed 

than what is actually disturbed on the ground. This is truer with utility services. While a powerline may only 

physically occupy a 5-foot strip, but have a 30-foot wide ROW. Using this example, a five 5-foot ROW for 

five miles would actually only have approximately 3.03 acres of acres disturbed, yet the authorization 

document (and calculations above) would reflect the 30-foot wide strip or 18.18 acres.

Spread of 

noxious/invasive 

weeds

Noxious weeds have invaded and would continue to invade many locations in the 

planning area. Noxious weeds are carried by wind, humans, machinery, and 

animals. The LFO currently manages weed infestations through integrated weed 

management, including biological, chemical, mechanical, manual, and educational 

methods, primarily through the implementation of Weed Control Cooperative 

Range Improvement Agreements. The 1991 and 2007 RODs for Vegetation 

Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States (BLM 1991), and the 2007 

Programmatic Environmental Report (BLM 2007a), guide the management of 

noxious weeds in western states.

Wildland fires From 2002-2012, there have been 324 wildfires documented on all lands within 

the LFO. 40,782 acres of human caused fires and 91, 702 acres of naturally 

occurring wildfires were reported during this time.

Wildfires have been widely distributed in terms of frequency and severity. 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Introduction)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-7

Table 5-1

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects, Plans, or Actions that Comprise the 

Cumulative Impact Scenario

Increasing recurrence and severity of drought conditions have been predicted for 

this area as a result of climate change. This could, in turn, increase the occurrence 

and severity of wildfires on BLM-administered land.

Spread of forest 

insects and diseases

Several years of drought in western states have resulted in severe stress on 

forests. This stress has made trees less able to fend off attacks by insects such as 

mountain pine beetles. In recent years, forest diseases and infestations have been 

widespread throughout Montana.

Drought For much of the last decade, most of the western US has experienced drought. 

Crop production, rangeland, riparian and forest health are all impacted by 

drought.

Climate change Increased concern over GHG emissions and global warming issues may lead to 

future federal and state regulations limiting the emission of associated pollutants.

Projects and activities identified as having the greatest likelihood to generate 

potential cumulative impacts when added to the Lewistown Field Office Greater 

Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS alternatives are displayed in Table 5-1.

5.2 GREATER SAGE-GROUSE

The cumulative effects analysis study area extends beyond the planning area 

boundary and consists of WAFWA MZs I and IV. This draft RMPA/EIS contains 

a quantitative cumulative effects analysis for GRSG habitat within the planning 

area boundary. At the larger WAFWA management zone level, the analysis is 

primarily qualitative in nature. Data and information to enable a more 

comprehensive quantitative analysis may become available between the draft and

final RMPA/EIS and may include the following: ongoing land use plan 

amendments and revisions, state plans that may not yet be completed, 

coordination with states and agencies during consistency reviews, and data from 

non-BLM-administered lands. Those data that become available will be compiled 

and included in the quantitative cumulative effects analysis for GRSG in the final 

EIS.

The timeframe for this analysis is ten years. The assumptions and indicators

follow those established for the analysis of direct and indirect effects in 

Chapter 4.

5.2.1 WAFWA Management Zone 1 Analysis

According to the COT report (USFWS 2013), the four most substantial threats 

to GRSG habitats and populations occurring across populations in this WAFWA 

management zone include energy development, infrastructure, grazing impacts,

and spread of weeds. MZ I consists of four GRSG populations in relatively large 

regions: the Dakotas, northern Montana, the Powder River Basin, and the 

Yellowstone Watershed (Garton et al. 2011), and includes the majority of lands 

covered by this RMPA. The known threats to the Yellowstone Watershed 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Population that are present and widespread include agriculture conversion, 

weeds and annual grasses, energy, infrastructure, and grazing. Threats that are 

present but localized in the Yellowstone Watershed Population include 

elimination of sagebrush, fire, conifers, and recreation (USFWS 2013, p. 17).

Privately owned lands make up 66 percent of sagebrush in the Great Plains, with 

BLM-administered land making up 17 percent (Knick 2011). This management 

zone contains some of the highest-connected network of GRSG leks in the 

range (Knick and Hanser 2011), but also contains less productive sagebrush, 

similar to areas where GRSG have been extirpated (Wisdom et al. 2011). 

Sagebrush cover is naturally limited due to the preponderance of grassland 

ecosystems and, with agricultural pressure and energy production, results in 

substantial habitat limitations for GRSG populations.

Regional assessments estimated that 7.2 percent of PH and GH in MZ I are 

directly influenced by agricultural development, and over 99 percent of these 

habitats are within approximately four miles of agricultural land. Less than one 

percent of GRSG habitats are directly influenced by a natural gas or oil wells, 

but nearly all lie within 12 miles of a well in the estimated effects area (Johnson 

et al. 2011). Approximately 6.3 million acres (14 percent) of GRSG habitat is 

currently leased for the development of federal fluid minerals. Most GRSG

habitats within the management zone have the potential to be influenced by coal

mining and geothermal energy development, although coal and mineral 

developments directly influence less than one percent of the lands in the region.

Conversion of sagebrush habitat to agricultural use, or sodbusting, causes loss of 

habitat available for GRSG use. Habitat loss also decreases the connectivity 

between seasonal habitats, increasing population isolation and fragmentation. 

Fragmentation then increases the probability for decline of the population, 

reduced genetic diversity, and extirpation from stochastic events (Knick and 

Hanser 2011). In addition to reducing the land area available to support GRSG, 

habitat loss and fragmentation also increase the likelihood of other disturbances, 

such as human traffic, wildfire, and spread of invasive plants.

Isolation, wildfire, recreation, and other factors also threaten GRSG in this 

region, but are of less concern than the four major factors listed above, and are 

not discussed in detail in this section.

Table 5-1 lists past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that would

affect the planning area and vicinity. There are currently 55,880 acres of existing 

BLM-administered surface minerals and 33,881 acres of federal subsurface 

mineral leases within the planning area. Since 1988, the LFO has been deferring 

nominated oil and gas lease parcels that require a special lease stipulation to 

protect important wildlife values.

From 2002 to 2012, 17,437 acres of vegetation treatments were recorded in 

the planning area, including prescribed fire, weed control and mechanical 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-9

treatments such as thinning, mastication, twist-spiking, and restoration of nonnative fields. Future projects would continue these activities. Fuels treatments 

are also likely to continue and potentially increase in the future. Approximately 

1,000 acres of crested wheatgrass restoration, clubmoss, and mechanical 

treatments have been proposed. Approximately 129,000 acres of prescribed fire 

and maintenance burning have been proposed and could be implemented over 

the life of the RMPs.

Grazing in portions of the planning area has either remained stable or declined 

in the recent past, and demand on BLM-administered lands has remained stable 

between 2002 and 2012. Grazing on private lands within the planning area is 

expected to remain stable or slightly decrease as residential and recreational 

development increases. Infrastructure constructed on BLM-administered lands 

to support livestock grazing from 2002 to 2012 included 26 miles of stockwater 

pipeline, 42 watering sites, and 58 fences totaling 97.4 miles. Range

improvement projects have been proposed within the planning area, including 

21 fences totaling 65 miles, 84 miles of stockwater pipeline (estimated), and 87 

stockwatering sites.

Recreation-based visitor use in the planning area is expected to continue at 

current levels or increase on BLM-administered and non-BLM-administered

lands. The primary recreational activities in the planning area are hunting, fishing, 

hiking, horseback riding, sight-seeing, and target shooting. Travel off of

designated or existing routes as well as the creation of social trails has occurred 

and would likely continue to occur within the decision area.

Applications for ROW authorizations may increase to accommodate 

development, such as residential development and increased use at 

communication sites, and some permits that do not require surface-disturbance 

(i.e., filming productions). In the planning area, ROW actions have steadily 

increased from seven in 2006 to a high of 17 in 2009; there were 14 in 2012. 

Thus far in 2013, the LFO has approved authorizations for eight actions 

resulting in a total of 34,339 acres of temporary surface disturbance (34,296 of 

which is temporary surface occupancy; therefore, not all of these acres would 

be disturbed), including 43 acres of permanent disturbance from powerline and 

road ROWs (see Table 5-1). Currently, seven land actions are pending for a 

total of approximately 1,130 acres of surface disturbance.

Noxious weeds have invaded and would continue to invade many locations in 

the planning area, carried by wind, humans, machinery, and animals. The BLM 

manages weed infestations through integrated weed management, including 

biological, chemical, mechanical, manual, and educational methods.

There have been 324 wildfires documented on all lands within the LFO between 

2002 and 2012. During this time, 40,782 acres of human-caused fires and 91,702 

acres of naturally occurring wildfires were reported. Wildfires have been widely 

distributed in terms of frequency and severity. An increasing trend of wildland 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

fire recurrence and an increased severity of drought conditions have been 

predicted for this area and are linked to climate change. These conditions are 

likely to continue, which could, in turn, increase the occurrence and severity of 

wildfires on BLM-administered land.

Other Regional Efforts

The MFWP’s Montana Management Plan and Conservation Strategy for Sage 

Grouse (2005) seeks to protect, maintain and restore GRSG habitat. The plan 

prioritizes threats to the species across the state and provides an overall 

strategy for public and private cooperation in conservation actions. 

MFWP is implementing the WAFWA Sage-Grouse Strategy across management 

zones. The WAFWA Sage-Grouse Strategy includes monitoring, research, 

outreach, and funding of conservation projects for GRSG. A basic premise of 

the WAFWA Sage-Grouse Strategy is that additional conservation capacity must 

be developed at all levels (local, state and agency, and range-wide) for both the 

short term (first three to five years) and for the long term to ensure GRSG

conservation.

The SGI is working with private landowners in 11 western states to improve 

habitat for GRSG while simultaneously improving working ranches (Manier et al. 

2013). With approximately 31 percent of all sagebrush habitats across the range 

in private ownership (Stiver 2011, p. 39), a unique opportunity exists for NRCS 

to benefit GRSG and ensure the persistence of large and intact rangelands 

through implementation of the SGI (USFWS 2010b, p.5).

Participation in the SGI program is voluntary, but willing participants enter into 

binding contracts or easements to ensure that conservation practices that 

enhance GRSG habitat are implemented (USFWS 2010b). Though participation 

is voluntary, not a traditional regulatory approach, participating landowners are 

bound by contract (usually three to five years in duration) to implement, in 

consultation with NRCS staff, conservation practices if they wish to receive the 

financial incentives offered by the SGI. These financial incentives generally take 

the form of payments to offset costs of implementing conservation practices and 

easement or rental payments for long-term conservation (USFWS 2010b). 

While potentially effective at conserving GRSG populations and habitat on 

private lands, incentive-based conservation programs that fund the SGI generally 

require reauthorization from Congress under subsequent Farm Bills. These 

funding streams are potentially variable as they are subject to the political 

process. As of 2012, the SGI has secured conservation easements on 208,023 

acres across the GRSG range (Manier et al. 2013, p. 119) with the largest 

percentage of easements occurring in Wyoming (120,706 acres).

Energy Development

As discussed in Chapter 4, oil and gas development impacts GRSG and 

sagebrush habitats through direct disturbance and habitat loss from well pads, 

access construction, seismic surveys, roads, power lines, and pipeline corridors; 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-11

indirect disturbances result from noise, gaseous emissions, changes in water 

availability and quality, and human presence. The interaction and intensity of 

effects could cumulatively or individually lead to habitat fragmentation in the 

long term (Connelly et al. 2004; Holloran 2005).

There is an existing protest resolution decision affecting lands managed within 

the LFO that does not allow oil and gas leasing of nominated parcels that would 

require a special stipulation to protect important wildlife values, which includes 

PPH and PGH, or PH and GH. New leasing of areas with important wildlife 

values cannot occur until the BLM completes a plan amendment/EIS or a 

new/revised RMP/EIS, including oil and gas leasing decisions identified in a ROD. 

Because this RMPA only considers management actions for GRSG and does not 

address oil and gas leasing options for other wildlife resource values, oil and gas 

leasing will not be addressed in this RMPA/EIS. Under all alternatives, future 

leasing is being deferred in this RMPA. Therefore, there would be no impacts on

GRSG from future oil and gas leasing.

Despite deferment of BLM-administered lands for oil and gas leasing within 

GRSG habitat, existing leases remain valid across GRSG ranges in MZ I, with 

potential for development based on locations of geologic fields for traditional oil 

and gas distributed extensively across eastern portions of GRSG range (Manier 

et al. 2013). The Dakotas population in MZ I is heavily influenced by oil and gas 

development, and oil and gas developments are scattered throughout the 

Yellowstone watershed area (USFWS 2013, p. 63). The Powder River Basin 

contains substantial energy resources, including oil, natural gas and coal bed 

natural gas (USFWS 2013, pp. 64-65), while the northern Montana population 

has little energy development. Mining of various federal mineral resources 

currently directly affects approximately 3.5 percent of potential GRSG habitat 

with indirect effects potentially affecting larger portions in some areas.

The primary oil and gas fields within the planning area are largely played out; 

therefore, the level of activity on existing leases within the planning area is likely 

to remain relatively stable. The one possible exception is the Heath shale play, 

where activity on leases is still in early stages. If this play proved to be 

economic, drilling and production in the vicinity of the play in southern 

Petroleum County could greatly increase.

Total acreage open to locatable mineral development would remain unchanged 

under Alternatives A and D. Under Alternative B, PH would be recommended 

for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry, and, under Alternative C, both PH 

and GH would be recommended for withdrawal. No locatable mineral 

development is anticipated in the next 20 years, so these changes would not

impact GRSG.

Table 5-1 does not describe future oil or gas projects in the planning area but 

does state that in unleased areas, federal leases would be deferred to protect 

wildlife habitat. However, Alternatives B, C, and D limit leased mineral estate 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

drilling in PH to exploration intended to provide information on resources 

located outside PH. Management under Alternative C further stipulates that 

exploration would be subject to seasonal restrictions precluding activities in 

GRSG breeding, nesting, and brood-rearing habitat. Management under 

Alternative C provides the strictest limits on leased fluid minerals and would be 

most protective of GRSG habitat on BLM-administered lands. Under 

Alternatives B and D, the BLM would provide substantial improvement in 

oversight of GRSG habitat compared to Alternative A. However, given the 

extent of oil and gas resources present in the Dakotas, Powder River Basin and 

Yellowstone watershed, development pressure is likely to continue, and despite 

the safeguards offered under Alternatives B, C, or D on leased federal mineral 

estate, remain a substantial threat to GRSG populations in these areas because 

development on lands not requiring federal leases would continue.

Infrastructure

As discussed in Chapter 4, power lines can directly affect GRSG by posing a 

collision and electrocution hazard, and can indirectly decrease lek attendance 

and recruitment by providing perches and nesting habitat for potential avian 

predators, such as golden eagles and ravens (Connelly et al. 2004). In addition,

power lines are linear and often extend for many miles. Thus, ground 

disturbance associated with construction, as well as vehicle and human presence 

during maintenance activities, may introduce or spread invasive weeds over 

large areas, thereby degrading habitat. Impacts from roads may include direct 

habitat loss from road construction and direct mortality from collisions with 

vehicles. Roads may also present barriers to migration corridors or seasonal 

habitats, facilitate predator movements, spread invasive plants, and increase 

human disturbance from noise and traffic (Forman and Alexander 1998).

Under Alternative A, the BLM would maintain current management which 

includes no ROW exclusion areas. Under Alternative B, the BLM would manage

all PH as a ROW exclusion area, and GH as a ROW avoidance area. Under 

Alternative C, the BLM would manage both PH and GH as ROW exclusion 

areas. Under Alternative D, the BLM would manage PH as ROW avoidance 

areas, and would not create any exclusion areas. The BLM’s approach under 

Alternative D is intended to preserve management flexibility to site ROWs in 

areas where they would have minimal impact. This flexibility may be 

advantageous where federal and private land-ownership areas are mixed, such as 

in the Yellowstone watershed area. Furthermore, ROW exclusion areas could

result in more widespread development on private lands, and may not reduce 

overall impacts on sagebrush habitat.

As indicated in Table 5-1, ROW applications continue to increase in the 

planning area, and many new road and power line projects are anticipated to 

support residential developments and communication sites, and possibly energy 

developments as well. By designating ROW avoidance and exclusion areas, the 

BLM would reduce or minimize impacts from infrastructure, as new ROWs 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-13

would be prohibited (ROW exclusion) or would be sited to avoid sensitive 

areas (ROW avoidance), or designed to otherwise reduce or minimize direct 

and indirect effects to GRG. Renewals or upgrades of existing facilities could 

incorporate additional conservation actions. Collocation or clustering of 

facilities would reduce impacts on GRSG habitat and would prevent disturbance 

in new areas.

The restrictions in Alternatives B and C would prohibit ROWs from being 

located in PH, while Alternative D would avoid siting ROWs in PH if possible, 

preserving management flexibility. Alternative A would not restrict the siting of 

ROWs, though existing policy does recommend collocating ROWs when 

possible. Management under Alternatives B, C, or D would benefit GRSG more 

than Alternative A by siting ROW infrastructure such that it minimizes loss and 

fragmentation of habitat, predation risk, and other threats.

Habitat connectivity is threatened by existing roadways in the Yellowstone 

watershed and Powder River Basin areas; the Dakotas populations are isolated 

but may have east-west connectivity to populations in Montana (USFWS 2013, 

p. 63). The alternatives do not vary the acreage of habitat restricted to existing 

roads, but the ROW avoidance and exclusion areas established under 

Alternatives B, C, or D would protect GRSG habitat more than current 

management (Alternative A). Thus, the action alternatives may be more 

protective of GRSG populations from impacts associated with roads.

Spread of Weeds

Invasive and noxious weeds have invaded and would continue to invade many 

locations in the planning area, carried by wind, humans, machinery, and animals. 

As discussed in Chapter 4, invasive weeds alter plant community structure and 

composition, productivity, nutrient cycling, and hydrology and may cause 

declines in native plant populations, including sagebrush habitat, through 

competitive exclusion and niche displacement, among other mechanisms. 

Invasive plants reduce and may eliminate vegetation that GRSG use for food and 

cover. Along with competitively excluding vegetation essential to GRSG, 

invasive weeds fragment existing GRSG habitat or reduce habitat quality. 

Invasive weeds can also create long-term changes in ecosystem processes, such 

as fire-cycles and other disturbance regimes that persist even after an invasive 

plant is removed (Connelly et al. 2004).

As described in Table 5-1, the LFO currently manages weed infestations 

through integrated weed management, including biological, chemical, mechanical, 

manual, and educational methods, guided by the 1991 and 2007 RODs for 

Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States (BLM 1991), 

and the 2007 Programmatic Environmental Report (BLM 2007a).

Under Alternative A, the BLM would utilize integrated weed management 

techniques, including mechanical, manual, chemical, and biological control to 

reduce the likelihood of invasive weed spread and the extent of current 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-14 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

infestations. This is accomplished primarily through the implementation of 

Weed Control Cooperative Range Improvement Agreements with affected 

permittees/lessees. Weed control is intimately tied to protecting land from the 

threat of fire, and fuels management actions can also reduce weeds and create 

fire breaks.

Under all alternatives, integrated vegetation management would be used to 

control, suppress, and eradicate noxious and invasive species. Under 

Alternatives B, C and D, vegetation management and restoration would 

prioritize sagebrush re-establishment and weed control as part of habitat 

management. Alternatives A, B and D would consider noxious weed control in 

grazing management. Under Alternative C the BLM would lose the ability to 

implement Weed Control Cooperative Range Improvement Agreements for the 

control of noxious and invasive weeds on BLM-administered land. Apart from 

the grazing reductions in Alternative C, methods, approaches, and resources for 

weed control would be similar under all alternatives.

Although cheatgrass and other introduced brome occur in this region, they do 

not currently appear to pose a risk of large-scale invasion as long as 

management of habitat areas is maintained. 

Grazing

Livestock grazing (cattle) is the dominant agricultural use in the LFO. If not 

managed optimally or effectively, cattle and sheep grazing can cause soil 

compaction, nutrient enrichment, vegetation and nest trampling, direct 

disturbance, and negatively effects on GRSG recruitment, by reducing 

invertebrate prey or increasing exposure to predators (Beck and Mitchell 2000, 

pp. 998-1,000; Knick 2011; Coates 2007, pp. 28-33). Grazing in riparian areas 

can cause stream and river bank destabilization, loss of riparian shade, and 

increased sediment and nutrient loads in the aquatic ecosystem (George et al. 

2002). Stock watering tanks can contribute to dewatering of streams and 

aquifers, and may concentrate livestock movement and congregation in sensitive 

areas (Vance and Stagliano 2007).

In general, livestock can influence habitat by modifying plant biomass, plant 

height and cover, and plant species composition. As a result, livestock grazing 

could cause changes in habitat that alter species abundances and composition in 

GRSG insect prey. Changes could occur in varying degrees in plant composition 

and change in vegetative structure, affecting cover for nesting birds. Grazing 

could also alter fire regimes (Davies et al. 2010).

Periodic overgrazing can damage range resources for the long term, and 

overgrazing often exacerbates drought effects when stocking levels are not 

quickly reduced to match the limited forage production. The degree to which 

grazing affects habitat depends on several factors, including the number of 

animals grazing in an area, the time of grazing, and the grazing system used. A 

well-developed understory of grass, forbs, and deciduous shrubs is critical for 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-15

GRSG and other wildlife. Impacts on habitat vary with livestock densities and 

distribution: the more evenly livestock is distributed, the lower their impact on 

any given area (Gillen at al. 1984). However, cattle show a strong preference for 

certain areas, leading to high use in some areas and little to no use in 

others. Steep slopes (greater than 30 percent), dense forests and vegetation, 

poor or little upland forage, and lack of water generally limit use by livestock.

Grazing can reduce the spread of invasive grasses, if applied annually before the 

grasses have cured, and can be used as a tool to reduce fuel load (Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 7 and pp. 28-30). Light to moderate grazing does not appear to affect 

cover of perennial grasses important to nest cover (Strand and Launchbaugh 

2013; Reisner et al. 2013).

Livestock grazing is not considered a substantial threat to GRSG in the LFO 

because grazing systems have been implemented on most allotments to provide 

for GRSG habitat needs throughout the year. Grazing in portions of the planning 

area has either remained stable or declined in the recent past, and demand on 

BLM-administered lands has remained stable over between 2002 and 2012. 

Grazing on private lands within the planning area is expected to remain stable 

or slightly decrease as residential and recreational development increases. 

Infrastructure constructed on BLM-administered lands to support livestock 

grazing from 2002 to 2012 included 26 miles of stock-water pipeline, 42 

watering sites, and 58 fences totaling 97.4 miles. Range improvement projects 

have been proposed within the planning area, including 21 fences totaling 65 

miles, 84 miles of stock-water pipeline (estimated), and 87 stock-watering sites.

Alternative A would continue current management of grazing, range 

management and noxious weed control in GRSG habitat. Under Alternatives B 

and D, acreage open to grazing and AUMs would remain the same as under 

Alternative A, but AMPs, integrated ranch planning, and land health assessments 

would be used to incorporate GRSG management objectives into grazing permit 

renewals.

Management under Alternative C would remove livestock grazing from all 

allotments in PH and GH, for a total of 337,165 acres closed to grazing in the 

decision area, on 305 allotments with 69,408 removed AUMs. Removing grazing 

could limit the loss of herbaceous cover, potential for trampling, and other 

effects on GRSG. However, removal of grazing could contribute to the 

occurrence of large-scale wildfire, and reduce noxious weed control efforts. In 

addition, no-grazing areas on BLM-administered land would require more than 

3,000 miles of additional fencing to separate these areas from adjacent grazing 

lands, which would increase the adverse effects of fencing on GRSG, such as 

raptor predation, collision and habitat fragmentation.

Because most grazed land in GRSG habitat in MZ I is privately owned, 

restrictions on grazing on BLM-administered land may have a limited direct 

effect on population areas. However, the no-grazing areas on BLM-administered 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-16 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

land could increase the indirect adverse effects on GRSG, including the potential 

conversion of adjacent private grazing lands to agriculture. This is especially a

concern in areas with a mosaic of ownership boundaries, which would decrease 

available habitat for GRSG that inhabit rangeland outside of BLM-administered 

lands. Temperature increases resulting from climate change may increase crop 

yields, encouraging lands not previously used for agriculture to be converted for 

that purpose (NRC 2010).

5.2.2 WAFWA Management Zone IV

According to the COT report (USFWS 2013), the four most substantial threats 

to GRSG habitats and populations occurring across populations in this WAFWA 

management zone are spread of weeds, fire, grazing impacts, and isolation/small 

size. MZ IV consists of nine GRSG subpopulations in the Snake River Plains: 

East-central Idaho, southwest Montana, Snake-Salmon-Beaverhead, Belt 

Mountains, Weiser, northern Great Basin, Box Elder and Sawtooth (Garton et 

al. 2011). The LFO includes a small portion of the Belt Mountains population.

The known threats to the Belt Mountains Population that are present and 

widespread include isolated/small size population, agriculture conversion, 

weeds/annual grasses, and grazing. Threats that are present but localized in the 

Belt Mountains Population include sagebrush elimination, fire, conifers, energy, 

infrastructure, recreation, and urbanization (USFWS 2013).

The area has a long history of agricultural land uses and the majority of highly 

productive lands have been converted to agricultural use, resulting in a 

sagebrush landscape that is drier and less productive than those of past eras 

(Manier et al. 2013). As a result, most populations in the region are small or 

isolated, with the exception of central Idaho (watershed of the Snake-SalmonBeaverhead Rivers) and the northern Great Basin population (USFWS 2013). 

Habitat availability is a primary limiting factor in this region due to the 

combination of land use change, leading to fragmentation and isolation, and 

disturbances, primarily wildland fire (Manier et al. 2013).

The majority of the sagebrush in this management zone is federally managed 

(Knick 2011), but local project impacts may be more important than range-wide 

effects because of habitat quality and connectivity at the local scale.

Few oil and gas wells exist in the management zone, and less than 350,000 acres 

(one percent) of GRSG habitats are currently leased for federal fluid mineral

exploration. Coal and solar potential are also low throughout the management 

zone. Agricultural development influences one percent of the management zone

and 85 percent of PH and GH are within 6.9 km (4.3 mi) of cropland (Manier et 

al. 2013).

Table 5-1 lists past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions that would

affect the planning area and vicinity. Planned projects in the LFO and other 

regional efforts for GRSG conservation in MZ IV are discussed above under MZ

I.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-17

Spread of Weeds

Spread of weeds is considered a present and widespread threat across the 

Montana part of MZ IV, and a present but localized threat in some parts of 

Idaho (USFWS 2013).

Under Alternative A, the BLM utilizes integrated weed management techniques, 

including mechanical, manual, chemical, and biological control to reduce the 

likelihood of invasive weed spread and the extent of current infestations.

Under all alternatives, integrated vegetation management would be used to 

control, suppress, and eradicate noxious and invasive species. Under

Alternatives B, C and D, vegetation management and restoration would 

prioritize sagebrush re-establishment and weed control as part of habitat 

management. Alternatives A, B and D consider noxious weed control in grazing 

management. Under Alternative C, the BLM would lose the ability to implement 

Weed Control Cooperative Range Improvement Agreements for the control of 

noxious and invasive weeds on BLM-administered land. Apart from the grazing 

reduction in Alternative C, methods, approaches, and resources for weed 

control would be similar under all alternatives.

Grazing

In MZ IV, improper grazing management is considered a particular threat in 

Southwest Montana. Alternative A would continue current management of 

grazing, range management and noxious weed control in GRSG habitat. Under 

Alternatives B and D, acreage open to grazing and AUMs would remain the 

same as under Alternative A, but AMPs, integrated ranch planning, and land 

health assessments would be used to incorporate GRSG management objectives 

into grazing permit renewals.

Under Alternative C, grazing would be reduced in PH and GH by approximately 

two-thirds of present AUM levels. Reduction of grazing could limit the loss of 

herbaceous cover, potential for trampling, and other effects of GRSG. However, 

removal of grazing could contribute to the occurrence of large-scale wildfire, 

and reduce noxious weed control efforts. In addition, no-grazing areas on BLMadministered land would require additional fencing to separate these areas from 

adjacent grazing lands, which would increase the adverse effects of fencing on 

GRSG (e.g., raptor predation, potential collision, and habitat fragmentation).

Fire

Sagebrush is killed by wildfires and recovery requires many years, especially in 

the case of large fires (Connelly et al. 2004). Contiguous old-growth sagebrush 

sites are at high fire risk, as are large blocks of continuous dead sagebrush. Prior 

to recovery, these sites are of limited use by GRSG except along the edges in

unburned islands. As a result of this loss of habitat, fire has been identified as a 

primary factor associated with GRSG population declines. In addition, fires can 

result in a reduction of invertebrate food sources and may facilitate the spread 

of invasive weeds. While most sagebrush subspecies are killed by fire and slow 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-18 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

to re-establish, cheatgrass recovers within one to two years of a fire event from 

seed in the soil, leading to a re-occurring fire cycle that prevents sagebrush 

reestablishment (USFWS 2010).

Wildfire has been a primary threat to GRSG habitats and populations occurring

across MZ IV, resulting in habitat loss and fragmentation (USFWS 2013). Over 

the last decade (2001 to 2011), more than 3.8 million acres (10 percent of PH

and 13 percent of GH) of GRSG habitats have burned in this management zone, 

with an average of more than 237,000 acres of PH burned annually, with more 

than one million acres burned in some years. The Murphy Fire in Idaho and 

Nevada affected over 650,000 acres of habitat in this management zone in 2007

(USFWS 2013). Additionally, 81 percent of the region is considered at high risk 

for fire. Approximately 8.5 million acres (26 percent) spread throughout MZ IV 

is also considered high risk for cheatgrass invasion. Climate change is expected 

to increase the risk of wildfire throughout the state (NRC 2010).

Under Alternative A, prescribed burning may be used to achieve habitat 

objectives. The action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, and D) provide for similar 

protection and maintenance of sagebrush habitat in implementing prescribed 

burning. Alternatives B, C, and D have similar approaches to prioritizing 

sagebrush protection in fuels treatment programs. Alternatives B and D also 

consider the utility of livestock grazing as a tool in fuels management. Compared 

to Alternative A, Alternatives B, C, and D would all provide an increase in

protection for sagebrush in prescribed burning, fuels treatment and fire 

suppression, with Alternatives B and D providing more management flexibility in 

fire prevention.

Isolation/Small Population Size

The Snake River Plain as a whole represents one of the larger areas of habitat 

connectivity and supports the largest GRSG population outside of the Wyoming 

Basin in the northern Great Basin (Garton et al. 2011). However, some 

subpopulations within MZ IV, such as Baker, East-central Idaho, Sawtooth, and 

Weiser and Belt Mountains, are small and isolated with little connectivity to 

other populations. These areas have been isolated by extirpation of neighboring 

populations or conversion of sagebrush habitat to agricultural fields or human 

developments. Isolation in small habitats decreases the connectivity between 

seasonal habitats, potentially resulting in the loss of the population. Isolation

increases the probability for the loss of genetic diversity and extirpation from 

stochastic events, such as disease or storm damage (Knick and Hanser 2011). In 

addition to reducing the land area available to support GRSG, habitat loss and 

fragmentation also increase opportunities for other disturbances. Development 

and land use changes increase the risk of threats to GRSG and their habitat 

from human traffic, wildfire, and spread of invasive plants.

While population isolation is not directly tied to BLM management, land tenure 

decisions, such as acquisitions and disposals, can improve connectivity and 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-19

minimize the adverse effects of isolation. For example, if the BLM disposes of a 

land parcel of sagebrush-steppe, it could potentially be converted to farmland or 

sub-divided into home sites, where lands retained in BLM management would 

not be converted to non-habitat uses. Temperature increases resulting from 

climate change may increase crop yields, which may increase pressure for 

agricultural conversion in parts of the state not previously used for that purpose 

(NRC 2010). Other BLM protective actions, such as fire suppression or colocating ROWs, would provide extra protection to isolated populations, which 

can least afford to lose individuals or have reduced recruitment rates.

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the BLM would provide for protection of 

GRSG habitat from disposal, and would recommend acquisition of private lands, 

when offered and where possible, to increase GRSG habitat and improve 

connectivity. Under Alternative A, the BLM does not make a specific 

recommendation for acquisitions but does include wildlife habitat value as one 

of the criteria when considering any land in a land tenure decision. Alternatives

B, C, and D are more protective of isolated GRSG habitat than current policy 

under Alternative A.

5.2.3 Conclusions

Under Alternative A, current management would continue on BLMadministered lands in MZs I and IV. There would be no PH or GH designated, 

no additional ROW avoidance or exclusion areas established, and no 

restrictions on leased fluid mineral estate to protect GRSG from surface 

disturbing activities or infrastructure. Additional ROW authorizations may not 

directly increase disturbance but could increase the activity or indirect effects 

on non-BLM-administered lands. Oil and gas development and associated 

infrastructure would be harmful to populations in the Powder River Basin and 

the Dakotas, where energy resources are plentiful and GRSG at risk of decline 

from habitat loss and fragmentation (USFWS 2013).

Grazing management would continue to promote rangeland health, and 

vegetation management would not prioritize sagebrush; however, current 

management, which does consider wildlife habitat value in decision-making, 

would continue, resulting in limited protection for GRSG through habitat 

management. Prescribed burns may reduce sagebrush habitat and fire 

suppression would not specifically protect these areas. Planned conifer 

encroachment reduction on BLM-administered lands would benefit GRSG under 

all the alternatives by improving habitat, and planned NRCS projects on private 

lands would improve cover and nesting habitat, and create beneficial range 

improvements.

Under Alternative B, PH and GH would be designated ROW exclusion and 

avoidance area, potentially pushing planned transmission line construction onto 

non-BLM-administered land. Development of leased fluid minerals would be 

restricted in PH. Land disposals and acquisitions would focus on maintaining 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-20 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

sagebrush acreage and connectivity. GRSG habitat objectives would be 

considered in grazing management in PH, and fires would be suppressed in 

sagebrush areas. Alternative B would site transmission lines in a location that 

minimizes impacts on GRSG, compared to Alternative A. The planned

vegetation management, weed control, and restoration projects would benefit 

the planning area, as described above. These approaches would reduce the 

impacts on GRSG from energy development and associated infrastructure on 

BLM-administered land, and provide more protection to GRSG from land 

disposals that could lead to loss of habitat. In conjunction with NRCS and state 

initiatives on private land, these approaches would benefit GRSG conservation.

Under Alternative C, the BLM would provide more protection to GRSG on 

BLM-administered land but with reduced management flexibility. The alternative 

would identify both PH and GH as ROW exclusion areas, potentially pushing 

planned transmission line construction onto non-BLM-administered land. Under 

Alternative C, the BLM would establish an ACEC on PH in MZ I, and 

development of leased fluid minerals would be restricted. Fires would be 

suppressed in sagebrush habitat and grazing would be removed in PH and GH. 

The vegetation management, weed control, and restoration projects described 

under this alternative would benefit GRSG habitat in at-risk areas such as the 

Dakotas, Belt Mountain, and Powder River Basin.

Grazing would be removed in GRSG habitat areas under Alternative C, which 

would increase fine-fuel load. Though lessening over-grazing would reduce 

disturbance to GRSG, exclusion of livestock from BLM-administered land would 

require more than 3,000 miles of additional fencing, which would increase 

predation and collision risk, and contribute to fragmentation. An indirect impact 

from excluding livestock grazing from BLM-administered lands is the potential 

conversion of adjacent private grazing lands to agriculture or other land uses, 

including development within the planning area. This is especially a concern in 

areas with a mosaic of ownership boundaries, which would decrease available 

habitat for GRSG that inhabit rangeland outside of BLM-administered lands.

Alternative C provisions would protect GRSG habitat from loss and 

fragmentation and limit human disturbance on BLM-administered land.

However, due to the checkerboard pattern of land ownership in MZ I, these 

provisions could result in pushing developments onto adjacent private lands, 

increasing impacts on GRSG over the long term. 

Under Alternative D, the BLM would improve GRSG habitat protection over 

current management, but with less restrictive actions than Alternatives B or C. 

The BLM would restrict leased fluid mineral development, similarly to 

Alternative B, and would establish ROW avoidance rather than exclusion areas. 

GRSG habitat objectives would be considered in grazing management in PH. 

Fires would be suppressed on sagebrush land, but prescribed burns may still be 

used. These provisions would protect GRSG more than current management

does. The provisions would also maintain flexibility for land managers in areas 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-21

with mixed public and private ownership, where ROW exclusion areas could

result in more widespread development on private lands, and not reduce overall 

impacts on sagebrush habitat. In conjunction with NRCS and state initiatives on 

private land, these approaches would enhance GRSG conservation.

While implementation of the action alternatives would reduce threats faced by 

GRSG in MZs I and IV, overall trends toward habitat loss and fragmentation are 

likely to continue, primarily due to energy and infrastructure development 

pressures in GRSG habitat, notably in the Dakotas and Powder River Basin in 

MZ I. The isolation of small populations makes them particularly vulnerable to 

disease and other stressors. The Yellowstone watershed also faces habitat loss 

pressure from energy and infrastructure development, and fragmentation risk 

due to the low percentage of land in public management. The northern 

Montana, northern Great Basin, and Snake-Salmon-Beaverhead Rivers 

subpopulations, are large, relatively intact areas of sagebrush mainly under public 

ownership, are largely resistant to these trends, and are at low risk of decline.

5.3 LANDS AND REALTY

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within 

the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely to 

continue to affect the lands and realty programs are lands and realty actions, 

including foreseeable demand for renewable energy ROWs in response to 

national and international policies to mitigate climate change.

Land use authorizations in the planning area place the largest demand on the 

BLM lands and realty program and result in the greatest impacts. Over the past 

five years, the BLM issued ROW authorizations that have resulted in an average 

of 13 ROW actions per year. Past authorizations were primarily for linear 

features, such as roads, power lines, and telecommunication lines. The BLM has 

also issued three temporary use permits since 2012 for filming. Presently, the 

BLM is processing two road ROW applications in the planning area; one in 

Fergus County and the other in Petroleum County (see Table 5-1). Under all 

alternatives, a steadily increasing demand for ROWs to accommodate new 

power, water, and telecommunication lines; roadways; communication sites; and 

other similar development is expected. Any BLM management prescriptions that 

limit the BLM’s ability to accommodate ROW development would influence the 

level of cumulative impacts on lands and realty and could potentially increase 

development on non-BLM administered land.

Land tenure adjustments allow the BLM to effectively manage BLM-administered

lands over time. Withdrawals, for example, are used to preserve sensitive 

environmental values, protect major federal investments in facilities, support 

national security, and provide for public health and safety. Exchanges may 

consolidate BLM-administered lands and improve management efficiency. 

Management prescriptions that limit land tenure adjustments could result in 

cumulative impacts on lands and realty and other resources and uses.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Lands and Realty)

5-22 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Under Alternative A, the BLM would continue to authorize ROW development 

and temporary surface disturbance on a case-by-case basis. The Acid Shale-Pine 

Forest ACEC in PH and the portion of Judith River Canyon area in GH would 

continue to be the only ROW avoidance areas. Land tenure adjustments would 

be subject to current RMP criteria without further limitations. As a result, 

cumulative impacts on lands and realty would occur as new ROWs or land 

tenure adjustments are proposed. Alternative A would not affect the BLM’s

ability to accommodate new ROW development to improve management 

efficiency through land tenure decisions.

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, BLM management would include varying levels 

of ROW restrictions. Designations of areas as ROW avoidance or exclusion 

would neither impact existing ROW authorizations, nor ROW applications 

already being processed. The restrictions would, however, impact future ROW 

development. Alternative C would result in the greatest restriction on ROW 

development by designating PH and GH as a ROW exclusion area. Alternative B 

would prohibit ROW development in PH, while Alternative D would designate 

PH as ROW avoidance area. A prohibition on ROW development over a large 

area would prevent the BLM from accommodating the demand for new ROWs. 

Potential ROW applicants could choose to develop on non-BLM-administered

land outside the planning area, which could increase environmental impacts on 

sensitive lands, increase permitting times, and decrease the overall effectiveness 

of the infrastructure system (e.g., power grid, telecommunication system, and

roadway network).

National policies to mitigate climate change through the expansion of renewable 

energy production could also contribute direct and indirect long-term 

cumulative impacts on the lands and realty program in the planning area. There 

are 62,916 acres of viable wind resource areas (i.e., areas where the wind 

energy potential is greater than or equal to 400 watts per square meter) in the 

planning area, including nearly 7,000 acres of excellent (500 to 600 watts per 

square meter) or outstanding (greater than 600 watts per square meter) wind 

energy resource potential (BLM 2012a). As demand for renewable energy 

sources increases at the same time as wind energy technology, requests for 

ROWs to accommodate wind energy within the planning area are expected to 

increase. Wind energy development adjacent to BLM-administered lands would 

increase demand for transmission lines through the planning area. Any 

restrictions on ROW development would directly impact the lands and realty 

program, indirectly impact wind energy development in Montana, and when 

combined with other ROW demands, result in additional cumulative impacts on 

the BLM lands and realty program. The potential for cumulative impacts from 

wind energy ROW development in the planning area would be less under 

Alternative C, which would restrict ROW development in GRSG habitat, and 

Alternative D, which would prevent wind energy development in PH. However, 

these alternatives would force wind energy ROWs outside GRSG habitat and

thereby increase demand for transmission line ROWs through the planning area.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-23

5.4 VEGETATION (INCLUDING NOXIOUS WEEDS; RIPARIAN AND WETLANDS)

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within 

the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely to 

continue to affect vegetation are vegetation management, noxious weed control, 

livestock grazing, energy development, and wildfire management.

Sagebrush-promoting vegetation treatments would protect native vegetation 

and overall ecosystem productivity, while reducing the distribution of invasive 

weeds and woody conifer species. Given the limited distribution of suitable 

sagebrush habitats and the cost of habitat restoration, management plans that 

protect intact sagebrush acreage and restore impacted areas strategically to 

improve habitat connectivity have the best chance of increasing the amount and 

quality of sagebrush cover (Manier et al. 2013).

An assortment of nonnative annuals and perennials and native conifers are 

currently invading sagebrush ecosystems. Many areas throughout the range of 

GRSG are at high risk from invasive plants; the most concentrated areas of risk 

include the Intermountain West and Great Basin (Manier et al. 2013). Invasive 

plants can alter plant community structure and composition, productivity, 

nutrient cycling, and hydrology, and may competitively exclude native plant 

populations. Invasive plant spread may result in habitat loss and fragmentation, 

and may also increase the risk of wildfire. The spread of invasive plants such as 

cheatgrass has increased the frequency and intensity of fires in some areas 

(Balch et al. 2012). Treatments designed to prevent encroachment of shrubs, 

non-native species or woody vegetation would alter the condition of native 

vegetation communities by changing the density, composition, and frequency of 

species within plant communities. The intent of these management programs is 

to improve rangeland condition and enhance sagebrush ecosystems.

Slow rates of re-growth and recovery of vegetation after disturbances (driven 

by low water availability and other constraints) coupled with high rates of

disturbance and conversion to introduced plant cover have contributed to the 

accumulating displacement and degradation of the sagebrush ecosystem (Beck et 

al. 2009). Big sagebrush does not re-sprout after a fire, but is replenished by 

wind-dispersed seed from adjacent unburned stands or seeds in the soil. 

Depending on the species and the size of a burn, a return to pre-burn 

community cover can take 13 to 100 years (Connelly et al. 2004). When 

management reduces wildland fire frequency by controlling natural ignitions, the 

indirect impact is that vegetation ages across the landscape and early 

successional vegetation communities are diminished. Fire suppression may 

preserve condition of some vegetation communities as well as habitat 

connectivity. This is particularly important in areas where fire frequency has 

increased as a result of weed invasion, or where landscapes are highly 

fragmented. Fire suppression can also lead to increased fuel loads, which can 

lead to more damaging or larger-scale fires in the long term. Fire also increases 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

5-24 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

opportunities for invasive species such as cheatgrass to spread, so fire 

suppression can indirectly limit this expansion.

Controlled burning may be prescribed to treat fuel buildup and can assist in the 

recovery of sagebrush habitat in some vegetation types. Re-seeding with native 

plants and long-term monitoring to ensure the production of cover and forage 

plants would assist vegetation recovery (NTT 2011).

Livestock grazing may have both beneficial and detrimental aspects on rangeland 

vegetation, depending on site-specific management (USFWS 2010). At 

unsustainable levels, grazing can lead to loss of vegetative cover, decreased plant 

litter, increased soil erosion, and reduced habitat quality for wildlife (Knick 

2011; Connelly et al. 2004). Properly managed, grazing can be used as a tool to 

reduce fuel load, reduce spread of noxious weeds, and protect intact sagebrush 

habitat (Connelly et al. 2004, p.7 and pp. 28-30). In areas meeting Rangeland 

Health Standards, grazing practices co-exist with healthy vegetation 

communities providing wildlife habitat. Grazing systems that aim to protect 

sagebrush and riparian ecosystems would allow more plant growth and reduce 

trampling and introduction of exotic species. Reducing or removing grazing in 

habitat areas would also reduce these effects but could have unintended 

consequences of increasing fuel buildup or degrading vegetation quality over the 

long term.

Oil and gas energy development impacts sagebrush habitats through direct 

disturbance and habitat loss from well pads, access construction, seismic 

surveys, roads, power lines, and pipeline corridors; indirectly from gaseous 

emissions, changes in water availability and quality, and human disturbance. The 

interaction and intensity of effects could cumulatively or individually lead to 

habitat fragmentation in the long term (Connelly et al. 2004; Holloran 2005).

Under Alternative A, current management would continue on BLMadministered lands in the planning area. There would be no PH or GH

designated, no new ROW avoidance or exclusion areas established, and no 

restrictions on leased fluid mineral estate to protect GRSG habitat. Grazing 

management would not specifically consider GRSG habitat needs, and vegetation 

management would not prioritize sagebrush. Current management does 

consider wildlife habitat value in decision-making. Planned ROW construction 

could increase fragmentation of vegetation, and new oil and gas developments 

would increase loss of sagebrush vegetation, particularly in the Powder River 

Basin and the Dakotas, where energy resources are plentiful in sagebrush 

habitat (USFWS 2013, pp. 63-65). Vegetation management and noxious weed

control projects would benefit sagebrush ecosystems by removing invasive 

plants and promoting healthy vegetation communities. Weed control efforts 

would continue to be driven by Weed Control Cooperative Range 

Improvement Agreements with affected permittees/lessees. Prescribed fire plans 

could be harmful to sagebrush, which are slow to re-grow.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-25

Energy development and ROW construction impacts sagebrush habitats through 

direct disturbance and vegetation loss from well pads and associated 

infrastructure, including access roads, power lines, and pipeline corridors; and 

vehicle use. The interaction and intensity of effects could cumulatively or 

individually lead to habitat fragmentation in the long term (Connelly et al. 2004; 

Holloran 2005). Staging areas, roads, ROWs, and other infrastructure also 

disturb vegetation and contribute to the risk of wildfire and introduction of 

noxious weeds. These trends would likely continue and increase given the 

energy and infrastructure development pressure in the planning area and the 

lack of specific management tools to mitigate them under Alternative A.

Under Alternative B, PH and GH would be designated and ROW exclusion and 

avoidance areas respectively. Grazing management would be improved. No 

ACECs would be established, but land disposals and acquisitions would focus on 

maintaining sagebrush acreage and connectivity. Future ROWs, access roads and 

associated infrastructure, as described in Table 5-1, would be sited outside PH

under Alternatives B and C, and avoided in Alternative D. Under Alternatives B 

and C, the ROW exclusion areas could push ROW development onto private 

lands that contain sagebrush and other vegetation types. The vegetation 

management and restoration projects mentioned above would benefit the 

planning area in discrete locations. Prescribed fires would be re-seeded and 

monitored to prevent invasive plants from establishing. Overall, the trend 

toward loss of sagebrush habitat would continue from infrastructure and energy, 

but restrictions on lands retained as PH and improvements on ranchlands in the 

planning area would improve habitat quality on remaining sagebrush acreage.

Alternative C would provide more protection to GRSG habitat on BLMadministered land but would reduce management flexibility. Alternative C would 

establish an ACEC in PH, and PH and GH areas would be ROW exclusion 

areas. These provisions would protect vegetation from loss, fragmentation, and 

disturbance. However, as described above, the ROW exclusion areas could 

push ROW development onto private lands that contain sagebrush. Grazing 

would be removed from PH and GH, which would allow for greater herbaceous 

growth but would increase fuel loading and risk of wildfire, and potentially 

degrade vegetation quality over the long term. An indirect impact from 

excluding livestock grazing from BLM-administered lands is the potential 

conversion of adjacent private grazing lands to agriculture or other land uses, 

including development within the planning area. This is especially a concern in 

areas with a mosaic of ownership boundaries, which would decrease sagebrush 

and other vegetation outside of BLM-administered lands. As under the other 

alternatives, the vegetation management and weed prevention projects would 

benefit vegetation health. Alternative C would impose the most stringent 

restrictions on development of GRSG habitat, losing the benefits that properly 

managed grazing can provide, and preventing management flexibility in areas of 

checkerboard private and public landownership.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

5-26 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Alternative D is intended to preserve management flexibility while protecting 

GRSG habitat. It would improve vegetation protection compared to current 

management, but with less limited actions than Alternatives B or C. Alternative 

D would establish ROW avoidance areas but not ROW exclusion areas. 

Prescribed burning and fuels management would take sagebrush vegetation into 

account. These provisions would maintain flexibility for land managers in areas 

with mixed public and private ownership, such as in the Yellowstone watershed

area, where ROW exclusion areas could result in more widespread 

development on private lands, and not reduce overall impacts on sagebrush 

ecosystems.

As under the other alternatives, the vegetation management and weed control 

plans would benefit vegetation health. Weed control efforts would continue to 

be driven by Weed Control Cooperative Range Improvement Agreements with 

affected permittees/lessees. Development restrictions on PH and GH, and ranch 

improvements would improve vegetation quality on sagebrush acreage, though 

overall, the trend toward loss of sagebrush would continue from energy and 

infrastructure development.

5.5 WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGY

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within 

the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely continue 

to affect wildland fire management and ecology are: vegetation management 

projects, projects that impact ability to respond to wildland fire, projects that 

would increase ROW authorizations and energy and mineral development, and 

projects that would increase access to land and consequently increase the risk 

of human-caused ignitions.

Wildland fires in the LFO have been frequent in the past, with 324 wildfires 

documented between 2002 and 2012. Of those 324 wildfires, 40,782 acres 

burned were attributed to human-caused fires, and 91,702 acres were 

attributed to naturally occurring fires. Wildland fires are expected to increase in 

the future due to reoccurring and increasingly severe drought conditions that 

are caused by climate change. This could impact wildland fire management

through increased personnel requirements, and increased need for firesuppression activities, and increased costs to the wildland fire management 

program. Under Alternative C, which is the most restrictive alternative, this 

could present challenges as the restrictions under this alternative may inhibit 

responses to wildland fire or appropriate treatments to prevent wildland fire. 

Due to the ongoing revision of planning area RMPs, there is the possibility that 

planning decisions would result in changes in fuels level or changes to 

management option for fuels treatments and wildfire suppression.

Drought may affect forest health, which consequently makes forests more 

vulnerable to wildland fires. Additionally, attacks by insects such as the mountain 

pine beetle damages forest health and has been enabled by stress on forests 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-27

caused by drought. These cumulative circumstances may result in a greater need 

for flexibility in access to the planning area and in fire-suppression activities. The 

management actions under Alternative C that inhibit responses to and 

preventative treatments for wildland fire may struggle to meet the growing need 

for this flexibility in the future.

Past fuels treatments within the planning area, including hazardous fuels 

reduction, prescribed fires, chemical and mechanical treatment, and seeding, 

would likely continue and potentially increase in the future. Approximately 

1,000 acres of crested wheatgrass restoration, clubmoss, and mechanical 

treatments, as well as 129,000 acres of prescribed fire and maintenance burning, 

have been proposed and may be implemented within the foreseeable future. 

These plans could decrease the intensity and occurrence of wildland fires. It 

could also return some of the vegetative communities to healthier states, which 

would result in an indirect decrease in risk of wildland fire.

ROWs and the associated development may increase the risk of human-caused 

ignitions due to vehicular travel to and from the site, construction, maintenance, 

and operation of the facilities. An average of 13 ROW actions are authorized a 

year in the planning area (see Table 5-1). The development allowed under 

these authorizations would result in surface-disturbance, which would generally 

contribute to the modification of the composition and structure of vegetation 

communities in the vicinity of developed areas, which could then be more likely 

to fuel high-intensity fires. Additionally, decisions on seven land actions are still 

pending and would have the potential to increase the risk of wildland fire and 

consequently, increase the burden on wildland fire management in the future.

Management under Alternatives B and C would place more restrictions on land 

uses that may introduce new sources of ignition and increase the risk of humancaused ignitions. Therefore, although some of these restrictions may restrict the 

ability of the wildland fire management program to suppress and preventatively 

treat fires, other restrictions, such as restrictions on types of recreation, may 

also lessen the occurrence of fires and may result in fewer fires in the future.

Minerals development under all alternatives would have similar impacts due to 

the lack of solid mineral potential in the area. Oil and gas leases requiring special 

wildlife stipulations in the LFO have been deferred in order to protect 

important wildlife habitat. This deferral indirectly effects wildland fire by 

reducing risks for wildland fire in the LFO because leases would not be offered 

within the planning area in the foreseeable future.

As the global effects of climate change continue into the future, the likelihood of 

natural, unplanned ignition within the planning area may increase due to the 

irregular weather patterns, increased likelihood of storms, and drought. As 

climate change is a global process, impacts on climate change from management 

actions related to this project would be negligible and would be similar across all 

alternatives.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Fluid Minerals)

5-28 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

5.6 FLUID MINERALS

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within 

the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely to 

continue to affect fluid minerals are development of and exploration for fluid 

minerals on mineral estate that is not owned by the federal government. This 

exploration and development must be considered in combination with 

exploration and development on federal mineral estate to assess the cumulative 

impacts of this RMPA/EIS. However, as discussed in Section 1.3, there is an 

existing protest resolution decision affecting lands managed within the LFO that 

does not allow oil and gas leasing of nominated parcels that would require a 

special stipulation to protect important wildlife values, which includes PPH and 

PGH, or PH and GH. New leasing of areas with important wildlife values cannot 

occur until the BLM completes a plan amendment/EIS or a new/revised RMP/EIS, 

including oil and gas leasing decisions identified in a ROD. Because this RMPA 

only considers management actions for GRSG and does not address oil and gas 

leasing options for other wildlife resource values, oil and gas leasing will not be 

addressed in this RMPA/EIS.

5.7 SOLID MINERALS (SOLID LEASABLE MINERALS)

The BLM has not identified any past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions and conditions within the cumulative impact analysis area that are likely 

to affect solid leasable minerals (see Table 5-1). Therefore, cumulative impacts 

on solid leasable minerals are not anticipated. Refer to Section 4.7, Solid 

Minerals (Solid Leasable Minerals), for the direct and indirect impacts.

5.8 SOLID MINERALS (LOCATABLE MINERALS)

The BLM has not identified any past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions and conditions within the cumulative impact analysis area that are likely 

to affect solid locatable minerals (see Table 5-1). Therefore, cumulative 

impacts on solid locatable minerals are not anticipated. Refer to Section 4.8, 

Solid Minerals (Locatable Minerals), for the direct and indirect impacts.

5.9 SOLID MINERALS (SALABLE MINERALS)

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within 

the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely continue 

to affect salable minerals are the amount of land closed to the disposal of salable 

minerals compared to the demand for the resource, and the number of 

restrictions on ROW developments, which slows road construction, the 

primary use for salable minerals.

As economic conditions improve, salable mineral extraction and use is expected 

to increase to support nearby development, specifically road building and 

maintenance. The proximity of both transportation and markets are key 

elements of a deposit. As the amount of BLM-administered land available for 

disposition of salable minerals is reduced, demand for salable minerals would 

increase in other areas. Overall, management under Alternative C would be the 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Solid Minerals (Salable Minerals))

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-29

most restrictive, proposing to close 58 percent of the federal mineral estate to 

the disposition of salable minerals. Management under Alternative D would 

propose closing 39 percent of the federal mineral estate, and management 

under Alternative B would propose closing 35 percent. Under Alternative A, 

less than one percent of the federal mineral estate would remain closed to the 

disposition of salable minerals, making it the least restrictive to extraction and 

use of salable minerals.

Restrictions on ROW development (e.g., ROW exclusion and avoidance areas) 

would likely reduce the demand for salable minerals needed for construction 

and maintenance. ROW are prohibited in exclusion areas and intended to be 

avoided in ROW avoidance areas. As such, it is likely that salable mineral 

demand in these areas would also decrease because fewer roads require less 

salable minerals. Zero acres would be managed as ROW exclusion area under 

Alternatives A and D, providing the most opportunity for ROW development 

and, therefore, greatest demand for salable minerals. Under Alternative C, the 

BLM would manage 345,560 acres (58 percent, the most of any alternative) as 

ROW exclusion area, and 233,219 acres (39 percent) under Alternative B.

5.10 COMPREHENSIVE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within 

the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely continue 

to affect CTTM include the BLM Off-Highway Vehicle Final Environmental 

Impact Statement and Proposed Plan Amendment Record of Decision (BLM 

2003b), which limits year-round motorized wheeled travel to existing roads and 

trails. BLM management would continue to limit motorized wheeled travel to 

existing roads and trails under all alternatives. There would be no additional 

cumulative impacts from closures of existing routes.

Under all alternatives, unauthorized cross-country motorized travel would

continue to impact CTTM. Cumulative impacts from cross-country travel 

include the creation of un-authorized travel routes and the need for additional 

management, such as enforcement, signage, and education. Unauthorized travel 

could result in seasonal or permanent closures of areas or designated routes. 

The BLM would evaluate the need for closures as part of an implementationlevel travel management planning process. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the 

BLM would conduct the travel management planning process within five years of

the current RMPA process.

Under Alternative C, the BLM would prohibit un-authorized road construction 

in PH within four miles of a lek. Cumulative impacts on CTTM as a result of this

limitation could include congestion on the existing travel route network within 

and adjacent to the planning area, particularly where routes provide access to 

multiple resource uses. Congestion and burden would prevent access and 

require more active management (e.g. enforcement, signage, and education) by 

the BLM.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Recreation)

5-30 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

5.11 RECREATION

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within 

the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely to 

continue to affect recreation are activities that conflict with recreation activities 

and opportunities, particularly big game hunting. These include mineral 

development; numerous ROW actions, including eight in 2012; grazing and 

range improvements, including five different range improvement projects 

between 2002 and 2012; travel management; and climate change.

Within the planning area, the BLM anticipates a steady demand for rural 

recreation experiences that are far from urban areas. Hunting, hiking, fishing, 

and sight-seeing have and would continue to be the area’s most popular

recreation activities. As activity associated with other resource uses (e.g., 

mineral development, lands and realty, and livestock grazing) remains steady or 

increases, the potential for conflicts and subsequent cumulative impacts on 

recreation would persist.

Fluid mineral development of existing leases would continue to impact 

recreation in the planning area. For all alternatives, long-term disturbance in the 

planning area from oil and gas activity would be a minimum of 55,880 acres. 

While the BLM anticipates oil and gas activity on existing leases to remain steady 

in most areas, cumulative impacts are possible from new drilling and production 

in southern Petroleum County. Fluid mineral activity impacts popular recreation 

activities such as big game hunting, wildlife viewing, and hiking by creating noise, 

dust, vehicle traffic, and night lighting.

Existing, proposed, and foreseeable ROW development in the planning area 

would also result in cumulative impacts on recreation activities and 

opportunities. In addition to the 215 miles of existing ROW actions throughout 

the planning area, the BLM is processing two road ROW applications in 

Ferguson County and three road ROW applications in Petroleum County. The 

BLM also anticipates additional long-term cumulative impacts from future 

ROWs, possibly those accommodating wind energy development, 

telecommunication infrastructure, and roadways. ROW development conflicts 

with recreation activities, particularly big game hunting, by creating linear 

obstructions for game and hunters. Cumulative impacts from existing and 

ongoing ROW development also reduce the quality of the rural outdoor 

experience sought by recreation users in planning area.

Under Alternative A, the BLM would continue to allow ROWs, mineral 

development, and grazing throughout the planning area with the result of 

continued cumulative impacts on recreation activities and opportunities.

Management under Alternatives B, C, and D would include limitations on 

surface disturbing activities, such as ROW development, grazing, and mineral 

development; therefore, reducing the potential for long-term cumulative 

impacts on recreation. Compared to the other alternatives, management under 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Recreation)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-31

Alternative C would result in the least amount of cumulative impacts on 

recreation due to proposed management prescriptions that include the 

identification of PH as ROW exclusion area, removal of livestock grazing in 

GRSG habitat, designation of a new ACEC, and application of COAs on existing 

fluid mineral leases in PH and GH.

Under all alternatives, the BLM anticipates long-term cumulative impacts from 

travel management and climate change. Unauthorized motorized cross-country 

travel and the creation of new roads and trails are and would continue to 

impact non-motorized recreation opportunities. At the same time, climate 

change could alter big game habitats, impact water resources for fishing, and 

increase the threat of wildfire. Increased concern over both areas could result 

in further management actions to mitigate adverse effects. Additional regulations 

would result in cumulative impacts (e.g., travel closures or restrictions on SRPs 

for certain activities), which may reduce recreation opportunities, resulting in 

further impacts.

5.12 RANGE MANAGEMENT

Past, present, and future actions within the cumulative impact analysis area that 

have affected and would likely continue to affect livestock grazing are mainly 

those that reduce available grazing acreage, the level of forage production in 

those areas, or inhibit livestock improvements, such as water development or 

fences. Generally, livestock use has decreased over the past 100 years. Grazing 

in portions of the planning area has either remained stable or declined in the 

recent past, and demand on BLM-administered lands has remained stable 

between 2002 and 2012. Grazing on private lands within the planning area is 

generally expected to remain stable or slightly decrease as residential and 

recreational development increases. These trends are expected to continue.

Past and present actions that have affected livestock grazing include humancaused surface disturbances such as those associated with mineral development, 

recreation, prescribed burning, and historic grazing practices. Drought and 

water availability in the planning has a significant impact on livestock grazing. 

Drought and the associated 324 wildland fires that have occurred in the planning 

areas since 2000 have contributed to current ecological conditions by impacting 

the level of forage available and ability of lessees/permittees to fully utilize 

permitted levels of AUMs. Future actions affecting livestock grazing are similar 

to present actions, and include any restriction on grazing management

associated with future species listings under the ESA and additional changes to 

forage due to continued drought or climate change. Cumulative projects that 

increase human disturbance in grazing areas could also indirectly impact grazing 

by increasing weeds and invasive species and by disturbing or displacing 

livestock.

The contribution of the RMPA/EIS to cumulative impacts would parallel the 

impacts of the alternatives as described in Chapter 4. The greatest 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Range Management)

5-32 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

contribution to cumulative effects on livestock grazing would be seen in 

Alternative C due to the reduction of grazing in the planning area. The 

reduction of grazing on BLM-administrated lands could impact area 

lessees/permittees economically and may put additional pressure on forage 

resources on private lands in the area.

Approximately 3,400 additional miles of fencing could be required to exclude 

livestock from BLM-administered lands where grazing is excluded, representing 

potential additional costs to private landowners. Lessees and permittees would 

be faced with reducing AUMs for their operations or locating replacement 

forage, often at higher costs than that currently obtained from BLMadministered lands, with potential impacts on individual leases/permits as well as 

the local community. Closures would also impact ability of lessees and 

permittees current seasonal rotations or other management strategies that 

utilize both public and private lands.

Additionally, many permittees and lessees may try to increase forage production 

on their private and other leased land. This would accelerate the conversion of 

private native range (GRSG habitat) to agricultural and introduced grass 

production. Also, ranchers may spray or burn big sagebrush on native range in 

an effort to increase forage production on private lands to replace the lost BLM 

forage, potentially degrading the quality of GRSG habitat.

5.13 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within 

the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely continue 

to affect ACECs are any actions impacting the relevant and important values for 

which the ACECs were established. Such actions include ROW development, oil 

and gas production, livestock grazing and range improvements, travel 

management, and climate change.

Currently, the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC is the only ACEC in the planning 

area that falls within GRSG habitat. Under Alternative C, the BLM would 

designate a GRSG ACEC as a way to prioritize BLM management of PH.

Livestock grazing, while allowed within the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC

boundary, is steadily declining in the region due to drought and the increasing 

use of land for residential and recreational uses. Combined with the unstable 

shale soils and lack of forage, the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC has been and 

would continue to be less attractive to grazing when compared to adjacent 

grasslands. Long-term cumulative impacts from removing livestock grazing could 

occur within the new GRSG ACEC proposed under Alternative C. The removal

of grazing could support the relevant and important values of the proposed 

GRSG ACEC.

Unauthorized cross-country motorized travel is expected to continue 

throughout the decision area with cumulative impacts possible within the Acid 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-33

Shale-Pine Forest ACEC. The creation of un-authorized trails and primitive 

roads would result in cumulative impacts on the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC 

and the GRSG ACEC proposed under Alternative C. Cumulative impacts on the 

respective ACEC values from unauthorized motorized cross-country travel 

would include soil compaction and subsequent impacts on the Pine Forest and 

sage-brush vegetation communities.

Climate change would also pose a long-term threat of cumulative impacts on the 

relevant and important values of the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC and the 

GRSG ACEC proposed under Alternative C. Cumulative impacts on GRSG

habitat and, consequently, on the ACEC from climate change could include 

vegetation regime changes (e.g., from sagebrush to grasslands) and increased 

wildfire potential due to drought (Connelly et al. 2004).

5.14 AIR RESOURCES

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within 

the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely continue 

to affect air quality are actions related to solid salable minerals development and 

wildfire (climate change).

Salable minerals include deposits such as granite that are used for road building 

and maintenance. Salable mineral extraction and associated actions such as rock 

crushing are stationary sources of particulate emissions as well as criteria and 

hazardous pollutants emitted by equipment used to excavate and process the 

material. Use of these sites can result in elevated levels of fugitive dust both at 

the site and along haul routes between the extraction site and the construction 

site. The scale of mineral extraction depends on the demand for these materials, 

which is driven by the level of development in an area. Actions listed in Table 

5-1 that require development of roads or ROWs may increase the demand for 

salable minerals, resulting in increased particulate emissions in the planning area.

The management actions proposed in this RMPA/EIS under Alternatives B and C

would close areas of BLM-administered lands to ROW developments, which 

would reduce the demand for salable materials. Air emissions associated with 

development on BLM-administered lands would likely be reduced compared 

with current conditions, and proposed BLM management actions would have no 

incremental cumulative air quality impact.

Under Alternatives A and D, no new areas would be closed to salable mineral 

development, and emissions associated with material excavation and processing 

sites could contribute air pollutants, particularly particulate, to the planning area. 

Because the level of such activity would be relatively low and emissions would 

tend to be localized, this activity in conjunction with similar emission-generating 

projects in the cumulative analysis area would not have a cumulatively significant 

impact on air quality.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Air Resources)

5-34 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Fires, particularly uncontrolled fires, can significantly affect air quality by 

introducing large amounts of particulate, CO, atmospheric mercury, ozone

precursors, and volatile organic compounds into the air, affecting both visibility 

and human health. Management actions described in this RMPA/EIS have the 

potential to reduce human-caused ignition of fires through restriction of 

activities on BLM-administered lands that introduce equipment and people to 

the landscape, while activities described in Table 5-1 have the potential to 

increase the risk of human-caused fire. As described in Section 5.1.1, Wildland 

Fire Management and Ecology, wildland fires have been frequent in the past 

decade and are expected to increase in the future due to reoccurring and 

increasingly severe drought conditions that are caused by climate change. As the 

global effects of climate change continue into the future, the likelihood of 

natural, unplanned ignition within the planning area may increase due to the 

irregular weather patterns, increased likelihood of storms, and drought, 

resulting in further increases in air pollutant emissions from fire.

5.15 CLIMATE

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within 

the cumulative impact analysis area that have contributed GHGs to the 

atmosphere include actions related to solid (salable) minerals development,

wildfire, and fuel combustion.

Development of mineral resources results in short-term and long-term 

emissions of GHG pollutants during fuel combustion in vehicles and 

construction equipment; it also removes vegetation and releases sequestered 

carbon. The scale of mineral extraction depends on the demand for these 

materials, which is driven by the level of development in an area. Actions listed 

in Table 5-1 that require development of roads or ROWs may increase the 

demand for salable minerals, resulting in an increase in GHG emissions in the 

planning area from extraction activities.

The management actions proposed in this RMPA/EIS under Alternatives B and C

would close areas of BLM-administered lands to ROW developments, which 

would reduce the demand for salable materials. GHG emissions associated with 

development on BLM-administered lands would likely be reduced compared 

with current conditions, and proposed BLM management actions would have no 

incremental cumulative impact. Under Alternatives A and D, no areas would be 

closed to salable mineral development, and emissions associated with material 

excavation and processing sites could contribute GHG emissions to the planning 

area. Because the level of such activity would be relatively low, this activity in 

conjunction with similar emission-generating projects in the cumulative analysis 

area would not have a cumulatively significant impact.

Fires, particularly uncontrolled fires, can emit large quantities of GHGs into the 

atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide (EPA 2012f); 

fires also remove vegetation that acts as a carbon sink. As described under 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Climate)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-35

Section 5.1.1, Air Quality, above, management actions described in this 

RMPA/EIS have the potential to reduce human-caused ignition of fires through 

restriction of activities on BLM-administered lands that would introduce 

equipment and people to the landscape, while activities described in Table 5-1

have the potential to increase the risk of human-caused fire.

As described in Section 5.1.1, wildland fires have been frequent in the past 

decade and are expected to increase in the future due to reoccurring and 

increasingly severe drought conditions that are caused by climate change. As the 

global effects of climate change continue into the future, the likelihood of 

natural, unplanned ignition within the planning area may increase due to the 

irregular weather patterns, increased likelihood of storms, and drought, 

resulting in further increases in GHG emissions from fire.

Overall, federal and nonfederal actions within the planning area would 

contribute a very small percentage of state and national GHG emissions; CO2

emissions for all of Montana were only 0.85 percent of total US CO2 emissions 

in 2010 (US Energy Information Administration 2013).

5.16 SOIL RESOURCES

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within 

the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely to 

continue to affect soil resources are drought, wildland fire, and noxious weed

invasion, vegetation management, range improvements, unauthorized travel, 

projects that would increase ROWs and energy and mineral development, and 

climate change.

Drought and water availability has a significant impact on vegetation in the 

planning area, which results in a significant impact on soil resources. Drought 

affects the health of rangeland, riparian areas, and forests, making them more 

susceptible to the invasion of weeds and fire. Noxious weeds have invaded, and 

would continue to invade, many locations in the planning area. Noxious weeds 

are managed through integrated weed management, which includes biological, 

chemical, mechanical, manual, and educational methods. Drought, along with the 

324 wildland fires that have occurred in the planning areas since 2000 and weed 

invasion, have contributed to current ecological conditions by impacting 

vegetation communities, which keep soils stabilized and reduce erosion and 

runoff into waterways.

Fire can impact soils in the short term through the removal of vegetation 

resulting in instability and increased erosion and sediment runoff. Long-term 

effects of fire are considered beneficial as the landscape can be returned to a 

healthier state with proper seeding and management, which would indirectly 

reduce the risk of fire and provide for more established vegetation 

communities, resulting in more stable soils. Vegetation management is important 

for soil stability as vegetation anchors soils in place and prevents excessive 

erosion and runoff into waterways. Vegetation management includes hazardous 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Soil Resources)

5-36 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

fuels reduction through prescribed fires, chemical and mechanical treatments, 

and seeding. Between 2002 and 2012 the LFO prescribed vegetation treatments 

on 17,437 acres, and is proposing crested wheatgrass restoration, clubmoss, and 

mechanical treatments on approximately 1,000 acres and prescribed fire and 

maintenance burning on 129,000 acres. These treatments may be implemented 

within the foreseeable future and could cumulatively benefit soil resources.

Range management involves constructing infrastructure in order to support 

livestock grazing. Currently, there are 26 miles of stockwater pipelines, 42 

watering sites, eight cattleguards, and 58 fences in the planning area. Proposed 

rangeland improvement projects include an additional 65 miles of fencing, 84 

miles of stockwater pipeline, and 87 stockwatering sites which could 

cumulatively impact soils through compaction during construction and through 

the rearrangement of cattle movement in the planning area.

Recreation within the planning area is expected to remain at current levels or 

increase, and as such unauthorized travel or visitor created trails would likely 

continue to occur resulting in cumulative effects to soils from vegetation loss, 

erosion, and compaction.

Fluid mineral development would continue to impact soil resources in the 

planning area. For all alternatives, long-term disturbance in the planning area 

from oil and gas activity would be a minimum of 55,880 acres on BLMadministered lands, and 33,881 acres of BLM-administered sub-surface lands. 

While the BLM anticipates oil and gas activity on existing leases to remain steady 

in most areas, cumulative impacts are possible from new drilling and production 

in southern Petroleum County, which could impact soil resources through the 

development of temporary roads, wells, and associated well pads. However, the 

existing protest resolution from the Judith Resource Area Resource 

Management Plan (BLM 1994) would continue to defer oil and gas leasing for 

any nominated parcels that would require special stipulations to protect 

important wildlife values for the life of the RMP, which would indirectly prevent 

impacts from fluid mineral development on soil resources in the parcels 

deferred.

Existing, proposed, and foreseeable ROW development in the planning area (see 

Table 5-1) would also result in cumulative impacts on soil resources through 

vegetation loss, compaction, and erosion. An average of 13 ROW actions 

occurs each year in the planning area. So far, eight ROW actions, totaling

approximately 34,339 acres of surface disturbance (34,296 of which is 

temporary surface occupancy; therefore, not all of these acres would be 

disturbed), have been authorized in 2013 and would affect soil resources. An 

additional seven land actions are pending and would have the potential to 

cumulatively impact soils. The development allowed under these authorizations 

would result in surface-disturbance, which would generally contribute to soil 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Soil Resources)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-37

degradation through compaction, erosion and sediment runoff, and vegetation 

clearing.

Climate change would also pose a long-term threat of cumulative impacts soil 

resources. Cumulative impacts on GRSG habitat and, consequently, on soil 

resources from climate change could include vegetation regime changes (e.g., 

from sagebrush to grasslands), increased wildfire potential due to drought, and 

increased sedimentation and erosion (Connelly et al. 2004).

Under Alternative A, the BLM would continue to allow ROWs and mineral 

development throughout the planning area with the result of continued 

cumulative impacts on soil resources. Management under Alternatives B, C, and 

D would include limitations on surface disturbing activities, such as ROW 

development and mineral development; therefore, reducing the potential for 

long-term cumulative impacts on soil resources on BLM-administered lands.

However, the ROW exclusion areas under Alternatives B and C could push 

ROW development onto private lands which would indirectly contribute to 

cumulative effects on soils on non-BLM administered lands. An indirect impact 

from excluding livestock grazing from BLM-administered lands under Alternative 

C is the potential conversion of adjacent private grazing lands to agriculture or 

other land uses, including development within the planning area. This would 

contribute to the overall loss or degradation of soil resources.

5.17 WATER RESOURCES

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within 

the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely to 

continue to affect water resources are drought, wildland fire, and vegetation 

management, livestock grazing and range improvements, unauthorized travel, 

projects that would increase ROWs and energy and mineral development, and 

climate change.

Drought affects the health of rangeland, riparian areas, and forests which make 

them more susceptible to the invasion of weeds and fire. The BLM has 

documented 324 drought-associated wildland fires in the planning areas since 

2000. Fire can impact water resources in the short term through the removal of 

vegetation resulting in instability of soils and increased erosion and sediment 

into waterways. Long-term effects of fire are considered beneficial as the 

landscape can be returned to a healthier state with proper seeding and 

management, which would indirectly reduce the risk of fire which would reduce 

erosion of soils into waterways. Vegetation management is important for soil 

stability as vegetation anchors soils in place and prevents excessive erosion and 

runoff into waterways. Vegetation management includes hazardous fuels 

reduction through prescribed fires, chemical and mechanical treatments, and 

seeding. Between 2002 and 2012, the LFO prescribed vegetation treatments on 

17,437 acres and is proposing crested wheatgrass restoration, clubmoss, and 

mechanical treatments on approximately 1,000 acres, and prescribed fire and 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Water Resources)

5-38 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

maintenance burning on 129,000 acres, which may be implemented within the 

foreseeable future and would cumulatively impact water resources for a short 

period.

Livestock grazing can affect water resources through the trampling of soils and 

vegetation along and within natural water features and through the formation of 

fecal coliforms in waterways. Livestock grazing is associated with range 

management, which involves constructing infrastructure in order to support 

livestock grazing. Currently, there are 26 miles of stockwater pipelines, 42 

watering sites, eight cattleguards, and 58 fences in the planning area. Proposed 

rangeland improvement projects include an additional 65 miles of fencing, 84 

miles of stockwater pipeline, and 87 stockwatering sites which could 

cumulatively impact waters through compaction and erosion of soils during 

construction which could result in runoff into waterways. In addition, the 

increase in stockwatering sites increases the risk of mosquito breeding habitat 

being created, which increases the risk of spreading West Nile virus.

Recreation within the planning area is expected to remain at current levels or 

increase, and as such unauthorized travel or visitor created trails would likely 

continue to occur resulting in cumulative effects to water resources from soil 

compaction, erosion, and sedimentation into waterways.

Fluid mineral development of existing leases would continue to impact water 

resources in the planning area. For all alternatives, long-term disturbance in the 

planning area from oil and gas activity would be a minimum of 55,880 acres on 

BLM-administered lands and 33,881 acres of BLM-administered sub-surface 

lands. While the BLM anticipates oil and gas activity on existing leases to remain 

steady in most areas, cumulative impacts are possible from new drilling and 

production in southern Petroleum County, which could impact water resources 

through an increase in the presence of petroleum-using vehicles and equipment 

which increases the likelihood of chemical spills, erosion, and contamination of 

waterways. Fluid mineral development can increase the likelihood of the 

creation of pools of standing water, which can serve as mosquito breeding 

habitat, increasing the ability for West Nile virus to spread into a landscape 

otherwise not at risk to the pathogen. However, the existing protest resolution 

from the Judith Resource Area Resource Management Plan (BLM 1994) would 

continue to defer oil and gas leasing for any nominated parcels that would 

require special stipulations to protect important wildlife values for the life of the 

RMP, which would indirectly prevent impacts from fluid mineral development on 

water resources in the parcels deferred.

Climate change would also pose a long-term threat of cumulative impacts on

water resources. Cumulative impacts on GRSG habitat and, consequently, on 

water resources from climate change could include vegetation regime changes 

(e.g., from sagebrush to grasslands), increased wildfire potential due to drought, 

and increased sedimentation and erosion into waterways (Connelly et al. 2004).
5. Cumulative Impacts (Water Resources)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-39

Existing, proposed, and foreseeable ROW development in the planning area (see 

Table 5-1) would also result in cumulative impacts on water resources through 

man-made runoff of soils and chemicals into waterways. An average of 13 ROW 

actions occurs each year in the planning area. So far eight actions, totaling 

approximately 34,339 acres of surface disturbance (34,296 of which is 

temporary surface occupancy; therefore, not all of these acres would be 

disturbed) have been authorized in 2013, and would affect water resources. An 

additional seven land actions are pending and would have the potential to 

cumulatively impact water resources. The development allowed under these 

authorizations would result in surface-disturbance, which would generally 

contribute to a decrease in water quality through compaction, erosion, and 

sediment runoff into waterways as well as an increase in the potential for 

chemical contamination.

Under Alternative A, the BLM would continue to allow ROWs, mineral 

development, and grazing throughout the planning area with the result of 

continued cumulative impacts on water resources. Alternatives B, C, and D 

would include limitations on surface disturbing activities, such as ROW 

development, grazing, and mineral development; therefore; reducing the 

potential for long-term cumulative impacts on water resources on BLMadministered lands. However, the ROW exclusion areas under Alternatives B 

and C could push ROW development onto private lands which would indirectly 

contribute to cumulative effects on water resources on non-BLM administered 

lands. An indirect impact from excluding livestock grazing from BLMadministered lands under Alternative C is the potential conversion of adjacent 

private grazing lands to agriculture or other land uses, including development 

within the planning area. This could contribute to the overall degradation of 

water resources.

5.18 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES – OTHER SPECIES OF ISSUE

Many past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions 

within the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely 

continue to affect special status species other than GRSG are described in 

Table 5-1. The future actions most likely to affect special status species are 

likely associated with energy development, livestock grazing, and lands and 

realty. Special status species in and adjacent to the planning area, in addition to 

GRSG, include white-tailed prairie dog, breeding populations of mountain 

plover, chestnut-collared longspur, northern leopard frog, little Indian 

breadroot, and Platte cinquefoil, as described in Section 3.19, Special Status 

Species – Other Species of Issue. See Section 5.1.3 for a discussion of 

cumulative impacts on GRSG. In general, special status species populations 

within the LFO are in decline and this trend is attributed to increased habitat 

fragmentation, spread of noxious weeds, and lack of fire on the landscape and/or 

fire suppression, and infrastructure development. Other actions that may 

contribute to cumulative impacts include vegetation management, recreation, 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

5-40 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

noxious weeds, wildland fires, spread of forest insects and disease, drought, and 

climate change.

Cumulative impacts from future management actions described in Table 5-1

would likely increase the number of surface acres disturbed by oil and gas 

exploration and development over the long term. However, existing protest 

resolution from the Judith Resource Area Resource Management Plan (BLM 

1994) would continue to defer oil and gas leasing for any nominated parcels that 

would require special stipulations to protect important wildlife values for the life 

of the RMP as described in Section 1.3. Vegetation management, including 

prescribed fire, weed control, and other vegetation treatments, has occurred on 

17,437 acres in the LFO between 2002 and 2012. These treatments and other 

vegetation reseeding and restoration efforts would likely continue or increase 

across the planning area in the future, benefitting special status species and their 

habitat. 

Livestock grazing in the cumulative analysis area has decreased over the past 

century and current grazing demands on BLM-administered lands and private 

lands have been stable between 2002 and 2012. Increases in livestock grazing 

infrastructure, including stockwater pipelines, watering sites, cattleguards, and 

fences have occurred between 2002 and 2012 in the planning area and more 

range improvements are proposed. Short-term surface disturbances associated 

with future range improvement projects could decrease available habitat for 

special status species. However, in the long term these improvements could 

decrease the ecological impacts from livestock grazing by protecting habitat and 

forage areas for special status species or by reducing impacts on riparian habitat 

by establishing common watering areas.

Recreation and visitor use would likely continue to have increased usage within 

the planning area. The lands and realty program is expected to receive increased 

ROW applications for development and infrastructure-related projects. There 

are several land actions that are pending in the planning area which include land 

exchanges and donations of approximately 1,000 acres that would likely benefit 

special status species habitat. These small gains in potential habitat for special 

status species would likely be eclipsed by surface disturbances associated with 

future development. The continuing trend of the spread of noxious weeds, 

occurrence of wildland fires, as well as the spread of forest insects and disease 

would likely continue to decrease habitat conditions for special status species. 

Changing climatological conditions between 2002 and 2012 in the western US 

have produced drought conditions which could be attributed to the increased 

occurrence of wildland fires and spread of forest insects and disease. 

Continuation of drought throughout the planning area would decrease the 

availability of special status species habitat.

Four indicators were identified to analyze the effects on special status species 

under each alternative in Section 4.18. These indicators include acres of ROW
5. Cumulative Impacts (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-41

exclusion area, acres of ROW avoidance area, acres closed to livestock grazing, 

and available AUMs. Management under Alternative A would generally have the 

greatest cumulative impacts, because it would provide the fewest considerations 

of ecological impacts in management decisions. Management under Alternative 

D would result in slightly fewer cumulative impacts on special status species due 

to an increase in the number of acres of ROW avoidance area compared to 

Alternative A. Management under Alternative B would have fewer acres of

ROW avoidance areas but would include 233,219 acres of ROW exclusion area

compared to Alternative A. Management under Alternative C would have the 

largest increase in ROW exclusion area and is the only alternative to consider 

closing a substantial amount of land to livestock grazing (343,991 acres). 

Additionally, Alternative C would remove 69,408 AUMs on BLM-administered 

lands and would result in the least cumulative impacts among the proposed 

alternatives. The impacts on special status species habitat on BLM-administered 

lands may be reduced from removing ROW development in ROW exclusion 

areas; however, ROW exclusion areas could result in more widespread 

development on private lands, and may not reduce overall impacts on special 

status species habitat. An indirect impact from excluding livestock grazing from 

BLM-administered lands is the potential conversion of adjacent private grazing 

lands to agriculture or other land uses, including development within the 

planning area. This is especially a concern in areas with a mosaic of ownership 

boundaries, which would decrease available habitat for special status species 

that inhabit land outside of BLM-administered lands.

5.19 FISH AND WILDLIFE

As discussed in Section 3.20, implementation of any of the alternatives would 

result in general and unquantifiable indirect beneficial effects for fish in terms of 

greater protection through new restrictions on surface and resource use 

resulting in reduced opportunities for surface disturbance or habitat disruption 

where they exist. Therefore, general fish species will not be discussed further in 

Chapter 5.

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within 

the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely continue 

to affect wildlife species are described in Table 5-1. The future actions most 

likely to affect wildlife are likely associated with energy development, livestock 

grazing, and lands and realty. Key wildlife species described in Section 3.20, 

Fish and Wildlife, include a wide variety of bird species, and big game. Generally, 

wildlife species in the planning area are common, and their populations are 

stable. Threats to wildlife species within the planning area include habitat 

fragmentation, spread of noxious weeds, lack of fire on the landscape, lack of 

fire suppression, and infrastructure development. Other actions that may 

contribute to cumulative impacts include vegetation management, recreation, 

noxious weeds, wildland fires, spread of forest insects and disease, drought, and 

climate change.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Fish and Wildlife)

5-42 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Cumulative impacts from future management actions described in Table 5-1

would likely increase the number of surface acres disturbed by oil and gas 

exploration and development over the long term. However, existing protest 

resolution from the Judith Resource Area Resource Management Plan (BLM 

1994) would continue to defer oil and gas leasing for any nominated parcels that 

would require special stipulations to protect important wildlife values for the life 

of the RMP as described in Section 1.3. Vegetation management including 

prescribed fire, weed control, and other vegetation treatments has occurred on 

17,437 acres in the LFO between 2002 and 2012. These treatments and other 

vegetation reseeding and restoration efforts would likely continue or increase 

across the planning area in the future, benefitting wildlife species and their 

habitat. 

Livestock grazing in the RMP planning area has decreased over the past century 

and current grazing demands on BLM-administered lands and private lands have 

been stable between 2002 and 2012. Increases in livestock grazing 

infrastructure, including stockwater pipelines, watering sites, cattleguards, and 

fences have occurred between 2002 and 2012 in the planning area and more 

range improvements are proposed. Short-term surface disturbances associated 

with future range improvement projects could decrease available habitat for 

wildlife species. However, in the long term these improvements could decrease 

the ecological impacts from livestock grazing by protecting habitat and forage 

areas for wildlife species. Additionally, establishing common watering areas 

could reduce impacts on riparian habitat.

Recreation and visitor use would likely continue to have increased usage within 

the planning area. The lands and realty program is expected to receive increased 

ROW applications for development and infrastructure-related projects. Impacts 

on wildlife species would still continue to occur outside of the BLMadministered lands as a result of the large expanse and variety of non-BLMadministered lands within PH (974,735 acres) and GH (899,659 acres). There 

are several land actions that are pending in the planning area which include land 

exchanges and donations of approximately 1,000 acres that would likely benefit 

wildlife species habitat. These small gains in potential habitat for wildlife species 

would likely be eclipsed by surface disturbances associated with future 

development. The continuing trend of the spread of noxious weeds, occurrence 

of wildland fires, as well as the spread of forest insects and disease, would likely 

continue to decrease habitat conditions for wildlife species. Changing 

climatological conditions between 2002 and 2012 in the western US have 

produced drought conditions which could be attributed to the increased 

occurrence of wildland fires and spread of forest insects and disease. 

Continuation of drought throughout the planning area would decrease the 

availability of wildlife species habitat.

Four indicators were identified to analyze the effects on wildlife species under 

each alternative in Section 4.19, Fish and Wildlife. These indicators include 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Fish and Wildlife)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-43

acres of ROW exclusion area, acres of ROW avoidance area, acres closed to 

livestock grazing, and available AUMs. Management under Alternative A would 

generally have the greatest cumulative impacts, because it provides the fewest 

considerations of ecological impacts in management decisions. Management 

under Alternative D would result in slightly fewer cumulative impacts on wildlife 

species due to an increase in the number of acres of ROW avoidance area

compared to Alternative A. Management under Alternative B would have fewer 

acres of ROW avoidance areas but would include 233,219 acres of ROW 

exclusion area compared to Alternative A. Management under Alternative C 

would have the largest increase in ROW exclusion area and is the only 

alternative to consider closing a substantial amount of land to livestock grazing 

(343,991 acres). Additionally, management under Alternative C would remove 

69,408 AUMs on BLM-administered lands and would result in the least 

cumulative impacts among the proposed alternatives. The impacts on wildlife 

habitat on BLM-administered lands may be reduced from removing ROW 

development in ROW exclusion areas; however, ROW exclusion areas could

result in more widespread development on private lands, and may not reduce 

overall impacts on wildlife habitat. An indirect impact from excluding livestock 

grazing from BLM-administered lands is the potential conversion of adjacent 

private grazing lands to agriculture or other land uses, including development 

within the planning area. This is especially a concern in areas with a mosaic of 

ownership boundaries, which would decrease available habitat for wildlife 

species that inhabit land outside of BLM-administered lands.

5.20 RENEWABLE ENERGY

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within 

the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely to 

continue to affect renewable energy are the construction of existing and 

proposed roads and transmission lines. They would have a minor cumulative 

effect by increasing the routing options and possibly reducing project 

construction or implementation costs.

As stated in Section 4.20, there is no “Good” (6.0 kilowatt-hours/square 

meter/day) or better solar potential within the planning area. As such, none the 

alternatives would result in cumulative impacts on solar energy development 

potential.

Across all alternatives the primary indicator of impacts on wind energy is acres 

of BLM-administered lands with “Good” or better wind potential within ROW

exclusion and ROW avoidance areas. The minor cumulative impact of increased 

routing options and decreased project costs caused by construction of existing 

and proposed roads and transmission lines could encourage wind energy 

development on the small percentage of BLM-administered lands that would not 

be subject to these ROW restrictions. However, under Alternatives B, C, and 

D, development of wind energy resources on BLM-administered lands are still 

unlikely due to the fact that 79 percent of “Good” or better wind potential land 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Renewable Energy)

5-44 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

within the planning area would be designated as either ROW avoidance or 

exclusion areas. For wind-power developers, these ROW restrictions would

likely negate any positive cumulative impacts caused by the increased routing 

options and decreased project costs caused by construction of existing and 

proposed roads and transmission lines.

Under Alternative A, wind energy development applications would continue to 

be processed on a case-by-case basis, with no additional acres designated as 

ROW exclusion or ROW avoidance areas. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of 

increased routing options and decreased project costs caused by the 

construction of existing and proposed roads and transmission lines would 

encourage wind energy development the most of any alternative. However, this 

cumulative effect would still be considered minor.

5.21 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within 

the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely to 

continue to affect social and economic conditions are those that impact level of 

employment or income or those that effect quality of life and related nonmarket values. These activities can include mineral exploration and 

development, unauthorized travel, livestock grazing, recreation, development in 

ROWs, weed invasion and spread, prescribed and wildland fires, land planning 

efforts, vegetation treatments and habitat improvement projects, insects and 

disease, and drought.

Actions proposed in this RMPA/EIS would contribute to the cumulative impacts 

on employment and labor income directly as a result of labor required, and 

indirectly as purchases are made between industry sectors and households 

spend resulting income. These contributions would accrue in the five-county 

impact area alongside impacts from other projects occurring on public and 

private land in the area notably, development of existing BLM-administered

surface/federal minerals and development of authorized ROWs and potential 

development of pending ROW authorizations (see Table 5-1).

The economy can be also be affected by a variety of factors including population 

growth, changes in interest rates, recession, growth of new sectors, tax policy, 

state economic policy, etc. When compared to these factors, the RMPA 

alternatives are likely to have a negligible cumulative effect on the impact area 

economy. For example, total employment in the five-county impact area in 2010 

was 13,808, and labor income was $383 million. Employment decreases under 

Alternative C would comprise 0.97 and 0.10 percent of total employment and 

labor income. Because any changes in economic activity from the proposed 

action would be unnoticeable at these levels, there should be no cumulative 

economic effects for the entire economy.

However, as noted above, the five-county impact area can be considered 

specialized with respect to the grazing sector. Decreases in employment and 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Social and Economic Conditions)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-45

labor income under Alternative C, due to reductions of AUMs on BLMadministered lands, would reduce contributions to the grazing sector from 201 

to 66 jobs which could result in a 30 percent decrease in employment in this 

sector. Decreases may not be as large since actual use of BLM-administered 

lands is not always equal to allocated use levels analyzed here. For example, 

actual employment associated with billed use during any given year could be less 

than 201 jobs if actual use of BLM forage is less than allocated (possibly due to 

increases in prices of factors of production, drought, market conditions, etc.). In 

addition, the decrease portrayed here could be less if alternative sources of 

forage is found for lessees/permittees willing to use substitutes. Regardless, an 

adverse effect such as an increase in price of factors of production, drought, or 

change in market conditions would occur on the grazing sector if changes occur 

for ranching and grazing on private and other public lands outside the scope of 

this RMPA.

5.22 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Actions in the proposed plan are not anticipated to have a disproportionate 

impact on those in low income or minority populations under any alternative. 

As a result, the project would not contribute to cumulative impacts for 

environmental justice.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Environmental Justice)

5-46 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPTER 6

CONSULTATION AND 

COORDINATION

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 6-1

CHAPTER 6

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

This chapter describes the public outreach and participation opportunities made 

available through the development of this RMPA/EIS, and consultation and 

coordination efforts with tribes, government agencies, and other stakeholders. 

This chapter also lists the interdisciplinary team of staff who prepared the draft 

RMPA and associated EIS.

The BLM land use planning activities are conducted in accordance with

requirements of NEPA, CEQ regulations, and BLM policies and procedures 

implementing NEPA. The NEPA and associated laws, regulations, and policies 

require the BLM to seek public involvement early in and throughout the 

planning process to develop a reasonable range of alternatives to proposed 

actions, and to prepare environmental documents that disclose the potential 

impacts of proposed actions and alternatives. Public involvement and agency 

consultation and coordination, which have been at the heart of the planning 

process leading to this RMPA/EIS, were achieved through Federal Register

notices, public meetings, agency briefings, individual contacts, media releases, 

and the Rocky Mountain Region – National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning 

Strategy website, http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse/

eastern.html.

6.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public involvement is a vital and legal component of both the RMPA and EIS

processes. Public involvement vests the public in the decision making process 

and allows for full environmental disclosure. Guidance for implementing public 

involvement under NEPA is codified in 40 CFR, Part 1506.6, thereby ensuring 

that federal agencies make a diligent effort to involve the public in the NEPA 

process. Section 202 of FLPMA directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish 

procedures for public involvement during land use planning actions on BLMadministered lands. These procedures can be found in the BLM’s Land Use 

Planning Handbook (H-1601-1; BLM 2005a). Public involvement for the 
6. Consultation and Coordination (Public Involvement)

6-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS includes the following 

four phases:

1. Public scoping before beginning NEPA analysis to determine the 

scope of issues and alternatives to be addressed in the RMPA/EIS

2. Public outreach via newsletters and news releases

3. Collaboration with federal, state, local, and tribal governments, and 

cooperating agencies

4. Public review of and comment on the draft RMPA/EIS, which 

analyzes likely environmental effects and identifies the BLM’s 

preferred alternative

The public scoping phase (phase I) of the process has been completed and is 

described in Section 6.1.1, Scoping Process. The public outreach and 

collaboration phases (2 and 3) are ongoing throughout the RMPA/EIS process 

and are described in Section 6.2, Consultation and Coordination, and Section 

6.3, Cooperating Agencies. Phase 4 started with the 90-day public comment 

period on the RMPA/EIS.

6.1.1 Scoping Process

The formal public scoping process for the Lewistown Field Office Greater SageGrouse RMPA/EIS began on December 9, 2011, with the publication of the 

notice of intent in the Federal Register (76 Federal Register 77008-77011). The 

notice of intent notified the public of the BLM’s intent to prepare NEPA

environmental documents to incorporate GRSG conservation measures into 

land use plans; it also initiated the public scoping period, which closed on March 

29, 2012. A notice of correction to the notice of intent was released on 

February 10, 2012 (77 Federal Register 7178-7179). The notice of correction 

extended the scoping period until March 23, 2012.

Project Website

The BLM launched a national GRSG conservation website as part of its efforts 

to maintain and restore GRSG habitat on BLM-administered lands. The national 

website is available on the internet at 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse.html. The BLM has also 

launched a Rocky Mountain regional website at 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse/eastern.html. These sites 

are regularly updated to provide the public with the latest information about the 

planning process. The Rocky Mountain website provides background 

information about the project, a public involvement timeline, maps of the 

planning areas, and copies of public information documents and the notice of 

intent. The dates and locations of scoping open houses were also announced on 

the Rocky Mountain website.
6. Consultation and Coordination (Public Involvement)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 6-3

Press Release

A press release was made available on the national and Rocky Mountain Region 

websites on December 8, 2011, announcing the scoping period. The LFO also 

distributed a press release on December 22, 2012, announcing the scoping 

period for the GRSG planning effort. The press releases provided information 

on the scoping open houses and described the various methods for submitting 

comments. A second press release was posted on the national and Rocky 

Mountain websites on February 7, 2012, announcing the extension of the public 

scoping period to March 23, 2012.

Public Scoping Open House

The BLM hosted an open house in Lewistown, Montana, on January 10, 2012, to 

provide the public with an opportunity to become involved, to learn about the 

project and the planning process, to meet the planning team members, and to 

offer comments. The open house was advertised via a press release and the 

Rocky Mountain website. The scoping meeting was held in an open house 

format to encourage participants to discuss concerns and questions with BLM 

and other agency staff representatives.

Scoping Comments Received

Detailed information about the comments received can be found in the National 

Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Scoping Summary Report, finalized in May 

2012 (BLM 2012b). A total of 272 unique written submissions for the Rocky 

Mountain Region, which includes the LFO, were received during the public 

scoping period. In the Scoping Summary Report, the comments that pertain to 

the LFO are listed in the eastern Montana section. There were only 12 unique 

comments specific to eastern Montana. The issues identified during public 

scoping and outreach helped refine the list of planning issues, included in 

Section 1.6.3, which guided the development of alternative management 

strategies for the RMPA.

6.2 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Federal laws require the BLM to consult with certain federal and state agencies 

and entities, and Native American tribes (40 CFR, Part 1502.25) during the 

NEPA decision-making process. The BLM is also directed to integrate NEPA 

requirements with other environmental review and consultation requirements 

to reduce paperwork and delays (40 CFR, Part 1500.4-5).

In addition to formal scoping (Section 6.1.1), as summarized below, the BLM 

has implemented an extensive collaborative outreach and public involvement 

process that has included coordinating with cooperating agencies. The BLM will 

continue to meet with interested agencies and organizations throughout the 

planning process, as appropriate, and will continue coordinating closely with 

cooperating agencies.

The LFO initiated consultation with tribes that are identified as having interests 

in the RMPA planning area. Letters were mailed to the tribes listed below in 
6. Consultation and Coordination (Consultation and Coordination)

6-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

December 2011, with follow-up letters mailed in September 2012. The followup letter invited the tribes to serve as cooperating agencies and offered 

government-to-government consultation. Consultation with American Indians 

and federally recognized tribes is required under a variety of laws, regulations, 

Executive Orders and BLM policies. The federally recognized tribes with 

interests in the planning area are the: Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort 

Peck Indian Reservation, Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of 

Montana, Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Confederated 

Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Crow Tribe of Montana, 

Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana, 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Nez 

Perce Tribe of Idaho, and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall 

Reservation of Idaho.

No written comments were received from tribal agencies during the scoping 

period; tribal concerns or issues have been typically presented in oral format.

Follow up phone calls to the letters that were sent in September 2012 were 

made with the tribes in regards to their desire for government-to-government 

consultation between September 24 and October 9, 2012 during which time no 

comments were received, and no requests for formal government-togovernment consultation requested by any of the tribes. Government-togovernment outreach and consultation as requested will continue throughout 

the RMPA process to ensure that the concerns of tribal groups are considered 

in development of the RMPA. This EIS does not impact any tribal lands or any 

tribal oil and gas interests (there are none within this planning area), nor does it 

restrict any access to sacred sites.

Consultation with State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) will occur along 

with SHPO’s review of the DEIS.

To comply with Section 7(c) of the ESA, the BLM coordinated and consulted the 

USFWS early in the planning process. The USFWS provided input on planning 

issues, data collection and review, and alternatives development. The BLM has

consulted with the USFWS to develop the draft Biological Assessment, which 

will be prepared concurrently with this planning process.

6.3 COOPERATING AGENCIES

A cooperating agency is any federal, state, or local government agency or Indian 

tribe that enters into a formal agreement with the lead federal agency to help 

develop an environmental analysis. More specifically, cooperating agencies 

“work with the BLM, sharing knowledge and resources, to achieve desired 

outcomes for public lands and communities within statutory and regulatory 

frameworks” (BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1; BLM 2005a). The 

primary role of cooperating agencies during the planning process is to provide 

input on issues for which they have a special expertise or jurisdiction.
6. Consultation and Coordination (Cooperating Agencies)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 6-5

On December 7, 2012, the BLM wrote to local, state, federal, and tribal 

representatives, inviting them to participate as cooperating agencies for the 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS. Twelve agencies agreed 

to participate in the RMPA as designated cooperating agencies, all of which have 

signed memoranda of understanding with the BLM (Table 6-1, Cooperating 

Agencies).

Table 6-1

Cooperating Agencies

Agencies and Tribes Invited to be Cooperators Agencies that Signed 

MOUs

US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks





United States Bureau of Indian Affairs

United States Bureau of Reclamation

USFWS Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

United States Forest Service

Natural Resources Conservation Service

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Montana State Historic Preservation Office

Chouteau County Commissioners

Fergus County Commissioners

Petroleum County Commissioners

Meagher County Commissioners

Teton County Commissioners

Pondera County Commissioners

Judith Basin County Commissioners

Cascade County Commissioners

Indian Butte Cooperative State Grazing District (CSGD)

Crooked Creek CSGD

Grass Range CSGD

Flatwillow CSGD

Chain Buttes CSGD

Winnett CSGD

Williams Coulee CSGD

Weede Coulee CSDG

Petroleum County Conservation District

Blackfeet Tribal Business Council

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation

Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation

Crow Tribe of Montana

Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of 

Montana

Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian ReservationNorthern 

Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation

Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation of Idaho




















6. Consultation and Coordination (Cooperating Agencies)

6-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Starting on June 26, 2012, the BLM has conducted four meetings to date with 

cooperating agencies. The focus of the meetings was to explain the purpose and 

need for the RMPA/EIS and the process and to develop a sub-regional 

management alternative. The entities that were invited to become cooperating 

agencies were also encouraged to attend the scoping open houses and provide 

comments during the scoping period (Section 6.1.1). These agencies have been 

engaged throughout the planning process, including during alternatives 

development.

6.4 LIST OF PREPARERS

This RMPA/EIS was prepared by an interdisciplinary team of staff from the BLM 

and Environmental Management and Planning Solutions, Inc. As discussed in 

Section 6.2, staff from numerous federal, state, and local agencies, and 

nonprofit organizations contributed to developing the RMPA. The following is a 

list of people that prepared or contributed to the development of the RMPA

and EIS.

Name Role/Responsibility

BLM

Lewistown Field Office

Dan Brunkhorst Range, Vegetation, Project Lead

Matt Comer Wildlife, T&E species

Adam Carr Project Lead

Karly DeMars Project Lead

Josh Sorlie Soils

Hilary Rigby GIS

Chad Krause Riparian, Hydrology

Kelly McGill Recreation, Travel management

Dale Manchester Fluid Minerals

Chris Rye Solid Minerals

Debbie Tucek Lands and Realty

Cathy Barta Fire and Fuels Management

Steve Knox Fire and Fuels Management

Renee Johnson Renewable Energy

Geoff Beyersdorf Management Review

Stan Benes Management Review

Other BLM reviewers:

John Thompson Project Support, document review

Ruth Miller Project Support, document review

Kim Prill Project Support, document review

John Carlson Document review, Wildlife and Special Status Species

Susan Bassett Document Review, Air and Climate

EMPSi: Environmental Management and Planning Solutions, Inc.

Angie Adams ACECs

David Batts Program Manager

Amy Cordle Air Resources, Climate

Annie Daly Air Resources, Climate, Wildland Fire Management and Ecology

Andrew Gentile Renewable Energy, Water Resources
6. Consultation and Coordination (List of Preparers)

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 6-7

Name Role/Responsibility

Zoe Ghali Wildland Fire Management and Ecology; Range Management, Socioeconomics

Peter Gower Recreation, Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management, Lands 

and Realty, ACECs

Brandon Jensen Special-Status Species, Fish and Wildlife

Matt Kluvo Renewable Energy

Laura Long Technical Editor

Katie Patterson Fluid and Solid Minerals

Holly Prohaska Range Management

Chad Ricklefs Project Manager, Lands and Realty

Jordon Tucker Soil Resources

Jennifer Whitaker Fluid and Solid Minerals

Liza Wozniak Vegetation; Special-Status Species

Drew Vankat Recreation, Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

Randy Varney Technical Editor

Lauren Zielinski Technical Editor

Meredith Zaccherio Vegetation, Special-Status Species

US Forest Service TEAMS Planning Enterprise Unit

Jennifer Dobb Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Henry Eichman Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
6. Consultation and Coordination (List of Preparers)

6-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

This page intentionally left blank.
REFERENCES

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS References-1

REFERENCES

Adams, B.W., J. Carlson, D. Milner, T. Hood, B. Cairns and P. Herzog. 2004. Beneficial grazing 

management practices for Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and ecology of silver 

sagebrush (Artemisia cana) in southeastern Alberta. Technical Report, Public Lands and Forest 

Division, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. T/049. 60p.

Aldridge, C. L., and M. S. Boyce. 2007. Linking occurrence and fitness to persistence: a habitat-based 

approach for endangered greater sage-grouse. Ecological Applications 17:508-526.

Aldridge, C. L., S. E. Nielsen, H. L. Beyer, M. S. Boyce, J. W. Connelly, S. T. Knick, and M. A. Schroeder. 

2008. Range-wide patterns of Greater Sage-Grouse persistence. Diversity and Distributions 

17:983-994.

Armour, C. L., D. A. Duff and W. Elmore. 1991. The effects of livestock grazing on riparian and stream 

ecosystems. Fisheries 16(1): 7 – 11.

Balch, J.K. B.A. Bradley, C.M. D’Antonio, J. Gomez-Dans. 2012. Introduced annual grass increases 

regional fire activity across the arid western USA (1980–2009). Global Change Biology vol. 19 

(1) p. 173-183.

Barber, J.R., K.M. Fristrup, C.L. Brown, A.R. Hardy, L.M. Angeloni, and K.R. Crooks. 2009a. The costs of 

chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25 (3): 180-

189.

_____. 2009b. Conserving the wild life therein – Protecting park fauna from anthropogenic noise. Park 

Science 26 (3), Winter 2009-2010.

BC Air Quality. 2013. How Forest Fires Affect Air Quality. Internet web site: 

http://www.bcairquality.ca/topics/forest-fires-air-quality.html. Accessed on February 1, 2013.

Beck, J. L. and D. L. Mitchell. 2000. Influences of livestock grazing on sage grouse habitat. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 28:993-1002.
References

References-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Beck, J.L., J.W. Connelly, and K.P. Reese. 2009. Recovery of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat Features in 

Wyoming Big Sagebrush following Prescribed Fire. Restoration Ecology 17: 393-403.

BLM (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 1984. Headwaters Resource 

Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision. Butte and Lewistown 

Districts. July 1984.

_____. 1988. Bureau of Land Management, Policy Manual 1613 – Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern. Washington, DC. September 29, 1988.

_____. 1991. Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western 

States. Washington, DC. May 1991.

_____. 1992. Judith Valley Phillips Final Environmental Impact Statement Resource Management Plan.

October 1992.

_____. 1994. Approved Judith Resource Area Resource Management Plan. Lewistown District. September 

1994.

_____. 1997. Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public 

Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management for Montana and the Dakotas. Billings, 

Montana. August 1997.

_____. 1998. Riparian Area Management: Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition. 

Technical Reference 1737-9. Revised 1998.

_____. 2003a. Fire/Fuels Management Plan Environmental Assessment/Plan Amendment for Montana and the 

Dakotas. Billings, Montana. July 2003.

_____. 2003b. Off-Highway Vehicle Record of Decision and Proposed Plan Amendment for Montana, North 

Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota. Billings, Montana. June 2003.

_____. 2004a. Central Montana Fire Zone, Lewistown Field Office Fire Management Plan. September 

29, 2004.

_____. 2004b. Instruction Memorandum 2004-227, Bureau of Land Management’s Biomass Utilization 

Strategy. Washington, DC. August 16, 2004.

_____. 2005a. Handbook H-1601-1—Land Use Planning Handbook. Washington, DC. March 11, 2005. 

161 pp.

_____. 2005b. Implementation of a Wind Energy Development Program and Associated Land Use Plan 

Amendments Record of Decision. Washington, DC. December 2005.

_____. 2005c. Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health. Technical Reference 1734-6. Version 4 –

2005.
References

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS References-3

_____. 2005d. Musselshell Breaks Watershed Plan Environmental Assessment. Lewistown Field Office. 

Lewistown, Montana. August 2005.

_____. 2006. Forest Health and Vegetation Management for the Judith and Moccasin Mountains. 

Environmental Assessment. EA # MT-060-02-01. Lewistown Filed Office. June 2006.

_____. 2007a. Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Associated Record of Decision. Washington, DC. 

September 2007.

_____. 2007b. Petrolia Watershed Plan Environmental Assessment. Lewistown Field Office. Lewistown, 

Montana. May 2007.

_____. 2008a. Handbook H-1790-1—National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC. January 2008.

_____. 2008b. Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the 

Western United States. Washington, DC. December 2008.

_____. 2008c. Bureau of Land Management, Policy Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management. 

Washington, DC. December 12, 2008.

_____. 2008d. Upper Arrow Creek Watershed Area Plan Environmental Assessment. Lewistown Field 

Office. Lewistown, Montana. December 2008.

_____. 2008e. Instruction Memorandum 2009-043, Wind Energy Development Policy. Washington, DC. 

December 19, 2008.

_____. 2009a. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of Decision for Designation of 

Energy Corridors on Bureau of Land Management-Administered Lands in the 11 Western States. 

Washington, DC. January 2009.

_____. 2009b. North-East Fergus Watershed Area Plan Environmental Assessment. Lewistown Field 

Office. Lewistown, Montana. March 2009.

_____. 2009c. Snowies-Little Belts Grazing Permit Renewal Environmental Assessment. EA # MT060-

08-52. Lewistown Filed Office. April 2009.

_____. 2009d. Instruction Memorandum 2009-120, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Updated 

Contract Clause for Utilization of Woody Biomass. Washington, DC. May 7, 2009.

_____. 2010a. Instruction Memorandum 2011-019, Special Recreation Permit Administration. 

November 19, 2012.

_____. 2010b. Climate Change Supplementary Information Report for Montana, North Dakota, and 

South Dakota, Bureau of Land Management. October 2010.

_____. 2011a. Instruction Memorandum 2012-044, BLM National. Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use 

Planning Strategy. Washington, DC. December 27, 2011.
References

References-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

_____. 2011b. Great Falls Area Grazing Lease Renewal Environmental Assessment. Lewistown Field 

Office. Lewistown, Montana. February 2011.

_____. 2011c. Instructional Memorandum 2011-003, Solar Energy Development Policy. Washington, 

DC. October 7, 2010.

_____. 2011d. Instructional Memorandum 2011-061, Solar and Wind Energy Applications – PreApplication and Screening. Washington, DC. February 7, 2011.

_____. 2012a. BLM GIS data.

_____. 2012b. National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy, Land Use Plan Amendments and 

Environmental Impact Statements; Scoping Summary Report. Washington, DC. May 2012.

_____. 2012c. Instruction Memorandum 2012-169, RMP Alternative Development for Livestock Grazing. 

Washington, DC. August 16, 2012.

_____. 2012d. Instruction Memorandum MT-2012-042, Guidance to Address Alternative Development in 

Livestock Grazing Permit Renewals. Billings, Montana. February 14, 2012.

_____. 2012e. BLM Manual 6250, National Scenic and Historic Trail Administration. Washington, DC. 

September 14, 2012.

_____. 2012f. BLM Manual 6280, Management of National Scenic and Historic Trails and Trails Under 

Study or Recommended as Suitable for Congressional Designation. Washington, DC. September 

14, 2012.

_____. 2012g. Instruction Memorandum 2012-043— Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies 

and Procedures. Washington, DC. December 22, 2011.

_____. 2012h. BLM Manual 6400, Wild and Scenic Rivers – Policy and Program Direction for 

Identification, Evaluation, Planning, and Management. Washington, DC. July 13, 2012.

Box, T.W. 1990. Rangelands, p. 101-120. In: R.N. Sampson, and W. Hair (eds.) Natural Resources for 

the 21st Century. Island Press, Wash. D.C.

Bradley B.A. 2010. Assessing ecosystem threats from global and ragional change: hierarchical modeling of 

risk to sagebrush ecosystems from climate change, land use and invasive species in Nevada, USA. 

Ecography 33: 198-208.

Braun, C.E. 1998. Sage-grouse declines in western North America: what are the problems? pp. 139-156 

in Proceedings of Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA).

Briske, D. D., J. D. Derner, D. G. Milchunas, and K. W. Tate. 2011. An evidence-based assessment of 

prescribed grazing practices. Pages 23-74 in D. D. Briske, editor. Conservation benefits of 

rangeland resources: assessment, recommendations, and knowledge gaps. USDA National 

Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D. C.
References

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS References-5

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Internet web site: 

http://www.bls.gov/lau/#tables. Unemployment Rates for States. Internet web site: 

http://www.bls.gov/lau/lastrk10.htm.

Cagney et al. 2010. Grazing Influence, Objective Development, and Management in Wyoming’s Greater 

Sage-Grouse Habitat with Emphasis on Nesting and Early Brood Rearing.

CEC (Commission for Environmental Cooperation). 2012. Invasive Species. The Northern American 

Mosaic: An Overview of Key Environmental Issues. Commission for Environmental Cooperation 

document. p. 1-4. 

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1981. Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s NEPA 

Regulations. March 23, 1981.

_____. 1997. Environmental Justice, Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, D.C. 

December 10, 1997. Internet web site: http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/ej.pdf.

Christiansen, T. 2009. Fence marking to reduce greater sage‐grouse collisions and mortality near Farson, 

Wyoming – summary of interim results. Wyoming Game and Fish Department unpublished 

interim report.

Clary, W.P. and B.F. Webster. 1989. Managing grazing of riparian areas in the Intermountain Region. 

U.S.D.A. For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rept. INT-263.

Clary, W.P., N.L. Shaw, J.G. Dudley, V. A. Saab, J.W. Kinney, and L.C. Smithman. 1996. Response of a 

depleted sagebrush steppe riparian system to grazing control and woody plantings. U.S.D.A. For. 

Serv., Gen. Tech. Rept. INT-RP-492.

Coates, P.S. 2007. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) nest predation and incubation 

behavior. Idaho State University, Boise, ID.

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage Sage Grouse 

populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

Connelly, J. W., S. T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation Assessment of Greater 

Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished 

report. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Connelly, J. W., C. A. Hagen, and M. A. Schroeder. 2011a. Characteristics and dynamics of Greater 

Sage-Grouse populations. Pp. 53-67 in S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (editors). Greater SageGrouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian 

Biology (vol. 38), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Connelly, J. W., E. T. Rinkes, and C. E. Braun. 2011b. Characteristics of Greater Sage-Grouse habitats: a 

landscape species at micro- and macroscales. Pp. 69-83 in S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly 

(editors). Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. 

Studies in Avian Biology (vol. 38), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
References

References-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Crawford, J.A., R.A. Olson, N.E. West, J.C. Mosley, M.A. Schroeder, T.D. Whitson, R.F. Miller, M.A. 

Gregg, and C.S. Boyd. 2004. Ecology and management of sage‐grouse and sage‐grouse habitat. 

Journal of Range Management 57: 2‐19.

Cronk, Q. and J. Fuller. 1995. Plant Invaders: The threat to natural ecosystems. Chapman & Hall. New 

York.

Davies, K.W., J.D. Bates, T.J. Svejcar and C.S. Boyd. 2010. Effects of Long-Term Livestock Grazing on 

Fuel Characteristics in Rangelands: An Example From the Sagebrush Steppe. Rangeland Ecology 

and Management 63(6): 662-669.

DNRC (Department of Natural Resources and Conservation of the State of Montana). 2011. Annual 

Review 2011. MT DNRC, Board of Oil and Gas Conservation. 84 pp.

DOI (US Department of the Interior). 2004. Bureau of Land Management National Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Conservation Strategy. November 2004.

DOI, USDA, DOE, DOD, DOC, EPA, FEMA, and NASF (US Department of the Interior. US 

Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, Department of 

Commerce, US Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency and 

National Association of State Foresters). 2001. Review and Update of the 1995 Federal 

Wildland Fire Management Policy, January, 2001.

Ellis, K. L. 1985. Effects of a new transmission line on distribution and aerial predation of breeding male 

sage grouse. 28 pp. Final Report.

EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2010a. Primary Distinguishing Characteristics of Level III 

Ecoregions of the Continental United States. July 2010.

_____. 2010b. Effects of Air Pollutants – Health Effects. Internet web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/eogapti1/course422/ap7a.html. Accessed January 21, 2013.

_____. 2011a. Level III Ecoregions of the Continental United States. Revised December 2011.

_____. 2011b. Climate Change, Basic Information. Internet web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html. Accessed on October 18, 2011.

_____. 2012a. AirData- Monitor Value Reports. Internet web site: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata.

_____. 2012b. Air Quality Index Report. Internet web site: http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_aqi.html. 

Accessed on September 4, 2012.

_____. 2012c. Measuring Acid Rain. Last updated December 4, 2012. Internet web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/measure/index.html. Accessed on January 31, 2013.

_____. 2012d. Glossary of Climate Change Terms. Internet web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html. Accessed January 20, 2013
References

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS References-7

_____. 2012e. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Internet web site: 

http://epa.gov/air/criteria.html. Accessed on September 5, 2012.

_____. 2012f. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sink: 1990-2010. Chapter 3, Land Use, 

Land-Use Change, and Forestry. April 15, 2012. Internet web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html. Accessed on February 

1, 2013.

_____. 2012g. Visibility, Basic Information. Internet web site: http://www.epa.gov/visibility/what.html. 

Accessed January 21, 2013.

_____. 2012h. Ground Level Ozone, Basic Information. Internet web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/basic.html. Accessed January 21, 2013.

_____. 2013. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. Reducing Fluorinated Gas Emissions. Internet web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html. Accessed May 31, 2013

FHA (US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration). 2011. Noise Effect on 

Wildlife. Internet web site: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/noise_effect_on_wildlife/effects/wild01.cfm#content

. Accessed May 29, 2013.

Floyd, M.L, T.L. Fleischener, D. Hanna, and P. Whitefield. 2003. Effects of historic livestock grazing on 

vegetation at Chaco Culture National Historic Park, New Mexico. Conservation Biology 

17:1703-1711.

Forest Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 1990. The Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo) 

National Historic Trail: comprehensive plan. Missoula, MT.

_____. 1998. Economic and Social Conditions of Communities: Economic and Social Characteristics of 

Interior Columbia Basin Communities and an Estimation of Effects on Communities from the 

Alternatives of the Eastside and Upper Columbia River basin DEIS.

_____. 2013. Fire Effects Information System: Pediomelum hypogaeum. Internet web site: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/pedhyp/all.html Accessed June 7, 2013.

Forest Service Enterprise. 2013. Lewistown Greater Sage-Grouse EIS/RMPA, Social and Economic Conditions 

and Analysis Report. Prepared by Henry Eichman, TEAMS Planning Enterprise Unit. January 29, 

2013.

Forman R. T. T. and L. E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and Their Major Ecological Effects. Annual Review of 

Ecology and Systematics 29, pp. 207-231.

Fuhlendorf, S.D., Engle, D.M. 2001. Restoring Heterogeneity on Rangelands: Ecosystem Management 

Based on Evolutionary Grazing Patterns. BioScience. Vol. 51, No. 8. August 2001.
References

References-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Garton, E.O., J.W. Connelly, J.S. Horne, C.A. Hagen, A. Moser, M. Schroder. 2011. Greater sage-grouse 

population dynamics and probability of persistence. pp. 293-382 in S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly 

(editors). Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. 

Studies in Avian Biology vol. 38). University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

George, M.R., R.E. Larsen, N.K. McDougald, K.W. Tate, J.D. Gerlach, Jr., and K.O. Fulgham, 2002. 

Influence of Grazing on Channel Morphology of Intermittent Streams. J. Range Manage.

55(6):551-557.

Gillen, R.L., W.C. Krueger, R.F. Miller. 1984. Cattle distribution on mountain rangeland in northeastern 

Oregon. Journal of Range Management 37: 549-553.

Hagen, C.A., J.W. Connelly, and M.A. Schroeder. 2007. A meta‐analysis for greater sage‐grouse nesting 

and brood rearing habitats. Wildlife Biology 13 (Supplement 1):42‐50.

Hand, Jenny. 2011. Spatial and Seasonal Patterns and Temporal Variability of Haze and its Constituents in 

the United States Report V: June 2011. Chapter 9, Regional Haze Rule Progress Tracking 

Metrics.

Hann, W.J., Bunnell, D.L. 2001. Fire and land management planning and implementation across multiple 

scales. Int. J. Wildland Fire. 10:389-403.

Holloran, M. J. 2005. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) population response to natural gas 

field development in western Wyoming. PhD Dissertation. University of Wyoming. Laramie, 

Wyoming.

IMPLAN. 2010. Minnesota IMPLAN Group 2010. Data for purchase and additional information can be 

found at www.implan.com.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 

Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. 

Marquis, K.B. Avery, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller, eds.]. New York, NY: Cambridge University 

Press. 996 p. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/.

Johnson, D. H., M. J. Holloran, J. W. Connelly, S. E. Hanser, C. L. Amundson, and S. T. Knick. 2011. 

Influences of environmental and anthropogenic features on Greater Sage-Grouse populations, 

1997-2007. Pp. 407-450 in S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (editors). Greater Sage-Grouse: 

ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology (vol. 

38), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Klebenow, D. A. 1982. Livestock grazing interactions with sage grouse, p. 113–123. In: J.M. Peek and 

P.D. Dalke (eds.) Proc. of the Wildlife-Livestock Relationships Symposium. Idaho For., Wildl., 

and Range Exp. Sta., Univ. Idaho. Moscow, Ida.

Knapp, A.K., Blair, J.M., Briggs, J.M., Collins, S.L., Hartnett, D.C., Johnson, L.C. et al. 1999. The keystone 

role of bison in North American Tallgrass Prairie. BioScience, 49, 39–50.
References

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS References-9

Knick S.T. 2011. Historical development, principal federal legislation and current management of 

sagebrush habitats: implications for conservation. Pp. 13-31 in S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 

editors. Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology of a landscape species and its habitats. Cooper 

Ornithological Union, University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Knick, S. T. and J. W. Connelly. 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush: an introduction to the 

landscape. Pp. 1-9 in S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (editors). Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology 

and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology (vol. 38), 

University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Knick, S. T. and S. E. Hanser. 2011. Connecting pattern and process in Greater Sage-Grouse populations 

and sagebrush landscapes. Pp. 383-405 in S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (editors). Greater SageGrouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian 

Biology (vol. 38), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Knick. S.T., S.E. Hanser, R.F. Miller, D.A. Pyke, M.J. Wisdom, S.P. Finn, E.T. Rinkes and C.J. Henny. 2011. 

Ecological influence and pathways of land use in sagebrush. Pp. 203-252 in S.T. Knick and J.W. 

Connelly, editors. Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology of a landscape species and its habitat. Cooper 

Ornithological Union, University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Laycock, W.A., D. Loper, F.W. Obermiller, L. Smith, S.R. Swanson, P.J. Urness, and M. Vavra. 1996. 

Grazing on public lands. Council for Agr. Sci. and Tech. Task Force Rep. No. 129. Ames, Iowa.

LeBeau 2012. Evaluation of greater sage-grouse reproductive habitat and response to wind energy 

development in south-central Wyoming. Master’s Thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie.

Lyon, L. A., and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage grouse nest initiation 

and movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:486-491.

Manier, D.J., D.J.A. Wood, Z.H. Bowen, R.M. Donovan, M.J. Holloran, L.M. Juliusson, K.S. Mayne,, S.J. 

Oyler-McCance, F.R. Quamen, D.J. Saher, and A.J. Titolo. 2013. Summary of Science, Activities, 

Programs and Policies that Influence the Rangewide Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus). U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013-1098, Fort Collins, 

Colorado.

Maxell, B.A., P. Hendricks, M.T. Gates, and S. Lenard. 2009. Montana amphibian and reptile status 

assessment, literature review, and conservation plan. Montana Natural Heritage Program, 

Helena, MT and Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit and Wildlife Biology Program, 

University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 642 p.

MCFWS (Montana Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy). 2005. Montana Fish, 

Wildlife & Parks, 1420 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, MT 59620.

Milchunas, D.G., Sala, O.E. & Lauenroth, W.K. (1988). A generalized model of the effects of grazing by 

large herbivores on grassland community structure. Am. Nat., 132, 87–106.
References

References-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Miller, R.F., T.J. Svejcar, and J.R. Rose. 2000. Impacts of western juniper on plant community 

composition and structure. Journal of Range Management 53:574-585.

MFWP (Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks). 2004. Management Plan and Conservation 

Strategies for Sage Grouse in Montana: Environmental Assessment (revised).

____. 2011. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 2011. 2011 Harvest and Hunting 

Estimates Reports, 2004-2011. Hard copy and internet sources. Internet web site: 

http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/planahunt/harvestReports.html

Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation. 2012. Online Oil and Gas Information System. Internet 

web site: http://www.bogc.dnrc.mt.gov/WebApps/DataMiner/Default.aspx. Accessed on 

November 28, 2012.

Montana Climate Change Advisory Committee. 2007. Montana Climate Change Action Plan, Final Report of 

the Governor’s Climate Change Advisory Committee. November 2007.

Montana Department of Agriculture. 2010. Montana Noxious Weed List. Effective September 2010. 

Internet web site: http://agr.mt.gov/agr/Programs/Weeds/PDF/weedList2010.pdf.

Montana Sage Grouse Work Group. 2005. Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage 

Grouse in Montana. February, 2005.

Mosley, J.C., P.S. Cook, A.J. Griffis, and J. O’Laughlin. 1997. Guidelines for managing cattle grazing in 

riparian areas to protect water quality: Review of research and best management practices 

policy. Univ. Idaho Forest, wildlife, and Range Policy Analysis Group Rept. 15.

MTDEQ (Montana Department of Environmental Quality). 2007. Montana Greenhouse Gas Inventory 

and Reference Case Projections 1990-2020. Center for Climate Strategies, September 2007. 

Internet web site: http://www.mtclimatechange.us/ewebeditpro/items/O127F14011.PDF. 

Accessed on December 16th, 2012. (page v, Table ES-1).

_____. 2011. Internet web site: http://deq.mt.gov/AirQuality/Planning/AirNonattainment.mcpx. 

Accessed on September 5, 2012.

MTNHP (Montana Natural Heritage Program). 2012a. Montana Plant Species of Concern Report. 

Internet web site: http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p. Accessed September 10, 2012.

_____. 2012b. Montana Natural Heritage Tracker. Internet web site: 

http://mtnhp.org/Tracker/NHTMap.aspx. Accessed on September 13, 2012.

_____. 2013a. Little Indian Breadroot — Pediomelum hypogaeum. Montana Field Guide. Montana 

Natural Heritage Program. Internet web site: http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_PDFAB5L0C0.aspx 

Accessed on June 7, 2013.

_____. 2013b. Platte Cinquefoil — Potentilla plattensis. Montana Field Guide. Montana Natural Heritage 

Program. Internet web site: http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_PDROS1B1E0.aspx Accessed on 

June 7, 2013.
References

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS References-11

NADP/NTN (National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network). 2009 to 2011. 

Annual and Seasonal Summary for Sites MT07 and MT98. Internet web site: 

http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/sites/siteinfo.asp?net=NTN&id=MT07. Accessed on January 30, 2013.

_____. 2012. Trend Plots for Sites MT07 and MT98. Internet web site: 

http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/sites/sitemap.asp?state=mt. Accessed on January 30, 2013.

NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service). 2012. Internet web site: 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Montana/Publications/Annual_Statistical_Bulletin/in

dex.asp.

Naugle D. E., K. E. Doherty, B. L. Walker, M. J. Holloran, and H. E. Copeland. 2011. Energy development 

and greater sage-grouse. Pages 489-504 in S. T. Knick and C. J. W., editors. Greater SageGrouse: ecology of a landscape species and its habitats. Cooper Ornithological Union, University 

of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

NCSL (National Conference of State Legislatures). 2008. North Dakota- Assessing the Costs of Climate 

Change. Climate Change and the Economy. Internet web site: 

http://www.ncsl.org/print/environ/ClimateChangeND.pdf. Accessed on August 31, 2012.

NRC (National Research Council). 2010. Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and 

Impacts over Decades to Millennia. National Research Council of the National Academies. 

Publication released July 16. Internet web site: 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12877.

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil 

Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. Second Edition. 1999. Internet web site:

ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NSSC/Soil_Taxonomy/tax.pdf. Accessed 16 January 2013.

_____. 2011. Introduction to NRCS’ New Sage-Grouse Initiative: Wildlife Conservation through 

Sustainable Ranching. Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C.

NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2011. Estimates of Windy Land Area and Wind Energy 

Potential, by State, for areas less than or equal to 30% Capacity Factor at 80m. Internet web

site: http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/windmaps/resource_potential.asp Accessed: January 

11, 2013.

_____. 2012a. “Classes of Wind Power Density at 10m and 50m” Table from Internet web site: 

http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/tables/1-1T.html. Accessed December 2012.

_____. 2012b. “Fuel from the Sky: Solar Power’s Potential for Western Energy Supply” Article from 

Internet web site: http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/32160.pdf. Accessed December 2012.

NTT (National Technical Team). 2011. National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures/Planning 

Strategy. December 21, 2011.

Parks Canada. 2002. Grasslands National Park of Canada: Management Plan. Parks Canada, Western 

Canada Service Centre. Winnipeg MB.
References

References-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Petersen S.L., T.K. Stringham, and B.A. Roundy. 2009. A process-based application of state-andtransition models: a case study of western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) encroachment. 

Rangeland Ecology 7 management 62: 186-192.

Radle, A. L. 2007. The effect of noise on wildlife: a literature review. Accessed online at the World 

Forum for Acoustic Ecology Online Reader. Internet web site: 

http://interact.uoregon.edu/MediaLit/wfae/library/articles/radle_effect_noise_wildlife.pdf.

Reisner, Michael D., James B. Grace, David A. Pyke, and Paul Doescher. 2013. Conditions favouring 

Bromus tectorum dominance of endangered sagebrush steppe ecosystems. Journal of Applied 

Ecology. 10.1111/1365-2664.12097

Remington, T.E. and C.E. Braun, editors. 1991. How surface coal mining affects sage grouse. North Park, 

Colorado.

Schroeder, M. A., C. L. Aldridge, A. D. Apa, J. R. Bohne, C. E. Braun, S. D. Bunnell, J. W. Connelly, P. 

Diebert, S. C. Gardner, M. A. Hilliard, G. D. Kobriger, S. M. McAdam, C. W. McCarthy, J. J. 

McCarthy, D. L. Mitchell, E. V. Rickerson, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Distribution of sage-grouse in 

North America. Condor 106:363-376.

Shaw, N.L. 1992. Recruitment and growth of Pacific willow and sandbar willow seedlings in response to 

season and intensity of cattle grazing, p. 130–137. In: W.P. Clary, E.D. McArthur, D. Bedunah, 

and C.L. Wambolt (eds.) Proc. Symp. on Ecology and Management of Riparian Shrub 

Communities. U.S.D.A. For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rept. INT-289.

Shlisky, A., J. Waugh, P. Gonzalez, M. Gonzalez, M. Manta, H. Santoso, E. Alvarado, A. Ainuddin 

Nuruddin, D. Arturo Rodríguez-Trejo, R. Swaty, D. Schmidt, M. Kaufmann, R. Myers, A. 

Alencar, F. Kearns, D. Johnson, J. Smith, and D. Zollner. 2007. “Fire, ecosystems and people: 

Threats and strategies for global biodiversity conservation.” The Nature Conservancy Global 

Fire Initiative Technical Report 2007-2.

Smith, R. 2013. Conserving Montana’s sagebrush highway: long distance migration in sagegrouse. M.S. 

Thesis. University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 47pp.

State Department (US Department of State). 2010. Fifth US climate action report. Washington, DC: 

Global Publishing Services. 180 p. Available at: http://www.state.gov/e/oes/rls/rpts/car/index.htm.

Stevens, B.S. 2011. Impacts of fences on greater sage‐grouse in Idaho: Collision, mitigation, and spatial 

ecology. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA.

Stevens, B.S., J.W. Connelly, and K.P. Reese. 2012. Multi-scale assessment of Grater sagegrouse fence 

collision as a function of site and broad scale factors. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:1370-

1380.

Stiver, S.J., 2011, The legal status of Greater Sage-Grouse: organizational structure of planning efforts, in 

Knick, S.T., and Connelly, J.W., eds., Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology of a landscape species and its 

habitats: Berkeley, Calif., University of California Press, Cooper Ornithological Union, p. 33–49.
References

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS References-13

Stiver, S. J., A. D. Apa, J. R. Bohne, S. D. Bunnell, P. A. Deibert, S. C. Gardner, M. A. Hilliard, C. W. 

McCarthy, and M. A. Schroeder. 2006. Greater Sage-Grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy. 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished report. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Strand, E.K. and K.L. Launchbaugh. 2013. Livestock Grazing Effects on Fuel Loads for Wildland Fire in

Sagebrush Dominated Ecosystems. Great Basin Fire Science Delivery Report. April 2013.

Tack, J. D. 2009. Sage-grouse and the human footprint: implications for conservation of small and 

declining populations. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA.

Taylor, R.L., D.E. Naugle, and L.S. Mills. 2010. Viability analyses for conservation of sage-grouse 

populations: Miles City Field Office, Montana. Unpublished completion report, Bureau of Land 

Management, Number G09AC0013, Miles City, Mt.

The Gold Book. 2007. United States Department of the Interior and United States Department of 

Agriculture. 2007. Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development. BLM/WO/ST-06/021+3071/REV 07. Bureau of Land Management. Denver, 

Colorado. 84 pp.

Torell, L. A., J. A. Tanaka, N. Rimbey, T. Darden, L. Van Tassell and A. Harp. 2002. Ranch- level impacts 

of changing grazing policies on BLM land to protect the Greater Sage-Grouse: Evidence from 

Idaho, Nevada and Oregon. Policy Analysis Center for Western Public Lands, policy paper SG01-02, Caldwell, ID.

USDA and DOI (US Department of Agriculture and US Department of the Interior). February 

2009. Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. Wildland 

Fire Leadership Council.

US Department of Commerce. 2000 and 2010. 2000 and 2010 Census historic data. Internet web site: 

http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/nd190090.txt.

_____. 2005. Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of 

Commerce.

_____. 2012a. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Office, Washington, D.C.

_____. 2012b. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, Washington, D.C. 

Table CA30.

US Energy Information Administration. 2013. US States, Rankings: Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2010. 

Internet web site: http://www.eia.gov/beta/state/rankings/?sid=US#/series/98. Accessed on 

February 15, 2013.

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010a. 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater SageGrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered: Notice of 12-month petition 

findings. 75 Federal Register 13910. March 23, 2010.
References

References-14 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

_____. 2010b. Conference Report For the Natural Resources Conservation Service Sage-grouse 

Initiative (SGI). Washington, D.C. 

_____. 2013. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. February 2013.

USGCRP. 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. US Global Change Research 

Program. Cambridge University Press. Downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climateimpacts-report.pdf.

USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2006. Effects of Fire in the Northern Great Plains; Effects of 

Fire on Some Undesirable Species. Internet web site: 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/fire/undesire.htm. Accessed January 29, 2013.

_____. 2010. GAP Land Cover Data Set, version 2.

Vance, Linda K. and David M. Stagliano. 2007. Watershed Assessment of Portions of the Lower 

Musselshell and Fork Peck Reservoir Subbasins. Report to the Bureau of Land Management, 

Lewistown Field Office. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana 41 pp. plus 

appendices.

Vavra, M. 2005. Livestock grazing and wildlife: developing compatibilities. Rangeland Ecology and 

Management 58:128-134.

Verma, S. and S. Jayakumar. 2012. Impact of forest fire on physical, chemical and biological properties of 

soil: A review. Proceedings of the International Academy of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 

2(3): 168-176.

Walker, B. L., D. E. Naugle, and K. E. Doherty. 2007. Greater sage-grouse population response to 

energy development and habitat loss. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2644-2654.

Walker B. L. and D. E. Naugle. 2011. West Nile virus ecology in sagebrush habitat and impacts on 

greater sage-grouse populations. Pp. 127-143 in S. Knick, editor. Greater Sage-Gouse: ecology of 

a landscape species and its habitat. Cooper Ornithological Union, University of California Press, 

Berkeley.

Ward, Tony J. 2008. The Helena, Montana PM2.5 Source Apportionment Research Study. The 

University of Montana- Missoula, Center for Environmental Health Sciences. November 17, 

2008.

Westbrooks, R. 1998. Invasive plants, changing the landscape of America: Fact book. Federal 

Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW). 

Washington, DC.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2012. USA Divisional Climate Data, Time Series Plot #1. Internet 

web site: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/spi/divplot1map.html. Accessed September 6, 2012.
References

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS References-15

_____. 2013. Climate of Montana. Internet web site: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/narratives/montana/. 

Accessed on February 1, 2013.

Wiedinmyer, C and M. D. Hurteau. 2010. Prescribed fire as a means of reducing forest carbon emissions 

in the Western United States. Environmental Science & Technology. 2010, 44, 1926-1932.

Wildland Fire Leadership Council . 2009. Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire 

Management Policy. US Department of the Interior, WFLC. February, 2009.

Wisdom, M. J., C. W. Meinke, S. T. Knick, and M. A. Schroeder. 2011. Factors associated with 

extirpation of Sage-Grouse. Pp. 451-472 in S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (editors). Greater 

Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian 

Biology (vol. 38), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Woodward, J. K. 2006. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in central Montana., 

Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA.
References

References-16 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

This page intentionally left blank.
GLOSSARY

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-1

GLOSSARY

2008 WAFWA Sage‐grouse MOU. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) among 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, US Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, US 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the US Department of 

Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. The purpose of the MOU is to provide for cooperation 

among the participating state and federal land, wildlife management and science agencies in the 

conservation and management of sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) sagebrush (Artemisia 

spp.) habitats and other sagebrush‐dependent wildlife throughout the western United States and 

Canada and a commitment of all agencies to implement the 2006 WAFWA Conservation 

Strategy.

2011 Partnership MOU. A partnership agreement among the US Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Forest Service, US Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service in 2011. This MOU is for range management 

– to implement NRCS practices on adjacent federal properties.

Acquisition. Acquisition of lands can be pursued to facilitate various resource management 

objectives. Acquisitions, including easements, can be completed through exchange, Land and 

Water Conservation Fund purchases, donations, or receipts from the Federal Land Transaction 

Facilitation Act sales or exchanges.

Activity plan. A type of implementation plan (see Implementation plan); an activity plan usually 

describes multiple projects and applies best management practices to meet land use plan 

objectives. Examples of activity plans include interdisciplinary management plans, habitat 

management plans, recreation area management plans, and grazing plans.

Actual use. The amount of animal unit months consumed by livestock based on the numbers 

of livestock and grazing dates submitted by the livestock operator and confirmed by periodic 

field checks by the BLM.
Glossary

Glossary-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Adaptive management. A type of natural resource management in which decisions are made 

as part of an ongoing science-based process. Adaptive management involves testing, monitoring, 

and evaluating applied strategies, and incorporating new knowledge into management 

approaches that are based on scientific findings and the needs of society. Results are used to 

modify management policy, strategies, and practices.

Administrative access. A term used to describe access for resource management and 

administrative purposes such as fire suppression, cadastral surveys, permit compliance, law 

enforcement and military in the performance of their official duty, or other access needed to 

administer BLM‐managed lands or uses.

Air basin. A land area with generally similar meteorological and geographic conditions 

throughout. To the extent possible, air basin boundaries are defined along political boundary 

lines and include both the source and receptor areas. 

Air pollution. The addition to the atmosphere of any material that may have a deleterious 

effect to life on our planet.

Allotment. An area of land in which one or more livestock operators graze their livestock. 

Allotments generally consist of BLM-administered lands but may include other federally 

managed, state-owned, and private lands. An allotment may include one or more separate 

pastures. Livestock numbers and periods of use are specified for each allotment. 

Allotment management plan (AMP). A concisely written program of livestock grazing

management, including supportive measures if required, designed to attain specific, multiple-use 

management goals in a grazing allotment. An AMP is prepared in consultation with the 

permittee(s), lessee(s), and other affected interests. Livestock grazing is considered in relation to 

other uses of the range and to renewable resources, such as watershed, vegetation, and wildlife. 

An AMP establishes seasons of use, the number of livestock to be permitted, the range 

improvements needed, and the grazing system.

Alluvial soil. A soil developing from recently deposited alluvium and exhibiting essentially no 

horizon development or modification of the recently deposited materials.

Alluvium. Clay, silt, sand, gravel, or other rock materials transported by moving water. 

Deposited in comparatively recent geologic time as sorted or semi-sorted sediment in rivers, 

floodplains, lakes, and shores, and in fans at the base of mountain slopes.

Ambient air quality. The state of the atmosphere at ground level as defined by the range of 

measured and/or predicted ambient concentrations of all significant pollutants for all averaging 

periods of interest.

Amendment. The process for considering or making changes in the terms, conditions, and 

decisions of approved Resource Management Plans or management framework plans. Usually 

only one or two issues are considered that involve only a portion of the planning area.
Glossary

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-3

Animal unit month (AUM). The amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow 

or its equivalent for a period of one month. 

Anthropogenic disturbances. Features include but are not limited to paved highways, graded 

gravel roads, transmission lines, substations, wind turbines, oil and gas wells, geothermal wells 

and associated facilities, pipelines, landfills, agricultural conversion, homes, and mines.

Aquatic. Living or growing in or on the water.

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). Special area designation established 

through the BLM’s land use planning process (43 CFR 1610.7-2) where special management 

attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no development is 

required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic 

values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and 

safety from natural hazards. The level of allowable use within an ACEC is established through 

the collaborative planning process. Designation of an ACEC allows for resource use limitations 

in order to protect identified resources or values.

Atmospheric deposition. Air pollution produced when acid chemicals are incorporated into 

rain, snow, fog, or mist and fall to the earth. Sometimes referred to as “acid rain” and comes 

from sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, products of burning coal and other fuels and from 

certain industrial processes. If the acid chemicals in the air are blown into the area where the 

weather is wet, the acids can fall to earth in the rain, snow, fog, or mist. In areas where the 

weather is dry, the acid chemicals may become incorporated into dust or smoke.

Attainment area. A geographic area in which levels of a criteria air pollutant meet the healthbased National Ambient Air Quality Standard for that specific pollutant.

Authorized /authorized use. This is an activity (i.e., resource use) occurring on the public 

lands that is either explicitly or implicitly recognized and legalized by law or regulation. This 

term may refer to those activities occurring on the public lands for which the BLM, Forest 

Service, or other appropriate authority (e.g., Congress for RS 2477 rights-of-way, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for major, interstate rights-of-way), has issued a formal 

authorization document (e.g., livestock grazing lease/permit; right-of-way grant; coal lease; oil 

and gas permit to drill; etc.). Formally authorized uses typically involve some type of commercial 

activity, facility placement, or event. These formally authorized uses are often spatially or 

temporally limited. Unless constrained or bounded by statute, regulation, or an approved land 

use plan decision, legal activities involving public enjoyment and use of the public lands (e.g., 

hiking, camping, hunting, etc.) require no formal BLM or Forest Service authorization.

Avoidance/avoidance area. These terms usually address mitigation of some activity (i.e., 

resource use). Paraphrasing the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.20), avoidance means to 

circumvent, or bypass, an impact altogether by not taking a certain action, or parts of an action. 

Therefore, the term "avoidance" does not necessarily prohibit a proposed activity, but it may 

require the relocation of an action, or the total redesign of an action to eliminate any potential 

impacts resulting from it. Also see “right-of-way avoidance area” definition.
Glossary

Glossary-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Best Management Practices (BMPs). A suite of techniques that guide or may be applied to 

management actions to aide in achieving desired outcomes. BMPs are often developed in 

conjunction with land use plans, but they are not considered a planning decision unless the plans 

specify that they are mandatory.

Big game. Indigenous, ungulate (hoofed) wildlife species that are hunted, such as elk, deer, 

bison, bighorn sheep, and pronghorn antelope.

Biodiversity (biological diversity). The variety of life and its processes, and the 

interrelationships within and among various levels of ecological organization. Conservation, 

protection, and restoration of biological species and genetic diversity are needed to sustain the 

health of existing biological systems. Federal resource management agencies must examine the 

implications of management actions and development decisions on regional and local 

biodiversity.

Biological soil crust. A complex association between soil particles and cyanobacteria, algae, 

microfungi, lichens, and bryophytes that live within or atop the uppermost millimeters of soil.

BLM Sensitive Species. Those species that are not federally listed as endangered, threatened, 

or proposed under the Endangered Species Act, but that are designated by the BLM State 

Director under 16 USC 1536(a)(2) for special management consideration. By national policy,

federally listed candidate species are automatically included as sensitive species. Sensitive species 

are managed so they will not need to be listed as proposed, threatened, or endangered under 

the Endangered Species Act.

Candidate species. Taxa for which the US Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficient information 

on their status and threats to propose the species for listing as endangered or threatened under 

the Endangered Species Act, but for which issuance of a proposed rule is currently precluded by 

higher priority listing actions. Separate lists for plants, vertebrate animals, and invertebrate 

animals are published periodically in the Federal Register (BLM Manual 6840, Special Status 

Species Manual).

Casual use. Casual use means activities ordinarily resulting in no or negligible disturbance of 

the public lands, resources, or improvements. For examples for rights of ways see 43 CFR 

2801.5. For examples for locatable minerals see 43 CFR 3809.5.

Categorical exclusion. A category of actions (identified in agency guidance) that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and for which 

neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required (40 

CFR 1508.4), but a limited form of NEPA analysis is performed.

Checkerboard. This term refers to a land ownership pattern of alternating sections of federal 

owned lands with private or State owned lands for 20 miles on either side of a land grant 

railroad (e.g. Union Pacific, Northern Pacific, etc.). On land status maps this alternating 

ownership is either delineated by color coding or alphabetic code resulting in a "checkerboard" 

visual pattern. 
Glossary

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-5

Chemical vegetation treatment. Application of herbicides to control invasive 

species/noxious weeds and/or unwanted vegetation. To meet resource objectives the 

preponderance of chemical treatments would be used in areas where cheatgrass or noxious 

weeds have invaded sagebrush steppe. 

Clean Air Act of 1963 (as amended). Federal legislation governing air pollution control.

Clean Water Act of 1972 (as amended). Federal legislation governing water pollution 

control.

Climate change. Any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, 

precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may 

result from:

• natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or slow changes in the Earth's 

orbit around the sun;

• natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation); and

• human activities that change the atmosphere's composition (e.g., driving 

automobiles) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, 

desertification, etc.).

Closed area. An area where one or more uses are prohibited either temporarily or over the 

long term. Areas may be closed to uses such as, but not limited to, off-road vehicles, mineral 

leasing, mineral or vegetative material collection, or target shooting. In off-road vehicle use 

closed areas, motorized and mechanized off-road vehicle use is prohibited. Use of motorized 

and mechanized off-road vehicles in closed areas may be allowed for certain reasons; however, 

such use shall be made only with the approval of the authorized officer (43 CFR 8340.0-5).

Collaboration. A cooperative process in which interested parties, often with widely varied 

interests, work together to seek solutions with broad support for managing public and other 

lands. Collaboration may take place with any interested parties, whether or not they are a 

cooperating agency.

Comprehensive trails and travel management. The proactive interdisciplinary planning; 

on-the-ground management and administration of travel networks (both motorized and nonmotorized) to ensure public access, natural resources, and regulatory needs are considered. It 

consists of inventory, planning, designation, implementation, education, enforcement, 

monitoring, easement acquisition, mapping and signing, and other measures necessary to provide 

access to public lands for a wide variety of uses (including uses for recreational, traditional, 

casual, agricultural, commercial, educational, landing strips, and other purposes).

Condition class (fire regimes). Fire regime condition classes are a measure describing the 

degree of departure from historical fire regimes, possibly resulting in alterations of key 

ecosystem components, such as species composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, 

and fuel loadings. One or more of the following activities may have caused this departure: fire 
Glossary

Glossary-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

suppression, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, introduction and establishment of exotic plant

species, introduced insects or disease, or other management activities.

Conformance. A proposed action shall be specifically provided for in the land use plan or, if 

not specifically mentioned, shall be clearly consistent with the goals, objectives, or standards of 

the approved land use plan.

Conservation measures. Measures to conserve, enhance, and/or restore Greater SageGrouse habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to that habitat. 

Conservation plan. The recorded decisions of a landowner or operator, cooperating with a 

conservation district, on how the landowner or operator plans, within practical limits, to use 

his/her land according to its capability and to treat it according to its needs for maintenance or 

improvement of the soil, water, animal, plant, and air resources.

Conservation strategy. A strategy outlining current activities or threats that are contributing 

to the decline of a species, along with the actions or strategies needed to reverse or eliminate 

such a decline or threats. Conservation strategies are generally developed for species of plants 

and animals that are designated as BLM sensitive species or that have been determined by the 

US Fish and Wildlife Service or National Oceanographic and Atmospheric AdministrationFisheries to be federal candidates under the ESA.

Controlled surface use (CSU). CSU is a category of moderate constraint stipulations that 

allows some use and occupancy of public land while protecting identified resources or values 

and is applicable to fluid mineral leasing and all activities associated with fluid mineral leasing 

(e.g., truck-mounted drilling and geophysical exploration equipment off designated routes, 

construction of wells and/or pads). CSU areas are open to fluid mineral leasing but the 

stipulation allows the BLM to require special operational constraints, or the activity can be 

shifted more than 200 meters (656 feet) to protect the specified resource or value.

Cooperating agency. Assists the lead federal agency in developing an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact statement. These can be any agency with jurisdiction by 

law or special expertise for proposals covered by NEPA (40 CFR 1501.6). Any tribe or federal, 

state, or local government jurisdiction with such qualifications may become a cooperating agency 

by agreement with the lead agency.

Council on Environmental Quality. An advisory council to the President of the US 

established by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It reviews federal programs to 

analyze and interpret environmental trends and information.

Criteria pollutant. The US EPA uses six “criteria pollutants” as indicators of air quality, and 

has established for each of them a maximum concentration above which adverse effects on 

human health may occur. These threshold concentrations are called National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. The criteria pollutants are ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur 

dioxide, particulate matter and lead.
Glossary

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-7

Crucial wildlife habitat. The environment essential to plant or animal biodiversity and 

conservation at the landscape level. Crucial habitats include, but are not limited to, biological 

core areas, severe winter range, winter concentration areas, reproduction areas, and movement 

corridors.

Cultural resources. Locations of human activity, occupation, or use. Cultural resources 

include archaeological, historic, or architectural sites, structures, or places with important public 

and scientific uses, and locations of traditional cultural or religious importance to specified social 

and/or cultural groups.

Cumulative effects. The direct and indirect effects of a proposed project alternative’s 

incremental impacts when they are added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions, regardless of who carries out the action.

Decision area. Lands and federal mineral estate within the planning area that are administered 

by the BLM.

Deferred/deferred use. To set-aside, or postpone, a particular resource use(s) or activity(ies) 

on the public lands to a later time. Generally when this term is used the period of the deferral is 

specified. Deferments sometimes follow the sequence timeframe of associated serial actions 

(e.g., action B will be deferred until action A is completed, etc.). 

Degraded vegetation. Areas where the plant community is not complete or is under threat. 

Examples include missing components such as perennial forbs or cool season grasses, weed 

infestations, or lack of regeneration of key species such as sagebrush or cottonwoods trees. 

Designated roads and trails. Specific roads and trails identified by the BLM (or other agency) 

where some type of motorized/nonmotorized use is appropriate and allowed, either seasonally 

or year-long (H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook).

Desired future condition. For rangeland vegetation, the condition of rangeland resources on 

a landscape scale that meet management objectives. It is based on ecological, social, and 

economic considerations during the land planning process. It is usually expressed as ecological 

status or management status of vegetation (species composition, habitat diversity, and age and 

size class of species) and desired soil qualities (soil cover, erosion, and compaction). In a general 

context, desired future condition is a portrayal of the land or resource conditions that are 

expected to result if goals and objectives are fully achieved.

Desired outcomes. A type of land use plan decision expressed as a goal or objective. 

Direct impacts. Direct impacts are caused by an action or implementation of an alternative 

and occur at the same time and place. 

Directional drilling. A drilling technique whereby a well is deliberately deviated from the 

vertical in order to reach a particular part of the oil- or gas-bearing reservoir. Directional 

drilling technology enables the driller to steer the drill stem and bit to a desired bottom hole 

location. Directional wells initially are drilled straight down to a predetermined depth and then 
Glossary

Glossary-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

gradually curved at one or more different points to penetrate one or more given target 

reservoirs. This specialized drilling usually is accomplished with the use of a fluid-driven 

downhole motor, which turns the drill bit. Directional drilling also allows multiple production 

and injection wells to be drilled from a single surface location such as a gravel pad, thus 

minimizing cost and the surface impact of oil and gas drilling, production, and transportation 

facilities. It can be used to reach a target located beneath an environmentally sensitive area

(Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas 2009).

Disposal lands. Transfer of public land out of federal ownership to another party through sale, 

exchange, Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926, Desert Land Entry or other land law

statutes.

Disruptive activities. Those public land resource uses/activities that are likely to alter the 

behavior, displace, or cause excessive stress to existing animal or human populations occurring 

at a specific location and/or time. In this context, disruptive activity(ies) refers to those actions 

that alter behavior or cause the displacement of individuals such that reproductive success is 

negatively affected, or an individual's physiological ability to cope with environmental stress is 

compromised. This term does not apply to the physical disturbance of the land surface, 

vegetation, or features. When administered as a land use restriction (e.g., No Disruptive Activities), 

this term may prohibit or limit the physical presence of sound above ambient levels, light beyond 

background levels, and/or the nearness of people and their activities. The term is commonly 

used in conjunction with protecting wildlife during crucial life stages (e.g., breeding, nesting, 

birthing, etc.), although it could apply to any resource value on the public lands. The use of this 

land use restriction is not intended to prohibit all activity or authorized uses.

Diversity. The relative abundance of wildlife species, plant species, communities, habitats, or 

habitat features per unit of area.

Easement. A right afforded a person or agency to make limited use of another’s real property 

for access or other purposes.

Ecological emphasis area. The central and primary area of habitat for a population of a given 

species or group of species. These areas include corridors, which are strips of land that aid in 

the movement of species between disconnected emphasis areas of their natural habitat. 

Emphasis areas may be divided into smaller geographical zones.

Ecological Site. A distinctive kind of land with specific physical characteristics that differs from 

other kinds of land in its ability to produce a distinctive kind and amount of vegetation.

Emergency stabilization. Planned actions to stabilize and prevent unacceptable degradation 

to natural and cultural resources, to minimize threats to life or property resulting from the 

effects of a fire, or to repair/replace/construct physical improvements necessary to prevent 

degradation of land or resources. Emergency stabilization actions must be taken within one year 

following containment of a wildfire.

Endangered species. Any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range (BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Manual). Under the Endangered 
Glossary

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-9

Species Act in the US, “endangered” is the more-protected of the two categories. Designation 

as endangered (or threatened) is determined by USFWS as directed by the Endangered Species 

Act.

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended). Designed to protect critically imperiled 

species from extinction as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by 

adequate concern and conservation. The Act is administered by two federal agencies, USFWS 

and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The purpose of the Act is to 

protect species and also the ecosystems upon which they depend (16 US Code 1531-1544).

Enhance. The improvement of habitat by increasing missing or modifying unsatisfactory 

components and/or attributes of the plant community to meet sage‐grouse objectives. 

Environmental assessment (EA). A concise public document prepared to provide sufficient 

evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or 

a finding of no significant impact. It includes a brief discussion of the need for the proposal, 

alternatives considered, environmental impact of the proposed action and alternatives, and a list 

of agencies and individuals consulted.

Environmental impact statement (EIS). A detailed statement prepared by the responsible 

official in which a major federal action that significantly affects the quality of the human 

environment is described, alternatives to the proposed action are provided, and effects are 

analyzed (BLM National Management Strategy for OHV Use on Public Lands).

Evaluation (plan evaluation). The process of reviewing the land use plan and the periodic 

plan monitoring reports to determine whether the land use plan decisions and National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 analysis are still valid and whether the plan is being 

implemented. 

Exchange. A transaction whereby the federal government receives land or interests in land in 

exchange for other land or interests in land.

Exclusion area. An area on the public lands where a certain activity(ies) is prohibited to insure 

protection of other resource values present on the site. The term is frequently used in 

reference to lands/realty actions and proposals (e.g., rights-of-way, etc.), but is not unique to 

lands and realty program activities. This restriction is functionally analogous to the phrase "no 

surface occupancy" used by the oil and gas program, and is applied as an absolute condition to 

those affected activities. The less restrictive analogous term is avoidance area. Also see “right-ofway exclusion area” definition.

Exemplary (vegetation). An area of vegetation that does not show signs of degradation and 

which may serve as a comparison to illustrate what the vegetation potential is for a given type of 

environment.

Existing routes. The roads, trails, or ways that are used by motorized vehicles (jeeps, allterrain vehicles, motorized dirt bikes, etc.), mechanized uses (mountain bikes, wheelbarrows, 
Glossary

Glossary-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

game carts), pedestrians (hikers), and/or equestrians (horseback riders) and are, to the best of 

BLM’s knowledge, in existence at the time of RMPA/EIS publication. 

Exploration. Active drilling and geophysical operations to:

a. Determine the presence of the mineral resource; or

b. Determine the extent of the reservoir or mineral deposit.

Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA). Administrative units that require 

specific management consideration in order to address recreation use, demand, or Recreation 

and Visitor Services program investments. ERMAs are managed to support and sustain the 

principal recreation activities and the associated qualities and conditions of the ERMA. ERMA 

management is commensurate and considered in context with the management of other 

resources and resource uses.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Public Law 94-579, 

October 21, 1976, often referred to as the BLM’s “Organic Act,” which provides most of the 

BLM’s legislated authority, direction policy, and basic management guidance.

Federal mineral estate. Subsurface mineral estate owned by the US and administered by the 

BLM. Federal mineral estate under BLM jurisdiction is composed of mineral estate underlying 

BLM lands, privately owned lands, and state-owned lands

Fire frequency. A general term referring to the recurrence of fire in a given area over time.

Fire management plan (FMP). A plan that identifies and integrates all wildland fire 

management and related activities within the context of approved land/resource management 

plans. It defines a program to manage wildland fires (wildfire, prescribed fire, and wildland fire 

use). The plan is supplemented by operational plans including, but not limited to, preparedness 

plans, preplanned dispatch plans, and prevention plans. Fire Management Plans assure that 

wildland fire management goals and components are coordinated.

Fire Regime Condition Classification System (FRCCS). Measures the extent to which 

vegetation departs from reference conditions, or how the current vegetation differs from a 

particular reference condition.

Fire suppression. All work and activities connected with control and fire-extinguishing 

operations, beginning with discovery and continuing until the fire is completely extinguished.

Fluid minerals. Oil, gas, coal bed natural gas, and geothermal resources.

Forage. All browse and herbaceous foods that are available to grazing animals.

Forage base. The amount of vegetation available for wildlife and livestock use.

Fragile soils. Soils having a shallow depth to bedrock, minimal surface layer of organic material, 

textures that are more easily detached and eroded, or are on slopes over 35 percent.
Glossary

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-11

Fugitive dust. Significant atmospheric dust arises from the mechanical disturbance of granular 

material exposed to the air. Dust generated from these open sources is termed "fugitive" 

because it is not discharged to the atmosphere in a confined flow stream. Common sources of 

fugitive dust include unpaved roads, agricultural tilling operations, aggregate storage piles, and 

heavy construction operations.

General sage‐grouse habitat. Is occupied (seasonal or year‐round) habitat outside of priority 

habitat. These areas have been identified by the BLM in coordination with respective state 

wildlife agencies.

Geographic Information System (GIS). A system of computer hardware, software, data, 

people, and applications that capture, store, edit, analyze, and display a potentially wide array of 

geospatial information. 

Geophysical exploration. Efforts to locate deposits of oil and gas resources and to better 

define the subsurface.

Geothermal energy. Natural heat from within the Earth captured for production of electric 

power, space heating, or industrial steam.

Goal. A broad statement of a desired outcome; usually not quantifiable and may not have 

established timeframes for achievement.

Grandfathered right. The right to use in a non-conforming manner due to existence prior to 

the establishment of conforming terms and conditions. 

Grazing preference. Grazing preference or preference means the total number of animal unit 

months on public lands apportioned and attached to base property owned or controlled by a 

permittee, lessee, or an applicant for a permit or lease. Grazing preference includes active use 

and use held in suspension. Grazing preference holders have a superior or priority position 

against others for the purpose of receiving a grazing permit or lease (43 CFR 4100.0-5).

Grazing relinquishment. The voluntary and permanent surrender by an existing permittee or 

lessee, (with concurrence of any base property lienholder(s)), of their priority (preference) to 

use livestock forage allocation on public land as well as their permission to use this forage. 

Relinquishments do not require consent or approval by BLM. The BLM’s receipt of a 

relinquishment is not a decision to close areas to livestock grazing.

Grazing retirement. Ending livestock grazing on a specific area of land.

Grazing system. Scheduled grazing use and non-use of an allotment to reach identified goals 

or objectives by improving the quality and quantity of vegetation. Include, but are not limited to, 

developing pastures, utilization levels, grazing rotations, timing and duration of use periods, and 

necessary range improvements.

Groundwater. Water held underground in soil or permeable rock, often feeding springs and 

wells.
Glossary

Glossary-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Guidelines. Actions or management practices that may be used to achieve desired outcomes, 

sometimes expressed as BMPs. Guidelines may be identified during the land use planning 

process, but they are not considered a land use plan decision unless the plan specifies that they 

are mandatory. Guidelines for grazing administration must conform to 43 CFR 4180.2. 

Habitat. An environment that meets a specific set of physical, biological, temporal, or spatial 

characteristics that satisfy the requirements of a plant or animal species or group of species for 

part or all of their life cycle.

Hazardous material. A substance, pollutant, or contaminant that, due to its quantity, 

concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a potential hazard to human health 

and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. 

Communication site. Sites that include broadcast types of uses (e.g., television, AM/FM radio, 

cable television, broadcast translator) and non-broadcast uses (e.g., commercial or private 

mobile radio service, cellular telephone, microwave, local exchange network, passive reflector).

Impact. The effect, influence, alteration, or imprint caused by an action.

Impairment. The degree to which a distance of clear visibility is degraded by man-made 

pollutants.

Implementation decisions. Decisions that take action to implement land use planning; 

generally appealable to Interior Board of Land Appeals under 43 CFR 4.410. 

Implementation plan. An area or site-specific plan written to implement decisions made in a 

land use plan. Implementation plans include both activity plans and project plans. 

Indicators. Factors that describe resource condition and change and can help the BLM 

determine trends over time.

Indirect impacts. Indirect impacts result from implementing an action or alternative but 

usually occur later in time or are removed in distance and are reasonably certain to occur. 

Integrated Ranch Planning. A method for ranch planning that takes a holistic look at all 

elements of the ranching operations, including strategic and tactical planning, rather than 

approaching planning as several separate enterprises.

Intermittent stream. An intermittent stream is a stream that flows only at certain times of 

the year when it receives water from springs or from some surface sources such as melting 

snow in mountainous areas. During the dry season and throughout minor drought periods, 

these streams will not exhibit flow. Geomorphological characteristics are not well defined and 

are often inconspicuous. In the absence of external limiting factors, such as pollution and 

thermal modifications, species are scarce and adapted to the wet and dry conditions of the 

fluctuating water level.

Invertebrate. An animal lacking a backbone or spinal column, such as insects, snails, and 

worms. The group includes 97 percent of all animal species.
Glossary

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-13

Key wildlife ecosystems. Specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species in 

which are found those physical and biological features 1) essential to the conservation of the 

species, and 2) which may require special management considerations or protection.

Land health condition. A classification for land health which includes these categories: 

“Meeting Land Health Standard(s)” and “Not Meeting Land Health Standard(s)”.

Land tenure adjustments. Land ownership or jurisdictional changes. To improve the 

manageability of the BLM-administered lands and their usefulness to the public, the BLM has 

numerous authorities for repositioning lands into a more consolidated pattern, disposing of 

lands, and entering into cooperative management agreements. These land pattern improvements 

are completed primarily through the use of land exchanges but also through land sales, through 

jurisdictional transfers to other agencies, and through the use of cooperative management 

agreements and leases.

Land treatment. All methods of artificial range improvement arid soil stabilization such as 

reseeding, brush control (chemical and mechanical), pitting, furrowing, water spreading, etc.

Land use allocation. The identification in a land use plan of the activities and foreseeable 

development that are allowed, restricted, or excluded for all or part of the planning area, based 

on desired future conditions (H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook).

Land use plan. A set of decisions that establish management direction for land within an 

administrative area, as prescribed under the planning provisions of FLPMA; an assimilation of 

land use plan level decisions developed through the planning process outlined in 43 CFR 1600, 

regardless of the scale at which the decisions were developed. The term includes both RMPs 

and management framework plans (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook).

Land use plan decision. Establishes desired outcomes and actions needed to achieve them. 

Decisions are reached using the planning process in 43 CFR 1600. When they are presented to 

the public as proposed decisions, they can be protested to the BLM Director. They are not 

appealable to Interior Board of Land Appeals. 

Late brood-rearing area. Habitat includes mesic sagebrush and mixed shrub communities, 

wet meadows, and riparian habitats as well as some agricultural lands (e.g. alfalfa fields, etc).

Leasable minerals. Those minerals or materials designated as leasable under the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920. These include energy-related mineral resources such as oil, natural gas, 

coal, and geothermal, and some non-energy minerals, such as phosphate, sodium, potassium, and 

sulfur. Geothermal resources are also leasable under the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970.

Lease. Section 302 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 provides the BLM’s 

authority to issue leases for the use, occupancy, and development of public lands. Leases are 

issued for purposes such as a commercial filming, advertising displays, commercial or 

noncommercial croplands, apiaries, livestock holding or feeding areas not related to grazing 

permits and leases, native or introduced species harvesting, temporary or permanent facilities 

for commercial purposes (does not include mining claims), residential occupancy, ski resorts, 
Glossary

Glossary-14 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

construction equipment storage sites, assembly yards, oil rig stacking sites, mining claim 

occupancy if the residential structures are not incidental to the mining operation, and water 

pipelines and well pumps related to irrigation and nonirrigation facilities. The regulations 

establishing procedures for processing these leases and permits are found in 43 CFR 2920.

Lease stipulation. A modification of the terms and conditions on a standard lease form at the 

time of the lease sale.

Lek. A traditional courtship display area attended by male sage‐grouse in or adjacent to 

sagebrush dominated habitat. A lek is designated based on observations of two or more male 

sage‐grouse engaged in courtship displays. Sub‐dominant males may display on itinerant strutting 

areas during population peaks. Such areas usually fail to become established leks. Therefore, a 

site where less than five males are observed strutting should be confirmed active for two years 

before meeting the definition of a lek (Connelly et al 2000, Connelly et al. 2003, 2004). Each 

state may have a slightly different definition of lek, active lek, inactive lek, occupied lek, and 

unoccupied leks. Regional planning will use the appropriate definition provided by the state of 

interest.

Lek Complex. A lek or group of leks within 2.5 km (1.5 mi) of each other between 

which male sage-grouse may interchange from one day to the next. Fidelity to leks has 

been well documented. Visits to multiple leks are most common among yearlings and 

less frequent for adult males, suggesting an age‐related period of establishment 

(Connelly et al. 2004).

Active Lek. Any lek that has been attended by male sage‐grouse during the strutting 

season.

Inactive Lek. Any lek where sufficient data suggests that there was no strutting activity 

throughout a strutting season. Absence of strutting grouse during a single visit is 

insufficient documentation to establish that a lek is inactive. This designation requires 

documentation of either: 1) an absence of sage‐grouses on the lek during at least two

ground surveys separated by at least seven days. These surveys must be conducted 

under ideal conditions (April 1‐May 7 (or other appropriate date based on local 

conditions), no precipitation, light or no wind, half‐hour before sunrise to one hour 

after sunrise) or 2) a ground check of the exact known lek site late in the strutting 

season (after April 15) that fails to find any sign (tracks, droppings, feathers) of strutting 

activity. Data collected by aerial surveys should not be used to designate inactive status 

as the aerial survey may actually disrupt activities.

Occupied Lek. A lek that has been active during at least one strutting season within 

the prior 10 years.

Unoccupied Lek. A lek that has either been “destroyed” or “abandoned.”

Destroyed Lek. A formerly active lek site and surrounding sagebrush habitat that has 

been destroyed and is no longer suitable for sage‐grouse breeding.
Glossary

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-15

Abandoned Lek. A lek in otherwise suitable habitat that has not been active during a 

period of 10 consecutive years. To be designated abandoned, a lek must be “inactive” 

(see above criteria) in at least four non‐consecutive strutting seasons spanning the 10 

years. The site of an “abandoned” lek should be surveyed at least once every 10 years 

to determine whether it has been re‐occupied by sage‐grouse.

Lentic. Pertaining to standing water, such as lakes and ponds.

Locatable minerals. Minerals subject to exploration, development, and disposal by staking 

mining claims as authorized by the Mining Law of 1872, as amended. This includes deposits of 

gold, silver, and other uncommon minerals not subject to lease or sale.

Long-term effect. The effect could occur for an extended period after implementation of the 

alternative. The effect could last several years or more.

Lotic. Pertaining to moving water, such as streams or rivers.

Management decision. A decision made by the BLM to manage public lands. Management 

decisions include both land use plan decisions and implementation decisions.

Master Development Plans. A set of information common to multiple planned wells, 

including drilling plans, Surface Use Plans of Operations, and plans for future production.

Mechanized transport. Any vehicle, device, or contrivance for moving people or material in 

or over land, water, snow, or air that has moving parts.

Mineral. Any naturally formed inorganic material, solid or fluid inorganic substance that can be 

extracted from the earth, any of various naturally occurring homogeneous substances (as stone, 

coal, salt, sulfur, sand, petroleum, water, or natural gas) obtained usually from the ground. 

Under federal laws, considered as locatable (subject to the general mining laws), leasable 

(subject to the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920), and salable (subject to the Materials Act of 1947).

Mineral entry. The filing of a claim on public land to obtain the right to any locatable minerals 

it may contain.

Mineral estate. The ownership of minerals, including rights necessary for access, exploration, 

development, mining, ore dressing, and transportation operations.

Mineralize. The process where a substance is converted from an organic substance to an

inorganic substance.

Mineral materials. Common varieties of mineral materials such as soil, sand and gravel, stone, 

pumice, pumicite, and clay that are not obtainable under the mining or leasing laws but that can 

be acquired under the Materials Act of 1947, as amended.

Mining claim. A parcel of land that a miner takes and holds for mining purposes, having 

acquired the right of possession by complying with the Mining Law and local laws and rules. A 
Glossary

Glossary-16 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

mining claim may contain as many adjoining locations as the locator may make or buy. There are 

four categories of mining claims: lode, placer, millsite, and tunnel site.

Mining Law of 1872. Provides for claiming and gaining title to locatable minerals on public 

lands. Also referred to as the “General Mining Laws” or “Mining Laws.”

Mitigation. Includes specific means, measures or practices that could reduce, avoid, or 

eliminate adverse impacts. Mitigation can include avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a 

certain action or parts of an action, minimizing the impact by limiting the degree of magnitude of 

the action and its implementation, rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitation, or restoring 

the affected environment, reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and 

maintenance operations during the life of the action, and compensating for the impact by 

replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

Modification. A change to the provisions of a lease stipulation, either temporarily or for the 

term of the lease. Depending on the specific modification, the stipulation may or may not apply 

to all sites within the leasehold to which the restrictive criteria are applied.

Monitoring (plan monitoring). The process of tracking the implementation of land use plan 

decisions and collecting and assessing data necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of land use 

planning decisions. 

Motorized vehicles or uses. Vehicles that are motorized, including but not limited to jeeps, 

all-terrain vehicles (all-terrain vehicles, such as four-wheelers and three-wheelers), trail

motorcycles or dirt bikes, and aircrafts.

Multiple-use. The management of the public lands and their various resource values so that 

they are used in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the 

American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources 

or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic 

adjustments in use to changing needs and conditions; the use of some land for less than all of the 

resources; a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the 

long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including 

recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and 

historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources 

without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the 

environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not 

necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the 

greatest unit output (FLPMA) (BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Manual).

Municipal watershed. A watershed area that provides water for use by a municipality as 

defined by the community and accepted by the State.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Public Law 91-190. Establishes 

environmental policy for the nation. Among other items, NEPA requires federal agencies to 

consider environmental values in decision-making processes.
Glossary

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-17

National Historic Trail. A congressionally designated trail that is an extended, long-distance 

trail, not necessarily managed as continuous, that follows as closely as possible and practicable 

the original trails or routes of travel of national historic significance. The purpose of a National 

Historic Trail is the identification and protection of the historic route and the historic remnants 

and artifacts for public use and enjoyment. A National Historic Trail is managed in a manner to 

protect the nationally significant resources, qualities, values, and associated settings of the areas 

through which such trails may pass, including the primary use or uses of the trail (BLM Manual 

6280, Management of National Scenic and Historic Trails and Trails Under Study or 

Recommended as Suitable for Congressional Designation).

Native vegetation. Plant species which were found here prior to European settlement, and 

consequently are in balance with these ecosystems because they have well developed parasites, 

predators, and pollinators.

Natural processes. Fire, drought, insect and disease outbreaks, flooding, and other events 

which existed prior to European settlement, and shaped vegetation composition and structure.

Non-energy leasable minerals. Those minerals or materials designated as leasable under the 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. Non-energy minerals include resources such as phosphate, sodium, 

potassium, and sulfur.

Nonfunctional condition. Riparian-wetland areas that clearly are not providing adequate 

vegetation, landform, or woody debris to dissipate energies associated with flow events, and 

thus are not reducing erosion, improving water quality, etc. 

No surface occupancy (NSO). A major constraint where use or occupancy of the land 

surface for fluid mineral exploration or development and all activities associated with fluid 

mineral leasing (e.g., truck-mounted drilling and geophysical exploration equipment off 

designated routes, construction of wells and/or pads) are prohibited to protect identified 

resource values. Areas identified as NSO are open to fluid mineral leasing, but surface 

occupancy or surface-disturbing activities associated with fluid mineral leasing cannot be 

conducted on the surface of the land. Access to fluid mineral deposits would require horizontal 

drilling from outside the boundaries of the NSO area.

Noxious weeds. A plant species designated by federal or state law as generally possessing one 

or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or 

host of serious insects or disease; or nonnative, new, or not common to the US.

Objective. A description of a desired outcome for a resource. Objectives can be quantified and 

measured and, where possible, have established timeframes for achievement. 

Off-highway vehicle (OHV) (off-road vehicle). Any motorized vehicle capable of, or 

designated for travel on or immediately over land, water or other natural terrain, excluding: (1) 

any non-amphibious registered motorboat; (2) any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement 

vehicle while being used for emergency purposes; (3) any vehicle whose use is expressly 

authorized by the authorized officer, or otherwise officially approved; (4) vehicles in official use; 
Glossary

Glossary-18 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

and (5) any combat or combat support vehicle when used for national defense emergencies (43 

CFR 8340.0-5). 

Open. Generally denotes that an area is available for a particular use or uses. Refer to specific 

program definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to individual 

programs. For example, 43 CFR 8340.0-5 defines the specific meaning of “open” as it relates to 

OHV use.

Ozone. A faint blue gas produced in the atmosphere from chemical reactions of burning coal, 

gasoline, and other fuels and chemicals found in products such as solvents, paints, and hairsprays.

Paleontological resources. The physical remains or other physical evidence of plants and 

animals preserved in soils and sedimentary rock formations. Paleontological resources are 

important for correlating and dating rock strata and for understanding past environments, 

environmental change, and the evolution of life.

Particulate matter (PM). One of the six “criteria” pollutants for which the US EPA

established National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Particulate matter is defined as two 

categories, fine particulate, with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (PM10) or less, and 

fine particulate with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5).

Perennial stream. A stream that flows continuously. Perennial streams are generally 

associated with a water table in the localities through which they flow.

Permitted use. The forage allocated by, or under the guidance of, an applicable land use plan 

for livestock grazing in an allotment under a permit or lease and expressed in AUMs (43 CFR 

4100.0-5).

Permittee. A person or company permitted to graze livestock on public land.

Physiography. The study and classification of the surface features of the earth.

Plan of Operations. A Plan of Operations is required for all mining activity exploration 

greater than 5 acres or surface disturbance greater than casual use on certain special category 

lands. Special category lands are described under 43 CFR 3809.11(c) and include such lands as 

designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, lands within the National Wilderness 

Preservation System, and areas closed to off‐road vehicles, among others. In addition, a Plan of 

Operations is required for activity greater than casual use on lands patented under the Stock 

Raising Homestead Act with federal minerals where the operator does not have the written 

consent of the surface owner (43 CFR 3814). The Plan of Operations needs to be filed in the

BLM field office with jurisdiction over the land involved. The Plan of Operations does not need 

to be on a particular form but must address the information required by 43 CFR 3809.401(b).

Planning area. The geographical area for which sage-grouse management plan amendments

are developed and maintained. The NDFO Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS planning area

boundary defines the area assessed in this RMPA. The planning area encompasses 963,017 acres 

in Bowman, Slope, and Golden Valley counties in southwestern North Dakota. The BLM
Glossary

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-19

administers 33,030 acres (about 3.4 percent) of the planning area, and 396,053 acres of federal 

mineral estate.

Planning criteria. The standards, rules, and other factors developed by managers and 

interdisciplinary teams for their use in forming judgments about decision making, analysis, and 

data collection during planning. Planning criteria streamlines and simplifies the resource 

management planning actions.

Planning issues. Concerns, conflicts, and problems with the existing management of public 

lands. Frequently, issues are based on how land uses affect resources. Some issues are 

concerned with how land uses can affect other land uses, or how the protection of resources 

affects land uses. 

Policy. This is a statement of guiding principles, or procedures, designed and intended to 

influence planning decisions, operating actions, or other affairs of the BLM. Policies are 

established interpretations of legislation, executive orders, regulations, or other presidential, 

secretarial, or management directives.

Prescribed fire. A wildland fire originating from a planned ignition to meet specific objectives 

identified in a written, approved, prescribed fire plan for which NEPA requirements (where 

applicable) have been met prior to ignition.

Primitive road. A linear route managed for use by four-wheel drive or high-clearance vehicles. 

Primitive roads do not normally meet any BLM road design standards.

Primitive route. Any transportation linear feature located within areas that have been 

identified as having wilderness characteristics and not meeting the wilderness inventory road 

definition (BLM Manual 6310 – Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM 

Lands). 

Priority sage‐grouse habitat. Areas that have been identified as having the highest 

conservation value to maintaining sustainable sage‐grouse populations. These areas would 

include breeding, late brood‐rearing, and winter concentration areas. These areas have been 

identified by the BLM in coordination with respective state wildlife agencies.

Proper functioning condition. A term describing stream health that is based on the presence 

of adequate vegetation, landform and debris to dissipate energy, reduce erosion and improve 

water quality.

Public domain. The term applied to any or all of those areas of land ceded to the Federal 

Government by the Original States and to such other lands as were later acquired by treaty, 

purchase or cession, and are disposed of only under the authority of Congress.

Public land. Land or interest in land owned by the US and administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior through the BLM without regard to how the US acquired ownership, except lands 

located on the Outer Continental Shelf and land held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and 

Eskimos (H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook).
Glossary

Glossary-20 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Public Lands Not Designated as Recreation Management Areas. All lands not 

designated as an SRMA or ERMA.

Range Improvement. The term range improvement means any activity, structure or program 

on or relating to rangelands which is designed to improve production of forage; change 

vegetative composition; control patterns of use; provide water; stabilize soil and water 

conditions; and provide habitat for livestock and wildlife. The term includes, but is not limited 

to, structures, treatment projects, and use of mechanical means to accomplish the desired 

results.

Range improvement project. An authorized physical modification or treatment which is 

designed to improve production of forage; change vegetation composition; control patterns of 

use; provide water; stabilize soil and water conditions; restore, protect and improve the 

condition of rangeland ecosystems to benefit livestock, wild horses and burros, and fish and 

wildlife. This definition includes, but is not limited to: structures, treatment projects and use of 

mechanical devices, or modifications achieved through mechanical means.

Raptor. Bird of prey with sharp talons and strongly curved beaks, such as hawks, owls, falcons, 

and eagles.

Reasonable foreseeable development scenario. The prediction of the type and amount of 

oil and gas activity that would occur in a given area. The prediction is based on geologic factors, 

past history of drilling, projected demand for oil and gas, and industry interest.

Reclamation. The suite of actions taken within an area affected by human disturbance, the 

outcome of which is intended to change the condition of the disturbed area to meet predetermined objectives and/or make it acceptable for certain defined resources (e.g., wildlife 

habitat, grazing, ecosystem function, etc.).

Recreation management area. Includes Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) and 

Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs); see SRMA and ERMA definitions.

Recreation experiences. Psychological outcomes realized either by recreation-tourism 

participants as a direct result of their on-site leisure engagements and recreation-tourism 

activity participation or by nonparticipating community residents as a result of their interaction 

with visitors and guests within their community or interaction with the BLM and other public 

and private recreation-tourism providers and their actions. 

Recreation opportunities. Favorable circumstances enabling visitors’ engagement in a leisure 

activity to realize immediate psychological experiences and attain more lasting, value-added 

beneficial outcomes. 

Recreation settings. The collective distinguishing attributes of landscapes that influence and 

sometimes actually determine what kinds of recreation opportunities are produced. 

Reference state. The reference state is the state where the functional capacities represented 

by soil/site stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity are performing at an optimum level 
Glossary

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-21

under the natural disturbance regime. This state usually includes, but is not limited to, what is 

often referred to as the potential natural plant community.

Rehabilitate. Returning disturbed lands as near to its predisturbed condition as is reasonably 

practical or as specified in approved permits.

Renewable Energy. Energy resources that constantly renew themselves or that are regarded 

as practically inexhaustible. These include solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, and biomass. Although 

particular geothermal formations can be depleted, the natural heat in the Earth is a virtually 

inexhaustible reserve of potential energy.

Required Design Features (RDF). Means, measures, or practices intended to reduce or 

avoid adverse environmental impacts. A suite of features that would establish the minimum 

specifications for certain activities (i.e., water developments, mineral development, and fire and 

fuels management) and mitigate adverse impacts. These design features would be required to 

provide a greater level of regulatory certainty than through implementation of best management 

practices. In general, the design features are accepted practices that are known to be effective 

when implemented properly at the project level. However, their applicability and overall 

effectiveness cannot be fully assessed except at the project-specific level when the project 

location and design are known. Because of site-specific circumstances, some features may not 

apply to some projects (e.g., a resource is not present on a given site) and/or may require slight 

variations from what is described in the EIS/RMP amendment (e.g., a larger or smaller protective 

area). All variations in design features would require appropriate analysis and disclosure as part 

of future project authorizations. Additional mitigation measures may be identified and required 

during individual project development and environmental review. 

Resource management plan (RMP). A land use plan as prescribed by the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act that establishes, for a given area of land, land-use allocations, 

coordination guidelines for multiple-use, objectives, and actions to be achieved.

Restore/restoration. Implementation of a set of actions that promotes plant community 

diversity and structure that allows plant communities to be more resilient to disturbance and 

invasive species over the long term. The long‐term goal is to create functional, high quality 

habitat that is occupied by sage‐grouse. Short‐term goal may be to restore the landform, soils 

and hydrology and increase the percentage of preferred vegetation, seeding of desired species, 

or treatment of undesired species.

Restriction/restricted use. A limitation or constraint on public land uses and operations. 

Restrictions can be of any kind, but most commonly apply to certain types of vehicle use, 

temporal and/or spatial constraints, or certain authorizations.

Revegetate/revegetation. The process of putting vegetation back in an area where 

vegetation previously existed, which may or may not simulate natural conditions.

Revision. The process of completely rewriting the land use plan due to changes in the planning 

area affecting major portions of the plan or the entire plan. 
Glossary

Glossary-22 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Right-of-way (ROW). Public lands authorized to be used or occupied for specific purposes 

pursuant to a right-of-way authorization, which are in the public interest and which require 

ROWs over, on, under, or through such lands.

Right-of-way avoidance area. An area identified through resource management planning to 

be avoided but may be available for ROW location with special stipulations.

Right-of-way exclusion area. An area identified through resource management planning that 

is not available for ROW location under any conditions.

Riparian area. A form of wetland transition between permanently saturated wetlands and 

upland areas. Riparian areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics that reflect the 

influence of permanent surface or subsurface water. Typical riparian areas include lands along, 

adjacent to, or contiguous with perennially and intermittently flowing rivers and streams, glacial 

potholes, and the shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water levels. Excluded are 

ephemeral streams or washes that lack vegetation and depend on free water in the soil.

Riparian zone. An area one-quarter mile wide encompassing riparian and adjacent vegetation.

Road. A linear route declared a road by the owner, managed for use by low-clearance vehicles 

having four or more wheels, and maintained for regular and continuous use.

Rotation. Grazing rotation between pastures in the allotment for the permitted time.

Routes. Multiple roads, trails and primitive roads; a group or set of roads, trails, and primitive 

roads that represents less than 100 percent of the BLM transportation system. Generically, 

components of the transportation system are described as “routes.” 

Sale (public land). A method of land disposal pursuant to Section 203 of FLPMA, whereby the 

US receives a fair-market payment for the transfer of land from federal ownership. Public lands 

determined suitable for sale are offered on the initiative of the BLM. Lands suitable for sale must 

be identified in the RMP. Any lands to be disposed of by sale that are not identified in the 

current RMP, or that meet the disposal criteria identified in the RMP, require a plan amendment 

before a sale can occur.

Saturated soils. Occur when the infiltration capacity of the soil is exceeded from above due to 

rainfall or snowmelt runoff. Soils can also become saturated from groundwater inputs.

Scoping process. An early and open public participation process for determining the scope of 

issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action.

Season of use. The time during which livestock grazing is permitted on a given range area, as 

specified in the grazing lease.

Seeding. Seeding is a vegetation treatment that includes the application of grass, forb, or shrub 

seed, either aerially or from the ground. In areas of gentle terrain, ground applications of seed 

are often accomplished with a rangeland drill. Seeding allows the establishment of native species 

or placeholder species and restoration of disturbed areas to a perennial-dominated cover type, 
Glossary

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-23

thereby decreasing the risk of subsequent invasion by exotic plant species. Seeding would be 

used primarily as a follow-up treatment in areas where disturbance or the previously described 

treatments have removed exotic plant species and their residue.

Short-term effect. The effect occurs only during or immediately after implementation of the 

alternative.

Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA). An administrative public lands unit 

identified in land use plans where the existing or proposed recreation opportunities and 

recreation setting characteristics are recognized for their unique value, importance, and/or 

distinctiveness, especially as compared to other areas used for recreation.

Special Recreation Permit (SRP). Authorization that allows for recreational uses of public 

lands and related waters. Issued as a means to control visitor use, protect recreational and 

natural resources, and provide for the health and safety of visitors. Commercial SRPs are also 

issued as a mechanism to provide a fair return for the commercial use of public lands.

Special status species. BLM special status species are: (1) species listed, candidate, or 

proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act; and (2) species requiring special

management consideration to promote their conservation and reduce the likelihood and need 

for future listing under the Endangered Species Act that are designated as BLM sensitive by the 

BLM State Director(s). All federally listed candidate species, proposed species, and delisted 

species in the five years following delisting are conserved as BLM sensitive species.

Split estate. This is the circumstance where the surface of a particular parcel of land is owned 

by a different party than the minerals underlying the surface. Split estates may have any 

combination of surface/subsurface owners: federal/state; federal/private; state/private; or 

percentage ownerships. When referring to the split estate ownership on a particular parcel of 

land, it is generally necessary to describe the surface/subsurface ownership pattern of the parcel.

Stabilize. The process of stopping further damage from occurring.

Standard. A description of the physical and biological conditions or degree of function 

required for healthy, sustainable lands (e.g., land health standards). To be expressed as a desired 

outcome (goal). 

Standard lease terms and conditions. Areas may be open to leasing with no specific 

management decisions defined in a Resource Management Plan; however, these areas are 

subject to lease terms and conditions as defined on the lease form (Form 3100-11, Offer to 

Lease and Lease for Oil and Gas; and Form 3200-24, Offer to Lease and Lease for Geothermal 

Resources).

State. A state is comprised of an integrated soil and vegetation unit having one or more 

biological communities that occur on a particular ecological site and that are functionally similar 

with respect to the three attributes (soil/site stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity) 

under natural disturbance regimes.
Glossary

Glossary-24 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Stipulation (general). A term or condition in an agreement or contract.

Stipulation (oil and gas). A provision that modifies standard oil and gas lease terms and 

conditions in order to protect other resource values or land uses and is attached to and made a 

part of the lease. Typical lease stipulations include No Surface Occupancy (NSO), Timing 

Limitations (TL), and Controlled Surface Use (CSU). Lease stipulations are developed through 

the land use planning (RMP) process.

Surface disturbance. Suitable habitat is considered disturbed when it is removed and 

unavailable for immediate sage‐grouse use.

a. Long‐term removal occurs when habitat is physically removed through activities that 

replace suitable habitat with long term occupancy of unsuitable habitat such as a road, 

powerline, well pad or active mine. Long‐term removal may also result from any 

activities that cause soil mixing, soil removal, and exposure of the soil to erosive 

processes.

b. Short–term removal occurs when vegetation is removed in small areas, but restored 

to suitable habitat within a few years (< 5) of disturbance, such as a successfully 

reclaimed pipeline, or successfully reclaimed drill hole or pit.

c. Suitable habitat rendered unusable due to numerous anthropogenic disturbances

d. Anthropogenic surface disturbance are surface disturbances meeting the above 

definitions which result from human activities.

Surface disturbing activities. An action that alters the vegetation, surface/near surface soil 

resources, and/or surface geologic features, beyond natural site conditions and on a scale that 

affects other public land values. Examples of surface disturbing activities may include: operation 

of heavy equipment to construct well pads, roads, pits and reservoirs; installation of pipelines 

and power lines; and the conduct of several types of vegetation treatments (e.g., prescribed fire, 

etc.). Surface disturbing activities may be either authorized or prohibited.

Surface use(s). These are all the various activities that may be present on the surface or nearsurface (e.g., pipelines), of the public lands. It does not refer to those subterranean activities 

(e.g., underground mining, etc.) occurring on the public lands or federal mineral estate. When 

administered as a use restriction (e.g., No Surface Use [NSU]), this phrase prohibits all but 

specified resource uses and activities in a certain area to protect particular sensitive resource 

values and property. This designation typically applies to small acreage sensitive resource sites 

(e.g., plant community study exclosure, etc.), and/or administrative sites (e.g., government wareyard, etc.) where only authorized, agency personnel are admitted.

Sustained yield. The achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or 

regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the public lands consistent with 

multiple uses.
Glossary

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-25

Temporary/temporary use. This term is used as the opposite of the term permanent/ 

permanent use. It is a relative term and has to be considered in the context of the resource 

values affected and the nature of the resource use(s)/activity(ies) taking place. Generally, a 

temporary activity is considered to be one that is not fixed in place and is of short duration.

Terrestrial. Living or growing in or on the land.

Threatened species. Any species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (BLM Manual 6840, Special Status 

Species Management). Under the Endangered Species Act in the US, “threatened” is the lesserprotected of the two categories. Designation as threatened (or endangered) is determined by 

USFWS as directed by the Endangered Species Act.

Timber. Standing trees, downed trees, or logs which are capable of being measured in board 

feet.

Timing Limitation (TL). The TL stipulation, a moderate constraint, is applicable to fluid 

mineral leasing, all activities associated with fluid mineral leasing (e.g., truck-mounted drilling and 

geophysical exploration equipment off designated routes, construction of wells and/or pads), and 

other surface-disturbing activities (i.e., those not related to fluid mineral leasing). Areas 

identified for TL are closed to fluid mineral exploration and development, surface-disturbing 

activities, and intensive human activity during identified time frames. This stipulation does not 

apply to operation and basic maintenance activities, including associated vehicle travel, unless 

otherwise specified. Construction, drilling, completions, and other operations considered to be 

intensive in nature are not allowed. Intensive maintenance, such as workovers on wells, is not 

permitted. TLs can overlap spatially with NSO and CSU, as well as with areas that have no other 

restrictions.

Total dissolved solids. Salt, or an aggregate of carbonates, bicarbonates, chlorides, sulfates, 

phosphates, and nitrates of calcium, magnesium, manganese, sodium, potassium, and other 

cations that form salts.

Total maximum daily load (TMDL). An estimate of the total quantity of pollutants (from all 

sources: point, nonpoint, and natural) that may be allowed into waters without exceeding 

applicable water quality criteria.

Trail. A linear route managed for human-power (e.g., hiking or bicycling), stock (e.g., 

equestrian), or off-highway vehicle forms of transportation or for historical or heritage values.

Trails are not generally managed for use by four-wheel drive or high-clearance vehicles.

Transition. A shift between two states. Transitions are not reversible by simply altering the 

intensity or direction of factors that produced the change. Instead, they require new inputs such 

as revegetation or shrub removal. Practices, such as these, that accelerate succession are often 

expensive to apply.

Transmission. The movement or transfer of electric energy over an interconnected group of 

lines and associated equipment between points of supply and points at which it is transformed 
Glossary

Glossary-26 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

for delivery to consumers, or is delivered to other electric systems. Transmission is considered 

to end when the energy is transformed for distribution to the consumer.

Transportation system. The sum of the BLM’s recognized inventory of linear features (roads, 

primitive roads, and trails) formally recognized, designated, and approved as part of the BLM’s 

transportation system. 

Travel management areas. Polygons or delineated areas where a rational approach has been 

taken to classify areas open, closed or limited, and have identified and/or designated a network 

of roads, trails, ways, landing strips, and other routes that provide for public access and travel 

across the planning area. All designated travel routes within travel management areas should 

have a clearly identified need and purpose as well as clearly defined activity types, modes of 

travel, and seasons or timeframes for allowable access or other limitations (BLM Handbook H1601-1 Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Trespass. Any unauthorized use of public land.

Tribal interests. Native American or Native Alaskan economic rights such as Indian trust 

assets, resource uses and access guaranteed by treaty rights, and subsistence uses. 

Understory. That portion of a plant community growing underneath the taller plants on the 

site.

Unitization. Operation of multiple leases as a single lease under a single operator.

Unitized area. a group of contiguous oil and gas lease holdings where the lessee holds an 

agreement with the federal government so that exploration, drilling, and production of the 

resource proceeds in the most efficient and economical manner possible.

Unnecessary or undue degradation. Unnecessary or undue degradation means conditions,

activities, or practices that (43 CFR 3809.5):

(1) Fail to comply with one or more of the following: the performance standards in § 

3809.420, the terms and conditions of an approved plan of operations, operations 

described in a complete notice, and other federal and state laws related to 

environmental protection and protection of cultural resources;

(2) Are not “reasonably incident” to prospecting, mining, or processing operations as 

defined in § 3715. 0-5 of this chapter; or

(3) Fail to attain a stated level of protection or reclamation required by specific laws in 

areas such as the California Desert Conservation Area, Wild and Scenic Rivers, BLMadministered portions of the National Wilderness System, and BLM-administered 

National Monuments and National Conservation Areas.

Utility corridor. Tract of land varying in width forming passageway through which various 

commodities such as oil, gas, and electricity are transported.
Glossary

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-27

Valid existing rights. Documented, legal rights or interests in the land that allow a person or 

entity to use said land for a specific purpose and that are still in effect. Such rights include but 

are not limited to fee title ownership, mineral rights, rights-of-way, easements, permits, and 

licenses. Such rights may have been reserved, acquired, leased, granted, permitted, or otherwise 

authorized over time.

Vegetation manipulation. Planned alteration of vegetation communities through use of 

mechanical, chemical, seeding, and/or prescribed fire or managed fire to achieve desired 

resource objectives.

Vegetation treatments. Management practices which change the vegetation structure to a 

different stage of development. Vegetation treatment methods include managed fire, prescribed 

fire, chemical, mechanical, and seeding. 

Vegetation type. A plant community with immediately distinguishable characteristics based 

upon and named after the apparent dominant plant species.

Visibility (air quality). A measure of the ability to see and identify objects at different 

distances.

Visitor day. Twelve visitor hours that may be aggregated by one or more persons in single or 

multiple visits.

Visual resources. The visible physical features on a landscape, (topography, water, vegetation, 

animals, structures, and other features) that comprise die scenery of the area.

Watershed. Topographical region or area delineated by water draining to a particular 

watercourse or body of water.

West Nile virus. A virus that is found in temperate and tropical regions of the world and most 

commonly transmitted by mosquitos. West Nile virus can cause flu-like symptoms in humans 

and can be lethal to birds, including sage-grouse.

Wild and Scenic Study River. Rivers identified for study by Congress under Section 5(a) 

ofthe Wild and Scenic Rivers Act or identified for study by the Secretary of Agriculture or the 

Secretary of the Interior under Section 5(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. These rivers 

will be studied under the provisions of Section 4 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (BLM Manual 

6400, Wild and Scenic Rivers – Policy and Program Direction for Identification, Evaluation, 

Planning, and Management).

Eligible river. A river or river segment found to meet criteria found in Sections 1(b) 

and 2(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of being free flowing and possessing one or 

more outstandingly remarkable value.

Suitable river. An eligible river segment found through administrative study to meet 

the criteria for designation as a component of the National System, as specified in 

Section 4(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Glossary

Glossary-28 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Wildcat well. An exploratory oil well drilled in land not known to be an oil field.

Wilderness. A congressionally designated area of undeveloped federal land retaining its 

primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, that is 

protected and managed to preserve its natural conditions and that (1) generally appears to have 

been affected mainly by the forces of nature, with human imprints substantially unnoticeable; (2) 

has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) 

has at least 5,000 acres or is large enough to make practical its preservation and use in an 

unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of 

scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value. The definition is contained in Section 2(c) of the 

Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 891).

Wilderness characteristics. Wilderness characteristics attributes include the area’s size, its 

apparent naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined 

type of recreation. They may also include supplemental values. Lands with wilderness 

characteristics are those lands that have been inventoried and determined by the BLM to 

contain wilderness characteristics as defined in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act.

Wilderness Study Area (WSA). A designation made through the land use planning process 

of a roadless area found to have wilderness characteristics, as described in Section 2(c) of the 

Wilderness Act of 1964.

Wildland fire. Wildland fire is a general term describing any non-structure fire that occurs in 

the wildland. Wildland fires are categorized into two distinct types: 

• Wildfires: Unplanned ignitions or prescribed fires that are declared wildfires.

• Prescribed fires: Planned ignitions.

Wildland fire use. A term no longer used; the new terminology is “managed fire” (see “managed 

fire” definition). A vegetation treatment that involves taking advantage of a naturally-ignited 

wildland fire in an area where fire would benefit resources. Wildland fire use would be 

conducted in specific areas needing treatment after a site-specific plan and NEPA analysis are 

completed and only if predetermined prescriptive parameters (e.g., weather/fire behavior) can 

be met. Until this planning and NEPA analysis are accomplished, wildland fires would be 

suppressed using an appropriate management response.

Wildland-urban interface (WUI). The line, area or zone where structures and other human 

development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels.

Withdrawal. An action that restricts the use of public land and segregates the land from the 

operation of some or all of the public land and mineral laws. Withdrawals are also used to 

transfer jurisdiction of management of public lands to other federal agencies.

Winter concentration areas. Sage‐grouse winter habitats which are occupied annually by 

sage‐grouse and provide sufficient sagebrush cover and food to support birds throughout the 

entire winter (especially periods with above average snow cover). Many of these areas support 
Glossary

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-29

several different breeding populations of sage‐grouse. Sage‐grouse typically show high fidelity for 

these areas, and loss or fragmentation can result in significant population impacts.
Glossary

Glossary-30 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

This page intentionally left blank.
INDEX

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Index-1

INDEX

Air quality, 3-71, 3-72, 3-73, 3-74, 3-75, 3-76, 

3-106, 4-129, 5-33, 5-34, 5-35

Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC), ES-6, 1-9, 2-11, 2-12, 2-14, 2-20, 

2-24, 2-28, 2-29, 2-30, 2-44, 2-56, 3-2, 3-25, 

3-26, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 4-8, 4-17, 4-24, 4-27, 

4-28, 4-31, 4-34, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-50, 4-57, 

4-64, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-72, 4-74, 4-77, 

4-78, 4-79, 4-82, 4-86, 4-89, 4-92, 4-101, 

4-102, 4-103, 4-105, 4-106, 4-107, 4-112, 

4-116, 4-118, 4-121, 4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 

4-126, 4-127, 4-129, 4-132, 4-137, 4-138, 

4-146, 4-148, 4-160, 4-164, 4-167, 4-168, 

4-171, 4-174, 4-178, 4-180, 4-181, 4-184, 

4-185, 4-191, 4-192, 4-193, 4-194, 5-20, 5-22, 

5-25, 5-31, 5-32, 5-33, 6-6, 6-7

Best Management Practice (BMP), ES-8, ES-12, 

ES-13, 1-4, 1-15, 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-13, 2-21, 

2-36, 2-38, 2-39, 2-39, 2-45, 2-48, 2-52, 2-51, 

2-59, 2-60, 2-61, 2-60, 4-6, 4-32, 4-36, 4-39, 

4-40, 4-41, 4-43, 4-65, 4-82, 4-88, 4-90, 4-91, 

4-111, 4-135, 4-166, 4-167, 4-169, 4-173, 

4-179, 4-183, 4-185, 4-196, 4-197

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), 3-21, 4-45, 6-5

Candidate species, 3-5, 4-156

Cheatgrass, 2-41, 3-12, 3-28, 3-32, 3-33, 3-38, 

4-9, 4-10, 4-16, 4-52, 4-54, 4-72, 5-14, 5-18, 

5-23, 5-24

Clean Water Act, 2-33, 3-84, 3-88, 4-163, 4-178

Coal, 2-11, 2-12, 2-14, 2-23, 2-38, 3-50, 3-51, 

3-78, 4-16, 4-22, 4-28, 4-36, 4-41, 4-56, 4-73, 

4-74, 4-76, 4-79, 4-84, 4-85, 4-86, 4-102, 

4-113, 4-134, 4-137, 4-138, 4-140, 4-141, 

4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-147, 4-148, 4-150, 

4-151, 4-152, 4-154, 4-163, 4-166, 4-173, 

4-178, 4-179, 4-183, 5-8, 5-11, 5-16

Communication site, 3-19, 3-25, 3-105, 4-44, 

4-45, 4-46, 5-5, 5-9, 5-12, 5-21

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), ES-8, 

ES-11, ES-14, 1-15, 2-1, 2-3, 2-8, 2-20, 3-107, 

3-108, 4-5, 5-1, 6-1

County, Chouteau, ES-4, 1-5, 3-44, 3-45, 3-108, 

5-5, 5-6, 6-5

County, Fergus, ES-4, 1-5, 3-38, 3-44, 3-45, 

3-51, 3-58, 3-68, 3-108, 5-5, 5-6, 5-21, 6-5

County, Judith Basin, ES-4, 1-5, 3-51, 3-52, 6-5

County, Meagher, ES-4, ES-6, 1-4, 1-5, 3-80, 

3-108, 6-5

County, Petroleum, ES-3, ES-4, 1-4, 1-5, 2-65, 

3-1, 3-8, 3-14, 3-23, 3-38, 3-44, 3-45, 3-50, 

3-51, 3-57, 3-100, 3-101, 3-103, 3-108, 4-19, 

4-23, 4-27, 4-189, 5-5, 5-6, 5-11, 5-21, 5-30, 

5-36, 5-38, 6-5

Eagle, bald, 3-93

Eagle, golden, 3-93, 4-14, 4-156, 5-12

Emergency stabilization and rehabilitation, 2-42, 

2-43, 4-24, 4-42, 4-65, 4-69, 4-125, 4-167, 

4-170, 4-173, 4-181, 4-183

Endangered species, 2-44, 3-20

Endangered Species Act (ESA), ES-1, ES-2, ES-5, 

1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-12, 3-5, 3-6, 3-96, 4-156, 

4-174, 4-184, 5-31, 6-4

Environmental justice, ES-7, 1-10, 5-45

Exclusion area, 2-5, 2-7, 2-10, 2-12, 2-21, 2-22, 

2-28, 2-29, 2-45, 2-47, 2-48, 2-49, 2-52, 2-56, 

2-58, 2-60, 2-61, 2-63, 2-64, 2-65, 3-25, 4-3, 
Index

Index-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

4-14, 4-17, 4-22, 4-23, 4-25, 4-27, 4-29, 4-31, 

4-32, 4-34, 4-45, 4-48, 4-49, 4-54, 4-57, 4-61, 

4-64, 4-66, 4-68, 4-73, 4-75, 4-77, 4-78, 4-91, 

4-93, 4-94, 4-100, 4-104, 4-105, 4-114, 4-117, 

4-123, 4-124, 4-127, 4-134, 4-137, 4-138, 

4-139, 4-141, 4-144, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 

4-151, 4-155, 4-158, 4-160, 4-161, 4-162, 

4-165, 4-168, 4-175, 4-177, 4-179, 4-180, 

4-184, 4-185, 4-186, 4-187, 4-188, 4-190, 

4-191, 4-193, 5-12, 5-13, 5-19, 5-20, 5-22, 

5-24, 5-25, 5-26, 5-29, 5-31, 5-37, 5-39, 5-41, 

5-43, 5-44

Extensive recreation management area (ERMA), 

2-54, 3-56, 3-57, 3-59, 3-60, 4-46, 4-99, 

4-100, 4-101, 4-104, 4-105, 4-107

Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA), ES-1, ES-6, ES-8, ES-11, ES-14, 1-1, 

1-6, 1-8, 1-14, 1-15, 2-3, 2-8, 2-19, 2-29, 3-20, 

3-25, 3-61, 3-69, 3-70, 3-105, 4-2, 4-47, 4-90, 

4-102, 6-1

Federal mineral estate, ES-3, ES-4, ES-14, 1-5, 

1-6, 2-52, 3-1, 3-49, 3-51, 3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 

4-1, 4-80, 4-83, 4-85, 4-88, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 

5-12, 5-28, 5-29

Fire management, ES-7, 1-10, 2-5, 2-7, 2-41, 

2-42, 2-47, 2-50, 3-37, 3-38, 3-43, 4-38, 4-71, 

4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 

4-113, 4-164, 4-178, 5-26, 5-27

Fire regime condition class (FRCC), 3-37, 3-40, 

4-70

Fire, suppression, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-11, 2-14, 2-42, 

2-50, 2-57, 3-38, 4-9, 4-16, 4-20, 4-21, 4-24, 

4-27, 4-28, 4-36, 4-37, 4-53, 4-63, 4-65, 4-70, 

4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 

4-79, 4-110, 4-118, 4-130, 4-132, 4-156, 

4-164, 4-167, 4-170, 4-173, 4-178, 4-179, 

4-181, 4-183, 4-195, 5-18, 5-19, 5-23, 5-26, 

5-27, 5-39, 5-41

Fire/burning, prescribed, 2-5, 2-7, 2-40, 2-41, 

3-37, 4-10, 4-15, 4-21, 4-35, 4-37, 4-53, 4-63, 

4-72, 4-74, 4-129, 4-130, 4-132, 4-159, 4-163, 

4-164, 4-166, 4-173, 5-4, 5-8, 5-18, 5-19, 

5-20, 5-24, 5-25, 5-26, 5-27, 5-31, 5-36, 5-37, 

5-40, 5-42

Fuel load, 3-36, 4-14, 4-21, 4-54, 4-56, 4-63, 

4-65, 4-67, 4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-76, 

4-77, 4-125, 4-129, 4-132, 4-167, 5-15, 5-20, 

5-23, 5-24, 5-25

Fugitive dust, 3-76, 4-55, 4-56, 4-129, 4-130, 

4-197, 5-3, 5-33

General habitat (GH), ES-2, ES-6, ES-11, ES-12, 

ES-13, 1-2, 1-4, 1-12, 2-4, 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 

2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-16, 2-19, 2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 

2-27, 2-28, 2-29, 2-30, 2-31, 2-32, 2-33, 2-34, 

2-35, 2-36, 2-37, 2-36, 2-37, 2-36, 2-37, 2-38, 

2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-40, 2-42, 2-43, 2-44, 2-45, 

2-46, 2-47, 2-48, 2-49, 2-50, 2-50, 2-51, 2-52, 

2-53, 2-54, 2-55, 2-56, 2-57, 2-57, 2-58, 2-59, 

2-60, 2-60, 2-61, 2-62, 2-63, 2-64, 3-6, 3-46, 

3-49, 3-86, 3-93, 4-7, 4-11, 4-17, 4-18, 4-21, 

4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-29, 4-31,

4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-37, 4-39, 4-39, 4-40, 

4-42, 4-42, 4-48, 4-49, 4-50, 4-54, 4-57, 4-58, 

4-61, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-77, 

4-78, 4-79, 4-83, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-94, 4-96, 

4-98, 4-103, 4-104, 4-105, 4-106, 4-107, 

4-111, 4-114, 4-119, 4-120, 4-121, 4-130, 

4-133, 4-139, 4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-149, 

4-151, 4-152, 4-153, 4-154, 4-157, 4-161, 

4-162, 4-165, 4-166, 4-167, 4-168, 4-169, 

4-171, 4-175, 4-178, 4-179, 4-180, 4-181, 

4-182, 4-190, 4-192, 4-193, 4-194, 5-8, 5-11, 

5-12, 5-15, 5-16, 5-17, 5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-22, 

5-24, 5-25, 5-26, 5-28, 5-31, 5-42

General habitat, preliminary (PGH), ES-2, ES-3, 

ES-4, ES-5, ES-7, ES-12, 1-2, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 

1-10, 1-12, 1-13, 2-9, 2-39, 2-45, 3-4, 3-7, 3-8, 

3-10, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-17, 3-18, 3-21, 

3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-26, 3-29, 3-33, 3-34, 

3-35, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 

3-45, 3-46, 3-47, 3-48, 3-49, 3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 

3-53, 3-54, 3-55, 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 3-59, 3-63, 

3-64, 3-65, 3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 3-81, 3-82, 3-83, 

3-84, 3-85, 3-86, 3-87, 3-90, 3-92, 3-93, 3-94, 

3-99, 3-105, 4-7, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 

4-31, 4-39, 4-40, 4-47, 4-50, 4-103, 4-114, 

4-157, 4-165, 5-11, 5-28

Geothermal, 1-19, 3-26, 3-27, 3-43, 3-96, 5-8

Grazing, allotment, 1-7, 2-10, 2-13, 2-14, 2-30, 

2-31, 2-32, 2-34, 2-35, 2-36, 2-42, 2-43, 2-44, 

2-47, 3-37, 3-43, 3-61, 3-62, 3-63, 3-64, 3-65, 

3-66, 3-105, 4-35, 4-109, 4-110, 4-112, 4-114, 

4-116, 4-117, 4-121, 4-148, 4-155, 4-165, 

4-172, 4-175, 4-182, 4-191

Grazing, management, 1-20, 2-10, 2-14, 2-19, 

2-30, 2-31, 2-32, 2-34, 2-35, 2-41, 2-42, 2-43, 

2-44, 2-49, 2-60, 2-62, 2-63, 3-61, 3-62, 3-66, 

3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 4-12, 4-13, 4-18, 4-20, 4-56, 

4-62, 4-65, 4-72, 4-77, 4-109, 4-111, 4-113, 
Index

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Index-3

4-114, 4-115, 4-134, 4-136, 4-138, 4-165, 

4-166, 5-14, 5-17, 5-19, 5-20, 5-24, 5-25, 5-31

Land tenure adjustments, 2-29, 2-30, 3-19, 3-20, 

3-28, 3-105, 4-6, 4-15, 4-33, 4-44, 4-46, 4-48, 

4-50, 4-57, 4-161, 5-21, 5-22

Leasing, oil and gas, ES-3, ES-5, 1-4, 1-12, 3-46, 

3-49, 4-11, 4-12, 4-54, 5-4, 5-11, 5-28, 5-36, 

5-38, 5-40, 5-42

Lek, 1-20, 2-12, 2-27, 2-28, 2-35, 2-36, 2-37, 

2-47, 2-48, 2-53, 3-7, 3-8, 3-12, 3-13, 3-15, 

3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-26, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-10, 

4-11, 4-14, 4-19, 4-20, 4-23, 4-27, 4-30, 4-35, 

4-46, 4-48, 4-66, 4-97, 4-98, 4-105, 4-127, 

4-141, 4-151, 4-167, 4-180, 5-8, 5-12, 5-29

Listed species, see Threatened and endangered 

species

Minerals, entry, 2-23, 2-24, 2-38, 2-59, 2-60, 

3-52, 4-22, 4-39, 4-63, 4-65, 4-87, 4-118, 

4-124, 4-127, 4-138, 4-140, 4-142, 4-144, 

4-148, 4-150, 4-152, 4-154, 4-160, 4-166, 

5-11

Minerals, fluid, 1-12, 2-1, 2-5, 2-7, 2-8, 2-23, 

2-36, 2-39, 2-44, 2-50, 2-51, 2-54, 2-56, 2-59, 

2-60, 2-62, 2-64, 3-2, 3-14, 3-43, 3-44, 3-49, 

3-71, 4-3, 4-11, 4-16, 4-21, 4-25, 4-28, 4-31, 

4-36, 4-63, 4-65, 4-67, 4-69, 4-74, 4-76, 4-77, 

4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 4-82, 4-83, 4-84, 4-86, 4-89, 

4-92, 4-100, 4-103, 4-104, 4-106, 4-107, 

4-113, 4-115, 4-118, 4-120, 4-122, 4-124, 

4-125, 4-127, 4-129, 4-132, 4-135, 4-136, 

4-138, 4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-145, 

4-148, 4-150, 4-152, 4-154, 4-163, 4-166, 

4-169, 4-173, 4-178, 4-179, 4-181, 4-183, 

4-185, 5-8, 5-12, 5-16, 5-19, 5-20, 5-24, 5-28, 

5-30, 5-31, 5-36, 5-38, 6-6

Minerals, leasable, 2-11, 2-12, 2-14, 2-23, 2-24, 

2-39, 3-26, 3-43, 3-50, 3-96, 4-16, 4-29, 4-65, 

4-84, 4-85, 4-115, 4-118, 4-163, 4-166, 4-173, 

4-179, 5-28

Minerals, locatable, 2-11, 2-12, 2-14, 2-23, 2-24, 

2-38, 2-52, 3-2, 3-14, 3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 4-17, 

4-22, 4-29, 4-39, 4-63, 4-65, 4-69, 4-74, 4-76, 

4-79, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-102, 4-115, 

4-124, 4-148, 4-154, 4-163, 4-166, 4-173, 

4-183, 5-11, 5-28

Minerals, material, 3-52

Minerals, saleable, 2-24, 2-52

Minerals, solid leasable, 2-23, 2-51, 3-2, 3-14, 

3-50, 4-84, 4-85, 4-86, 4-87, 5-28

Mining operations, 2-38, 4-74, 4-111

Mountain biking, 4-15, 4-136, 4-146

National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 3-71, 

3-72, 3-73, 3-76

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), ES-6, ES-8, ES-10, ES-14, 1-7, 1-8, 

1-10, 1-13, 1-15, 1-20, 2-2, 2-3, 2-8, 2-11, 

2-12, 2-14, 2-15, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-31, 2-36, 

2-37, 2-36, 2-38, 2-36, 2-37, 2-41, 3-61, 3-68, 

3-107, 4-3, 4-5, 4-29, 4-47, 4-165, 4-170, 

4-172, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3

Off-highway vehicle (OHV), ES-14, 1-13, 1-20, 

2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-44, 2-53, 3-14, 3-54, 3-56, 

3-57, 3-60, 3-106, 4-1, 4-2, 4-15, 4-32, 4-55, 

4-96, 4-98, 4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 4-105, 4-110, 

4-136, 4-146, 4-177, 5-29

Ozone (O3), 3-71, 3-72, 3-73, 4-129, 5-34

Planning issue, ES-6, ES-10, ES-11, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 

2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-20, 2-21, 2-25, 4-4, 6-3, 

6-4

Plants, invasive, see Vegetation, invasive/noxious 

weeds

Particulate matter (PM2.5), 3-71, 3-72, 3-73, 

3-75, 4-129, 4-130, 5-33, 5-34

Priority habitat (PH), ES-2, ES-6, ES-11, ES-12, 

ES-13, 1-2, 1-4, 1-12, 2-4, 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 

2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-16, 2-19, 2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 

2-27, 2-28, 2-29, 2-30, 2-29, 2-30, 2-31, 2-32, 

2-33, 2-34, 2-35, 2-36, 2-37, 2-36, 2-37, 2-36, 

2-37, 2-38, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-40, 2-41, 2-40, 

2-41, 2-41, 2-42, 2-43, 2-44, 2-45, 2-46, 2-47, 

2-48, 2-49, 2-50, 2-50, 2-51, 2-52, 2-53, 2-54, 

2-54, 2-55, 2-56, 2-57, 2-57, 2-58, 2-59, 2-60, 

2-61, 2-62, 2-63, 2-64, 3-7, 3-46, 3-49, 3-86, 

4-7, 4-11, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 

4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 

4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-37, 4-38, 4-38, 

4-39, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-42, 4-46, 4-48, 

4-49, 4-50, 4-54, 4-55, 4-57, 4-58, 4-61, 4-63, 

4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-75, 4-76, 

4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-83, 4-86, 4-87, 4-89, 4-90, 

4-91, 4-93, 4-94, 4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 4-99, 

4-103, 4-104, 4-105, 4-106, 4-111, 4-114, 

4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-119, 4-120, 4-121, 

4-122, 4-126, 4-130, 4-132, 4-133, 4-139, 

4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-149, 4-150, 

4-151, 4-152, 4-153, 4-154, 4-157, 4-161,

4-162, 4-164, 4-165, 4-166, 4-167, 4-168, 

4-169, 4-171, 4-172, 4-173, 4-175, 4-178, 

4-179, 4-180, 4-181, 4-182, 4-183, 4-190, 

4-191, 4-192, 4-193, 4-194, 5-8, 5-11, 5-12, 
Index

Index-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

5-13, 5-15, 5-16, 5-17, 5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-22, 

5-24, 5-25, 5-26, 5-28, 5-29, 5-31, 5-32, 5-42

Priority habitat, preliminary (PPH), ES-2, ES-3, 

ES-4, ES-5, ES-7, ES-12, 1-2, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 

1-10, 1-12, 1-13, 2-9, 2-39, 2-45, 3-4, 3-7, 3-8, 

3-9, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 

3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-26, 3-29, 3-33, 

3-34, 3-35, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 3-43, 

3-44, 3-45, 3-46, 3-47, 3-48, 3-49, 3-50, 3-51, 

3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 3-55, 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 3-59, 

3-63, 3-64, 3-65, 3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 

3-81, 3-82, 3-83, 3-84, 3-85, 3-86, 3-87, 3-90, 

3-92, 3-93, 3-94, 3-96, 3-99, 3-105, 4-16, 

4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-31, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 

4-47, 4-114, 4-157, 5-11, 5-28

Proper functioning condition, 2-31, 2-33, 2-32, 

2-33, 2-49, 2-60, 3-31, 3-35, 3-37, 3-88, 4-50, 

4-53, 4-62, 4-109, 4-115, 4-117, 4-145, 4-147, 

4-148, 4-150, 4-153, 4-163, 4-178

Public access, 2-27, 3-59, 4-96, 4-98, 4-171

Rangeland health, 2-35, 2-47, 2-49, 2-55, 3-35, 

3-66, 4-10, 4-13, 4-18, 4-20, 4-35, 4-62, 4-67, 

4-108, 4-111, 4-112, 4-114, 4-117, 5-19

Raptor, 2-47, 3-13, 3-64, 3-93, 3-95, 3-96, 4-10, 

4-14, 4-26, 4-35, 4-52, 4-157, 4-176, 5-15, 

5-17

Record of Decision (ROD), ES-3, ES-6, ES-12, 

1-4, 1-13, 1-17, 1-19, 1-20, 2-3, 2-9, 2-21, 

2-23, 2-27, 2-44, 3-46, 3-49, 3-56, 3-60, 4-32, 

4-97, 4-98, 4-106, 5-11, 5-28, 5-29

Renewable energy, ES-7, 1-10, 1-12, 3-14, 3-26, 

3-27, 3-96, 3-97, 3-98, 3-99, 4-44, 4-45, 4-71, 

4-101, 4-103, 4-124, 4-135, 4-184, 4-185, 

5-21, 5-22, 5-43

Rights-of-way (ROW), ES-13, 2-5, 2-7, 2-10, 

2-12, 2-13, 2-21, 2-22, 2-23, 2-28, 2-29, 2-37, 

2-38, 2-44, 2-45, 2-46, 2-47, 2-48, 2-49, 2-50, 

2-52, 2-54, 2-56, 2-56, 2-58, 2-59, 2-61, 2-63, 

2-64, 2-65, 3-13, 3-14, 3-19, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 

3-26, 3-27, 3-54, 3-59, 3-71, 3-91, 3-97, 3-98, 

3-105, 4-3, 4-14, 4-16, 4-17, 4-22, 4-23, 4-25, 

4-27, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-34, 4-41, 4-44, 

4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-54, 4-57, 4-58, 

4-61, 4-64, 4-66, 4-68, 4-73, 4-75, 4-77, 4-78, 

4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 4-100, 

4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 4-105, 4-106, 

4-107, 4-111, 4-113, 4-114, 4-117, 4-119, 

4-121, 4-123, 4-124, 4-126, 4-134, 4-135, 

4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 4-139, 4-141, 4-143, 

4-144, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 4-151, 

4-153, 4-155, 4-158, 4-160, 4-161, 4-162, 

4-163, 4-165, 4-168, 4-171, 4-175, 4-177, 

4-178, 4-179, 4-180, 4-184, 4-185, 4-186, 

4-187, 4-188, 4-189, 4-190, 4-191, 4-193, 

4-194, 4-196, 4-197, 5-5, 5-6, 5-9, 5-12, 5-13, 

5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-24, 5-25, 5-26, 5-27, 

5-28, 5-29, 5-30, 5-32, 5-33, 5-34, 5-35, 5-36, 

5-37, 5-39, 5-40, 5-42, 5-43, 5-44

Sensitive species, 1-12, 2-33, 2-43, 2-44, 3-5, 

4-28, 4-29, 4-69, 4-156, 4-172, 4-194

Socioeconomics, ES-7, ES-8, ES-9, ES-10, 1-10, 

1-11, 1-15, 1-16, 3-100, 4-112, 5-44, 6-7

Soils, erodible, 4-62, 4-124

Soils, fragile, 3-71, 4-136

Special recreation management area (SRMA), 

2-54, 3-57, 3-58, 3-59, 4-46, 4-99, 4-100, 

4-101, 4-104, 4-105

Split estate, 4-2, 4-3, 4-46, 4-72, 4-86, 4-89, 

4-92, 4-101, 4-111, 4-120, 4-125, 4-129, 

4-132, 4-139, 4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-144, 

4-148, 4-150, 4-151, 4-152, 4-154, 4-185

Stipulation, Controlled surface use (CSU), 

4-100

Stipulation, No surface occupancy (NSO), 2-36, 

3-24, 4-100, 4-135, 4-158

Stipulation, Timing limitation (TL), 2-54, 4-45, 

4-82, 4-83, 4-84, 4-104

Threatened and endangered species, ES-1, ES-2, 

1-1, 1-2, 2-44, 2-65, 3-5, 4-6, 4-15, 4-20, 4-24, 

4-156, 4-173, 4-183, 4-194

Timber harvest, 2-44, 3-71

Travel management, ES-7, ES-8, 1-10, 1-11, 

1-20, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-10, 2-13, 2-22, 2-27, 

2-28, 2-41, 2-42, 2-44, 2-53, 3-2, 3-54, 4-19, 

4-23, 4-30, 4-32, 4-46, 4-71, 4-73, 4-77, 4-85, 

4-88, 4-92, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 4-99, 

4-101, 4-106, 4-110, 4-112, 4-119, 4-121, 

4-139, 4-149, 4-164, 4-171, 4-178, 5-29, 5-30, 

5-31, 5-32, 6-6, 6-7

Travel, dispersed, 4-112

Travel, mechanized, ES-7, 1-10, 2-22, 4-46, 4-73, 

4-112

Travel, motorized, 2-10, 2-12, 2-13, 2-27, 2-44, 

2-53, 3-14, 3-71, 4-49, 4-73, 4-77, 4-95, 4-96, 

4-101, 4-103, 4-106, 4-124, 4-125, 4-139, 

4-149, 4-156, 4-157, 4-175, 4-176, 5-29, 5-32

United States Forest Service, ES-3, 1-4, 1-6, 

1-14, 1-17, 1-18, 3-1, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-33, 

3-34, 3-39, 3-40, 3-45, 3-46, 3-47, 3-53, 3-55, 
Index

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Index-5

3-63, 3-64, 3-83, 3-93, 3-100, 3-103, 3-104, 

3-105, 3-106, 3-108, 5-4, 6-5, 6-7

Utility corridor, 3-21, 4-44, 4-100

Vegetation, invasive /noxious weeds, ES-7, 

ES-10, 1-10, 1-16, 2-29, 2-34, 2-41, 2-47, 

2-49, 2-62, 2-64, 3-12, 3-31, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 

3-61, 3-67, 3-69, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-14, 

4-15, 4-16, 4-20, 4-22, 4-23, 4-25, 4-26, 4-29, 

4-35, 4-36, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 

4-56, 4-62, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-69, 4-71, 4-72, 

4-111, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 4-117, 4-121, 

4-155, 4-157, 4-159, 4-161, 4-168, 4-175, 5-6, 

5-8, 5-9, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 5-15, 5-17, 5-18, 

5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-35, 5-39, 5-40, 5-41, 5-42

Vegetation, Riparian, 2-31, 2-32, 2-33, 2-32, 

2-33, 2-34, 2-42, 2-49, 2-60, 2-62, 2-64, 3-2, 

3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 

3-31, 3-34, 3-35, 3-37, 3-62, 3-84, 3-87, 3-88, 

3-89, 3-90, 4-6, 4-13, 4-15, 4-16, 4-18, 4-20, 

4-22, 4-24, 4-37, 4-50, 4-53, 4-55, 4-56, 4-59, 

4-60, 4-62, 4-63, 4-65, 4-109, 4-112, 4-115, 

4-117, 4-121, 4-145, 4-148, 4-150, 4-152, 

4-153, 4-159, 4-163, 4-164, 4-165, 4-169, 

4-172, 4-178, 4-182, 5-7, 5-14, 5-23, 5-24, 

5-35, 5-37, 5-40, 5-42, 6-6

Vegetation, wetlands, 2-31, 2-33, 2-32, 2-33, 

2-34, 2-34, 2-60, 3-2, 3-9, 3-11, 3-12, 3-28, 

3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-34, 3-35, 3-37, 3-84, 3-87, 

3-88, 4-6, 4-22, 4-50, 4-55, 4-61, 4-115, 

4-148, 4-153, 4-159, 4-169, 4-172, 4-182, 

5-23

Water quality, 2-31, 2-33, 3-30, 3-31, 3-84, 

3-85, 3-87, 3-88, 3-91, 3-106, 4-50, 4-109, 

4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 4-150, 

4-151, 4-152, 4-153, 4-157, 4-174, 4-175, 

4-176, 5-39

Water, groundwater, 3-30, 3-85, 3-87, 3-88, 

3-90, 4-145, 4-146

Water, surface water, 3-80, 3-84, 3-85, 3-87, 

4-82, 4-136, 4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 4-151, 

4-154

Watershed, 2-4, 2-13, 2-20, 2-30, 2-31, 2-32, 

2-33, 2-34, 2-35, 2-46, 3-5, 3-6, 3-14, 3-15, 

3-17, 3-18, 3-66, 3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 3-84, 3-85, 

3-86, 4-7, 4-9, 4-19, 4-27, 4-30, 4-31, 4-33, 

4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-109, 4-138, 4-145, 4-163, 

4-178, 5-7, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-16, 5-21, 5-26

West Nile virus, 2-20, 2-33, 2-34, 2-35, 2-37, 

3-84, 4-13, 4-19, 4-20, 4-36, 4-145, 4-146, 

4-148, 4-150, 4-151, 4-152, 4-153, 4-154, 

4-169, 5-38

Wilderness Characteristics, 1-14

Wilderness study area (WSA), 1-13, 1-14, 2-28, 

4-8, 4-161

Wildland fire, ES-7, 1-10, 2-5, 2-7, 2-40, 2-41, 

2-50, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-43, 4-51, 4-53, 

4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-74, 4-76, 4-110, 4-113, 

4-128, 4-131, 4-160, 4-173, 4-180, 4-195, 5-6, 

5-10, 5-16, 5-23, 5-26, 5-27, 5-31, 5-34, 5-35, 

5-37, 5-40, 5-41, 5-42, 5-44

Withdrawal, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-23, 2-24, 

2-30, 2-39, 2-38, 2-39, 2-38, 2-51, 3-19, 3-20, 

3-26, 4-22, 4-40, 4-39, 4-44, 4-45, 4-47, 4-49, 

4-57, 4-63, 4-65, 4-76, 4-78, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 

4-90, 4-91, 4-114, 4-118, 4-148, 4-154, 4-160, 

4-166, 4-171, 5-11, 5-21
Index

Index-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDICES

Appendix A

Figures

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS A-i

FIGURES

1-1 Project Planning Area

2-1 Rights-of-Way Avoidance Areas – Alternative A

2-2 Rights-of-Way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas – Alternative B

2-3 Rights-of-Way Exclusion Areas – Alternative C

2-4 Rights-Of-Way Avoidance Areas – Alternative D

2-5 Rights-Of-Way Wind Energy Avoidance Areas – Alternative D

2-6 Grazing Allotments Alternative A

2-7 Areas Open and Closed Grazing Allotments Alternative B and D

2-8 Areas Open and Closed Grazing Allotments Alternative C

2-9 Solid Leasable and Salable Minerals – Alternative A

2-10 Solid Leasable and Salable Minerals – Alternative B

2-11 Solid Leasable and Salable Minerals – Alternative C 

2-12 Solid Leasable and Salable Minerals – Alternative D

2-13 Withdrawals and Recommend for Withdrawal – Alternative A

2-14 Withdrawals and Recommend for Withdrawal – Alternative B

2-15 Withdrawals and Recommend for Withdrawal – Alternative C

2-16 Withdrawals and Recommend for Withdrawal – Alternative D

2-17 Area of Critical Environmental Concern – Alternative C

3-1 Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

3-2 Greater Sage-Grouse Breeding Density

3-3 Wetland and Riparian Areas

3-4 Fire Regime Condition Class

3-5 Fluid Minerals – Existing Leases

3-6 Recreation Management Areas

3-7 Resource Activity Plans – Grazing Authorization Renewal Areas

3-8 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

3-9 Major Soil Orders

3-10 NRCS Farmland Classification

3-11 Soil Restoration Potential

3-12 Water Features
A. Figures

A-ii Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

This page intentionally left blank.






























Appendix B

Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS B-1

APPENDIX B

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE DRAFT MONITORING 

FRAMEWORK

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Draft US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Greater Sagegrouse Monitoring Framework (hereafter, draft monitoring framework) is to 

evaluate the implementation and success of the BLM resource management 

plans (RMP) in maintaining and restoring habitat conditions necessary to support 

sustainable greater sage-grouse (hereafter, sage-grouse) populations. 

Monitoring data will also be used to help inform adaptive management under 

these plans.

This draft framework outlines the general monitoring approach, consisting of 

implementation monitoring and effectiveness monitoring. Implementation 

monitoring will evaluate whether (and to what extent) the RMP decisions to 

ameliorate threats to sage-grouse have been implemented. Effectiveness 

monitoring will consist of a multi-scale analysis of our habitat and disturbance 

monitoring data. Best available population data, provided by the states, will be 

used to supplement effectiveness analysis.

This draft monitoring framework establishes the use of measurable quantitative 

indicators for habitat availability and maintenance of habitat types (e.g., priority 

and general habitats) to ensure BLM’s ability to make broad (yet consistent) 

generalizations about habitat across the range of the species. Monitoring 

methods and indicators are derived from the best available science. Corporate 

data-sets will be established or acquired so that data can easily be “rolled up” 

for reporting monitoring results across the range of sage-grouse, as defined by 

Schroeder et al. (2004); by populations and subpopulations as defined by 

Connelly et al. (2004); by RMP area; by the six Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Sage-grouse Management Zones (Stiver et al. 

2006) covered by the planning efforts; by BLM Priority Habitat and General 

Habitat; and by Priority Areas for Conservation (PACs) as defined in the sage-
B. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

B-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

grouse Conservation Objectives Team (COT) Report (US Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2013). Funding support and dedicated personnel for broad- and midscale monitoring will be renewed annually through the normal budget process.

Sage-grouse are a landscape species, and conservation is a scale-dependent 

process whereby priority landscapes are identified across the species range and 

appropriate conservation actions are implemented within seasonal habitats to 

benefit populations. Following guidelines established by multiple agencies in the 

Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF; Stiver et al. 2010), this 

approach uses the four orders of sage-grouse habitat selection (Johnson 1980): 

first order (broad scale), second order (mid scale), third order (fine scale), and 

fourth order (site scale). Because RMP decisions are made largely at the broad 

and mid scale, this draft monitoring framework focuses on these two larger 

spatial scales. The need for fine- and site-scale habitat monitoring may vary by 

area depending on existing conditions, habitat variability, threats, and land 

health; however indicators at these scales will be consistent with the HAF. 

Thus, this draft monitoring framework includes methods, data standards, and 

intervals of monitoring at the broad and mid scales, while outlining indicators to 

be measured at all scales.

BROAD AND MID SCALES

First order habitat selection at the broad scale describes the selection of 

physical or geographical range of a species. There is one first order habitat, the 

range of the species defined by populations of sage-grouse associated with

sagebrush landscapes (Schroeder et al. 2004; Connelly et al. 2004). Additionally, 

there is an intermediate scale between the broad and mid scales that was 

delineated from floristic provinces within which similar environmental factors 

influence vegetation communities. This scale was developed by WAFWA and is 

referred to as the WAFWA Sage-grouse Management Zones.

Second order habitat selection at the mid-scale includes sage-grouse 

populations, subpopulations, and PACs. The second order includes at least 40 

discrete populations and subpopulations (Connelly et al. 2004). Subpopulations 

range in area from 300 to 22,400 square miles, while populations range in area 

from 150 to 54,600 square miles. PACs range from 20 to 20,400 square miles.

Broad- and mid-scale monitoring results will be reported at the appropriate and 

applicable geographic scale (Table B-1, Indicators for Monitoring 

Implementation of Decisions, Sage-grouse Habitat, and Sage-grouse Populations 

at the Broad and Mid Scales, and Diagram B-1, GRSG Priority Areas for 

Conservation, Subpopulations, and Populations).
B. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS B-3

Table B-1

Indicators for Monitoring Implementation of Decisions, Sage-grouse Habitat, and Sagegrouse Populations at the Broad and Mid Scales

Implementation Habitat Population 

(States)

Geographic 

Scales Decisions Disturbance Vegetation Demographics

Broad Scale: 

From the range 

of sage-grouse to 

WAFWA 

Management 

Zones

RMP objectives, 

thresholds, and 

management 

actions

Distribution of sagebrush within 

occupied habitat

WAFWA 

Management Zone

population level and 

population trends

Mid-Scale: From 

WAFWA 

Management 

Zone scale to 

subpopulation/

Priority Area for 

Conservation

scale

RMP decisions, 

vegetation/ midscale decisions

Percent of 

sagebrush per unit

area, 

anthropogenic 

footprint, density 

of energy 

development

Sagebrush patch 

characteristics, 

sage-grouse 

habitat indicators

Subpopulation scale, 

dispersal, and lek 

complex trends
B. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

B-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Diagram B-1. GRSG Priority Areas for Conservation, Subpopulations, and Populations
B. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS B-5

Implementation (Decision) Monitoring

The regulations for the BLM (43 CFR 1610.4-9) require that RMPs establish 

intervals and standards for monitoring and evaluations, based on the sensitivity 

of the resource decisions involved. Implementation monitoring is the process of 

tracking and documenting the implementation (or the progress toward 

implementation) of land use plan decisions. A Lewistown Field Office Greater 

Sage-Grouse Implementation Workbook will be completed within one year of 

the Record of Decision to track the number and type of applicable 

implementation actions related to each decision for each resource program, and 

maintained as actions occur. The BLM will be documenting progress annually 

toward full implementation of the RMP.

Habitat (Vegetation) Monitoring

The current geographic extent of sagebrush vegetation within the rangewide 

distribution of sage-grouse populations will be ascertained using the most recent 

version of the Existing Vegetation Type (EVT) layer in LANDFIRE (2006). 

LANDFIRE EVT was selected to serve as the base sagebrush layer for five 

reasons: 1) it is the only nationally consistent vegetation layer that has been 

updated since 2001; 2) the ecological systems classification includes multiple 

sagebrush type classes that, when aggregated, provide more accurate (compared 

to individual classes) and seamless sagebrush base layer across jurisdictional 

boundaries; 3) LANDFIRE performed a vigorous spatial accuracy assessment 

from which to derive the rangewide uncertainty of the base map 4) LANDFIRE 

EVT can be compared against the geographic extent of land that has the 

capability to support sagebrush vegetation using LANDFIRE Biophysical Setting 

(BpS) to provide a reference point for understanding how much sagebrush can 

be supported in a defined geographic area, and 5) LANDFIRE is consistently 

used in several recent analyses of sagebrush habitats (Knick et al, 2011, Leu and 

Hanser 2011, and Knick and Hanser 2011). Therefore, BLM has determined that 

LANDFIRE provides the best available data at broad and mid scales to serve as 

an initial base layer for monitoring habitat characteristics and by which 

disturbance changes are measured, incorporated, and reported. Along with the 

aggregated sagebrush base map, BLM will aggregate the accuracy assessment 

reports from LANDFIRE to document the cumulative accuracy for our final 

base map. Looking at the long-term, BLM through its AIM program and 

specifically the Landscape Monitoring Framework will provide field data to the 

LANDFIRE program to support overall accuracy improvements in their 

products.

Within isolated areas, field office-wide existing vegetation classification mapping 

and inventories are available that provide a much finer level of data than 

provided through LANDFIRE. Where available, these products are useful below 

the mid scale for establishing baseline conditions for monitoring. The fact that 

they are not available everywhere however limits their utility for monitoring at 

the broad and mid scale where consistency of data products is necessary 

regardless of land ownership.
B. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

B-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

The BLM is improving the quality of vegetation map products for broad and mid 

scale analyses through the Grass/Shrub mapping effort in partnership with the 

Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC). The Grass/Shrub 

mapping effort applies the Homer et al. (2009) methodology to spatially depict 

fractional percent cover estimates for four components range and west-wide. 

These four components are the percent cover of sagebrush vegetation, percent 

bare ground, percent herbaceous vegetation (grass and forbs combined), and 

percent shrubs. One of the benefits of the design of these fractional cover maps 

is that they facilitate monitoring “with-in” class variation. This “with-in” class 

variation can serve as one indicator of sagebrush quality that we cannot derive 

from vegetation type information from LANDFIRE.

The base sagebrush layer, whether derived from LANDFIRE or Grass/Shrub, 

will allow for estimation of mid-scale indicators, e.g. patch size and number, 

patch connectivity, linkage areas, and landscape matrix and edge effects (Stiver 

et al. 2010). The actual methods used to calculate these metric will be derived 

from existing literature (Knick et al, 2011, Leu and Hanser 2011, and Knick and 

Hanser 2011). Disturbance updates, generated annually, will be included into the 

base layer and the landscape metrics will be recalculated to examine changes in 

pattern and abundance of sagebrush at the various geographic boundaries. The 

appropriate geographic boundaries for this base layer include the range, 

management zone, population, subpopulation, and PAC. Other data sources 

would need to be used to report landscape metrics any finer than the PAC.

The sagebrush base layer and disturbance data provide the ability to calculate 

landscape metrics as one element of habitat monitoring at the broad and mid 

scales. Habitat quality, however, will be monitored using field data collected with 

a statistically valid sampling design (e.g., Landscape Monitoring Framework, a 

collaborative effort with NRCS on BLM-administered lands (USDI-BLM 2011); 

AIM monitoring data (Toevs et al. 2011); and see "II. Fine and Site Scales"). 

These efforts can quantify indices such as percent annual grasses, species 

composition, sagebrush height, and bare ground at the PAC scale with known 

error estimates that are continually reduced as more data are collected. Point 

data will also be used to enhance the accuracy and precision of the Shrub/Grass 

mapping product. This product can in turn provide additional information about 

habitat quality at the mid scale. Long term, BLM will be able to provide a suite of 

monitoring metrics for the PACs and larger scales that will provide a 

comprehensive view of sagebrush and sage-grouse habitat condition when 

combined with population data supplied by the states.

Habitat (Disturbance) Monitoring

Most of the decisions in this RMP are in response to “Factor A: The Present or 

Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range” in 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS’s) 2010 listing decision for sagegrouse (75 FR 13910 2010). The USFWS identified several “threats” affecting 

Factor A; therefore, the BLM will monitor the relative extent of these threats 
B. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS B-7

on sagebrush, both spatially and temporally, to report on conditions at the 

appropriate and applicable geographic scales and boundaries.

Disturbance data will include:

1. Agriculture

2. Urbanization

3. Habitat treatments

4. Wildfire

5. Invasive plants

6. Conifer encroachment

7. Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities)

8. Energy (coal mines)

9. Energy (wind towers)

10. Energy (solar fields)

11. Energy (geothermal)

12. Mining (active developments; locatable, leasable, salable)

13. Infrastructure (roads)

14. Infrastructure (railroads)

15. Infrastructure (power lines)

16. Infrastructure (communication towers)

17. Infrastructure (other vertical structures)

18. Other developed right-of-ways

Cumulative disturbance monitoring will aggregate these 18 threats into the 

following three general measures (see Attachment A, Geospatial data layers 

used to determine three factors for greater sage-grouse habitat disturbance 

monitoring at the broad and mid scales):

1. Percent of sagebrush per unit area

2. Percent of non-habitat (human footprint) per unit area 

3. Number of energy facilities and mining locations per unit area 

(density)

To accomplish disturbance monitoring, the BLM will begin with a base layer of 

sagebrush described previously in Habitat (Vegetation) Monitoring. Restored 

areas will also be considered when evaluating the percentage of sagebrush on 

the landscape.
B. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

B-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Next, the BLM will use the best available rangewide data (external and/or 

internal data) to evaluate anthropogenic and natural disturbances (direct 

physical footprint) of sage-grouse habitat based on threats listed in Factor A. 

The Sage-Grouse Baseline Environmental Report (BER; Manier et al. 2013) 

essentially provided a baseline collection of datasets across jurisdictions where 

available, however for some threats, the data were for federal lands only. Most 

of the data used in the BER were from external data sources; therefore, the 

BLM will use the most currently available versions to evaluate changes 

(additional footprints) from the baseline dataset. A subset of these data (e.g. fire 

perimeters, mine and energy sites), provided by BLM field and state offices will 

be updated and reported to agency headquarters annually. The BLM will report 

the change in footprints for each of the 18 threats as well as cumulatively for 

the three general measures described previously.

Population (Demographics) Monitoring

State wildlife management agencies are responsible for monitoring sage-grouse 

populations within their respective states. The BLM has initiated a process to 

establish that WAFWA will coordinate collection of annual population data by 

state agencies. To establish certainty that the data will be provided to the BLM, 

the existing memorandum of understanding signed by WAFWA, the BLM, the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the USFWS 

(http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Res

ources/fish_wildlife_and/sagegrouse.Par.6386.File.dat/MOU%20on%20Greater%20Sage-Grouse.pdf) could be 

revised to outline collaboration, process, and responsibilities for data analysis 

and transfer related to management of sage-grouse. These population data will 

be used for analysis at the applicable scale to supplement habitat effectiveness

monitoring of management actions.

Effectiveness Monitoring

The BLM will analyze the monitoring data to characterize the relationship 

among the disturbance, implementation actions, and habitat condition at the 

appropriate and applicable geographic scale or boundary to accomplish 

effectiveness monitoring for the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse 

RMPA. This will involve evaluating the change in habitat conditions from the 

baseline conditions in relation to the goals and objectives of the plan and other 

rangewide conservation strategies (US Department of the Interior 2004; Stiver 

et al. 2006; US Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). When available from WAFWA 

and/or state wildlife agencies, effectiveness monitoring can be supplemented 

with population trends (taking into consideration the lag effect response of 

populations to habitat changes [Garton et al. 2011]). The compilation of broad 

and mid-scale data (and population trends as available) will be on a five-year 

reporting schedule or as needed to respond to emerging issues. In addition, 

effectiveness monitoring will be used to identify emerging issues and research 

needs and will be consistent with and inform the BLM adaptive management 

strategy (see Chapter 2, Section 2.7, Adaptive Management).
B. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS B-9

FINE AND SITE SCALES

Third order habitat selection at the fine scale describes the physical and 

geographic area within home ranges. At this level, maps of seasonal habitats 

(breeding, summer, and winter) and the connectivity between these seasonal 

use areas can be examined to determine limiting factors for populations, 

subpopulations, and PACs.

Fourth order habitat selection at the site scale is based on physical conditions 

and the geographic area within seasonal ranges to meet life requisite needs (e.g., 

nesting and brood rearing). Specific habitat measures are used at this scale as 

microsite conditions within the seasonal range to determine distribution and 

use. These measures are typically sampled across a defined area to inform third 

order habitat selection.

Details and application of monitoring at these two scales will be determined 

during implementation of the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse 

RMPA. The need for fine- and site-scale specific habitat monitoring will vary by 

area depending on proposed projects, existing conditions, habitat variability, 

threats, and land health. For example, implementation monitoring will track 

decisions in priority habitat; habitat vegetation monitoring will be conducted to 

evaluate projects targeting sage-grouse habitat enhancement and/or restoration; 

habitat disturbance monitoring will be conducted where mid-scale monitoring 

indicates the need for fine-scaled anthropogenic disturbance footprints; and 

population monitoring (in cooperation with state wildlife agencies) will be 

analyzed below the subpopulation/PAC level where needed for more specific 

effectiveness monitoring (some RMP objectives, activity plans, development 

plans, leasing plans, etc.).

Habitat indicator data collected at the fine- and site-scales will be consistent 

with the HAF and information provided in the sage-grouse guidelines (Connelly 

et al. 2000) as well as the core indicators in the assessment, inventory and 

monitoring (AIM) strategy (Toevs et al. 2011). However the metrics for 

quantifying the indicators can be adjusted for local conditions. If local 

adjustments to metrics are made, the adjustments will be appropriate to the 

floristic province/sage-grouse management zone where the data were collected 

and reflect local plant productivity and sage-grouse habitat data collected within 

the area. In short, adjustments will be science-based (i.e., predicated on data 

collected locally and published in a peer-review outlet) and ecologically 

defensible (i.e., generally supported by the broad base of knowledge on 

sagebrush and sage-grouse provided in the peer-review literature). When 

evaluating the land health habitat standard in designated sage-grouse habitats, 

the BLM will analyze core indicators and other supplemental site scale sagegrouse habitat indicators (see HAF) as appropriate for the seasonal habitat. The 

activity level plans will describe a sampling scheme for collecting indicators with 

a non-biased sampling design for vegetation treatments or management actions 

implemented at the site scale. In addition, the consistent collection of these data 
B. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

B-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

will be used to inform the classification and interpretation of imagery and habitat 

quality at the mid scale as described above.

For examples of current applications of disturbance and reclamation monitoring 

at the fine scale, see the BLM Wyoming Density and Disturbance Calculation 

Tool (http://ddct.wygisc.org/) and the BLM White River Data Management 

System (WRDMS) in development with the USGS.

FINAL MONITORING PLAN

This draft monitoring framework was developed for draft environmental impact 

statements to describe the proposed monitoring activities for this plan. The 

BLM will consider public comments and collaborate with other agencies to 

finalize the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA Sage-grouse 

Monitoring Plan.

REFERENCES

Connelly, J.W., S.T Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation 

assessment of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, unpublished report, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. 

http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/docs/Greater_Sagegrouse_Conservation_Assessment_060404.pdf.

Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month findings for petitions 

to list the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened 

or endangered. Proposed Rule. 75 Fed. Reg. 13910 (March 23, 2010).

Garton, E.O., J.W. Connelly, J.S. Horne, C.A. Hagen, A. Moser, and M. 

Schroeder. 2011.Greater sage-grouse population dynamics and 

probability of persistence. Pp. 293 – 382 in S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly 

(editors). Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a 

landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian biology (vol. 38). 

University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Homer, C.G., Aldridge, C.L., Meyer, D.K., Coan, M.J., and Bowen, Z.H., 2009, 

Multiscale sagebrush rangeland habitat modeling in southwest Wyoming: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008–1027, 14 p.

Johnson, D. H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for 

evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61:65-71.

Knick, S. T., and J. W. Connelly (editors). 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology 

and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian 

Biology Series (vol. 38), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

LANDFIRE. 2006.National existing vegetation type layer. USDI Geological 

Survey. http://gisdata.usgs.net/website/lanfire/ (21 August 2009).
B. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS B-11

Manier, D.J., D.J.A Wood, Z.H. Bowen, R.M. Donovan, M.J. Holloran, L.M. 

Juliusson, K.S. Mayne, S.J. Oyler-McCance, F.R. Quamen, D.J. Saher, and 

A.J.Titolo 2013. Summary of science, activities, programs, and policies 

that influence the rangewide conservation of greater sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus): US Geological Survey Open–File Report 

2013–1098, 170 pp.

Schroeder, M.A., C.L. Aldridge, A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, C.E. Braun, S.D. Bunnell, 

J.W. Connelly, P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, G.D. Kobriger, 

S.M. McAdam, C.W. McCarthy, J.J. McCarthy, D.L. Mitchell, E.V. 

Rickerson, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Distribution of sage-grouse in North 

America. Condor 106: 363-376.

Stiver, S.J., A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, S.D. Bunnell, P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. 

Hilliard, C.W. McCarthy, and M.A. Schroeder. 2006. Greater sage‐

grouse comprehensive conservation strategy. Western Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished report. Cheyenne, WY, USA. 

http://www.wafwa.org/documents/pdf/GreaterSagegrouseConservationStrategy2006.pdf.

Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes, and D.E. Naugle. 2010. Sage‐grouse habitat assessment 

framework – a multi-scale habitat assessment tool. Bureau of Land 

Management Unpublished Report. US Department of the Interior, BLM, 

Idaho State Office, Boise, ID. 

http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/SG_HABITAT

ASESSMENT0000669.pdf.

Toevs, G.R., J.J. Taylor, C.S. Spurrier, W.C. MacKinnon, and M.R. Bobo. 2011. 

Assessment, inventory, and monitoring strategy: For integrated 

renewable resource management. US Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2004. Bureau of Land Management national 

sage-grouse habitat conservation strategy. US Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2011. 

BLM Memorandum of Understanding Washington Office 220-2011-02. 

BLM Washington Office, Washington D.C.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) conservation objectives: final report. US Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Denver, CO.
B. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

B-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

ATTACHMENT A, GEOSPATIAL DATA LAYERS USED TO DETERMINE THREE FACTORS FOR 

GRSG HABITAT DISTURBANCE MONITORING AT THE BROAD AND MID SCALES

Geospatial Data Layer Percent of 

Sagebrush

Percent of 

Non-habitat 

(Human 

Footprint)

Number of 

Energy and 

Mining 

Facilities

Sagebrush X

Areas with biotic potential for sagebrush X

Agriculture X

Urbanization X

Habitat treatments X

Wildfire X

Invasive plants X

Conifer encroachment X

Energy (oil and gas wells and development 

facilities) X X

Energy (coal mines) X X

Energy (wind towers) X X

Energy (solar fields) X X

Energy (geothermal) X X

Mining (active locatable, leasable, and salable 

developments) X

Infrastructure (roads) X

Infrastructure (railroads) X

Infrastructure (power lines) X

Infrastructure (communication towers) X

Infrastructure (other vertical structures) X

Other developed rights-of-ways X
Appendix C

Required Design Features and Best Management 

Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for 

Alternatives B and C

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS C-1

APPENDIX C

REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES AND BEST 

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR GREATER SAGEGROUSE HABITAT FOR ALTERNATIVES B AND C

INTRODUCTION

Required Design Features (RDFs) are a suite of features that would establish 

the minimum specifications for certain activities (i.e., water developments, fluid 

mineral development, and fire and fuels management) to help mitigate adverse 

impacts. In general, the design features are accepted practices that are known to 

be effective when implemented properly at the project level. However, their 

applicability and overall effectiveness cannot be fully assessed until the projectlevel when the project location and design are known. Because of site-specific 

circumstances, some features may not apply to some projects (e.g., a resource is 

not present on a given site) and/or may require slight variations (e.g., a larger or 

smaller protective area). All variations in design features would require 

appropriate analysis and disclosure as part of future project authorizations.

Additional mitigation measures may be identified and required during individual 

project development and environmental review, and it is not possible to list 

them all at the planning level.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) are a suite of techniques that guide or 

may be applied to management actions to aide in achieving desired outcomes.

BMPs are continuously improving as new science and technology become 

available and therefore are subject to change.

Alternatives Summary: There are no RDFs in the current Judith Resource 

Area and Headwaters Resource Management Plans (RMPs); therefore, 

Alternative A does not have any RDFs. The RDFs listed below apply where 

applicable and appropriate for Alternatives B and C in the Lewistown Field 

Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMP Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement.
C. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for 

Alternatives B and C

C-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

ALTERNATIVES B AND C REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES

Required Design Features for how to make a pond that won’t produce 

mosquitoes that transmit West Nile virus (from Doherty (2007)

1. Increase the size of ponds to accommodate a greater volume of 

water than is discharged. This will result in un‐vegetated and muddy 

shorelines that breeding Cx. tarsalis avoid (De Szalay and Resh 2000). 

This modification may reduce Cx. tarsalis habitat but could create 

larval habitat for Culicoides sonorensis, a vector of blue tongue 

disease, and should be used sparingly (Schmidtmann et al. 2000). 

Steep shorelines should be used in combination with this technique 

whenever possible (Knight et al. 2003).

2. Build steep shorelines to reduce shallow water (>60 centimeters 

[cm]) and aquatic vegetation around the perimeter of 

impoundments (Knight et al. 2003). Construction of steep 

shorelines also will create more permanent ponds that are a 

deterrent to colonizing mosquito species like Cx. tarsalis which 

prefer newly flooded sites with high primary productivity (Knight et 

al. 2003).

3. Maintain the water level below that of rooted vegetation for a 

muddy shoreline that is unfavorable habitat for mosquito larvae. 

Rooted vegetation includes both aquatic and upland vegetative 

types. Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low 

lying areas. Aquatic habitats with a vegetated inflow and outflow 

separated by open water produce 5‐10 fold fewer Culex 

mosquitoes than completely vegetated wetlands (Walton and 

Workman 1998). Wetlands with open water also had significantly 

fewer stage III and IV instars which may be attributed to increased 

predator abundances in open water habitats (Walton and Workman 

1998).

4. Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope seepage 

or overflow by digging ponds in flat areas rather than damming 

natural draws for effluent water storage, or lining constructed 

ponds in areas where seepage is anticipated (Knight et al. 2003).

5. Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with 

crushed rock, or use a horizontal pipe to discharge inflow directly 

into existing open water, thus precluding shallow surface inflow and 

accumulation of sediment that promotes aquatic vegetation.

6. Line the overflow spillway with crushed rock, and construct the 

spillway with steep sides to preclude the accumulation of shallow 

water and vegetation.
C. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for 

Alternatives B and C

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS C-3

7. Fence pond site to restrict access by livestock and other wild 

ungulates that trample and disturb shorelines, enrich sediments with 

manure and create hoof print pockets of water that are attractive 

to breeding mosquitoes.

Literature Cited

De Szalay, F.A. and V.H. Resh. 2000. Factors influencing macroinvertebrate 

colonization of seasonal wetlands: responses to emergent plant cover. 

Freshwater Biology. 45: 295‐308.

Doherty, M.K. 2007. Mosquito populations in the Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming: a comparison of natural, agricultural and effluent coal bed 

natural gas aquatic habitats. M.S. Thesis. Montana State University, 

Bozeman, U.S.A.

Knight, R.L., W.E. Walton, G.F. Meara, W.K. Riesen and R. Wass. 2003. 

Strategies for effective mosquito control in constructed treatment 

wetlands. Ecological Engineering. 21: 211‐232.

Schmidtmann, E.T., R.J. Bobian, R.P. Beldin. 2000. Soil chemistries define aquatic 

habitats with immature populations of the Culicoides variipennis complex 

(Diptera: Ceratopogonidae). Journal of Medical Entomology. 37: 38‐64.

Walton, W.E., and P.D. Workman. 1998. Effect of marsh design on the 

abundance of mosquitoes in experimental constructed wetlands in 

Southern California. Journal of the American mosquito control 

Association 14:95‐107.

REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES FOR FLUID MINERAL DEVELOPMENT

RDFs for Priority Sage-Grouse Habitat in Alternative B and All Sage-Grouse

Habitat in Alternative C

Roads

• Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary 

to accommodate their intended purpose.

• Locate roads to avoid important areas and habitats.

• Coordinate road construction and use among rights-of-way (ROW) 

holders.

• Construct road crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages and 

stream crossings.

• Establish speed limits on BLM system roads to reduce 

vehicle/wildlife collisions or design roads to be driven at slower 

speeds.
C. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for 

Alternatives B and C

C-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

• Establish trip restrictions or minimization through use of telemetry 

and remote well control (e.g., Supervisory Control and Data 

Acquisition).

• Do not issue ROWs to counties on newly constructed energy 

development roads, unless for a temporary use consistent with all 

other terms and conditions included in this document.

• Restrict vehicle traffic to only authorized users on newly 

constructed routes (use signing, gates, etc.).

• Use dust abatement practices on roads and pads.

• Close and rehabilitate duplicate roads.

Operations 

• Cluster disturbances, operations (fracture stimulation, liquids 

gathering, etc.), and facilities.

• Use directional and horizontal drilling to reduce surface disturbance.

• Place infrastructure in already disturbed locations where the habitat 

has not been restored.

• Consider using oak (or other material) mats for drilling activities to 

reduce vegetation disturbance and for roads between closely spaced 

wells to reduce soil compaction and maintain soil structure to 

increase likelihood of vegetation reestablishment following drilling.

• Apply a phased development approach with concurrent reclamation.

• Place liquid gathering facilities outside of priority areas. Have no 

tanks at well locations within priority areas (minimizes perching and 

nesting opportunities for ravens and raptors and truck traffic). 

Pipelines must be under or immediately adjacent to the road (Bui et 

al. 2010).

• Restrict the construction of tall facilities and fences to the minimum 

number and amount needed.

• Site and/or minimize linear ROWs to reduce disturbance to 

sagebrush habitats.

• Place new utility developments (power lines, pipelines, etc.) and 

transportation routes in existing utility or transportation corridors.

• Bury distribution power lines.

• Corridor power, flow, and small pipelines under or immediately 

adjacent to roads.

• Design or site permanent structures which create movement (e.g. a 

pump jack) to minimize impacts to sage-grouse.
C. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for 

Alternatives B and C

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS C-5

• Cover (e.g., fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques) all 

drilling and production pits and tanks regardless of size to reduce 

sage-grouse mortality.

• Equip tanks and other above ground facilities with structures or 

devices that discourage nesting of raptors and corvids.

• Control the spread and effects of non-native plant species (e.g. by

washing vehicles and equipment).

• Use only closed-loop systems for drilling operations and no reserve 

pits.

• Restrict pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate 

threats from West Nile virus (Doherty 2007).

• Remove or re-inject produced water to reduce habitat for 

mosquitoes that vector West Nile virus. If surface disposal of 

produced water continues, use the following steps for reservoir 

design to limit favorable mosquito habitat:

– Overbuild size of ponds for muddy and non-vegetated 

shorelines.

– Build steep shorelines to decrease vegetation and increase 

wave actions.

– Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low 

lying areas.

– Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope 

seepage or overflow.

– Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond 

with crushed rock.

– Construct spillway with steep sides and line it with crushed 

rock.

– Treat waters with larvicides to reduce mosquito production 

where water occurs on the surface.

• Limit noise to less than 10 decibels above ambient measures (20-24 

dBA) at sunrise at the perimeter of a lek during active lek season 

(Patricelli et al. 2010, Blickley et al. In preparation).

• Require noise shields when drilling during the lek, nesting, 

broodrearing, or wintering season.

• Fit transmission towers with anti-perch devices (Lammers and 

Collopy 2007).

• Require sage-grouse-safe fences.
C. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for 

Alternatives B and C

C-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

• Locate new compressor stations outside priority habitats (PH) and 

design them to reduce noise that may be directed towards PH.

• Clean up refuse.

• Locate man camps outside of PH.

Reclamation

• Include objectives for ensuring habitat restoration to meet sagegrouse habitat needs in reclamation practices/sites (Pyke 2011). 

Address post reclamation management in reclamation plan such that 

goals and objectives are to protect and improve sage-grouse habitat 

needs.

• Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long-term access roads 

and well pads including reshaping, topsoiling and revegetating cut 

and fill slopes.

• Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to the pre-disturbance 

landforms and desired plant community.

• Irrigate interim reclamation if necessary for establishing seedlings 

more quickly.

• Utilize mulching techniques to expedite reclamation and to protect 

soils.

Literature Cited

Blickley, J.L., D. Blackwood, and G.L. Patricelli. In preparation. Experimental 

evidence for avoidance of chronic anthropogenic noise by greater sage‐

grouse. University of California‐Davis, California, USA.

Bui, T.D., J.M. Marzluff, and B. Bedrosian. 2010. Common raven activity in 

relation to land use in western Wyoming: implications for greater sage‐

grouse reproductive success. Condor 112:65‐78.

Doherty, M.K. 2007. Mosquito populations in the Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming: a comparison of natural, agricultural and effluent coal‐bed 

natural gas aquatic habitats. M.S. thesis, Montana State University, 

Bozeman, Montana, USA.

Evangelista, P.H., A.W. Crall, and E. Bergquist. 2011. Invasive plants and their 

response to energy development. Pages 115‐129 in D.E. Naugle, editor. 

Energy development and wildlife conservation in western North 

America. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Lammers, W.M., and M.W. Collopy. 2007. Effectiveness of avian predator perch 

deterrents on electric transmission lines. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 71:2752‐2758.
C. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for 

Alternatives B and C

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS C-7

Lyon, A.G. and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage 

grouse nest initiation and movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 486‐

491.

Patricelli, G.L., J.L. Blickley, and S. Hooper. 2010. Incorporating the impacts of 

noise pollution into greater sage‐grouse conservation planning. 27th 

Meeting of the Western Agencies Sage and Columbian Sharp‐tailed 

Grouse Technical Committee Workshop. Twin Falls, Idaho, USA.

Pyke, D.A. 2011. Restoring and rehabilitating sagebrush habitats. Pp. 531‐548 in 

S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly (editors). Greater sage‐grouse: ecology 

and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian 

Biology 38. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES FOR FIRE & FUELS MANAGEMENT

RDFs for Priority Sage-Grouse Habitat in Alternative B and All Sage-Grouse 

Habitat in Alternative C

Fuels Management

1. Where applicable, design fuels treatment objectives to protect 

existing sagebrush ecosystems, modify fire behavior, restore native 

plants, and create landscape patterns which most benefit sagegrouse habitat.

2. Provide training to fuels treatment personnel on sage-grouse 

biology, habitat requirements, and identification of areas utilized 

locally.

3. Use burning prescriptions which minimize undesirable effects on 

vegetation or soils (e.g., minimize mortality of desirable perennial 

plant species and reduce risk of annual grass invasion).

4. Ensure proposed sagebrush treatments are planned with full 

interdisciplinary input pursuant to National Environmental Policy 

Act and coordination with state fish and wildlife agencies, and that 

treatment acreage is conservative in the context of surrounding 

sage-grouse seasonal habitats and landscape.

5. Where appropriate, ensure that treatments are configured in a 

manner that promotes use by sage-grouse.

6. Where applicable, incorporate roads and natural fuel breaks into 

fuel break design.

7. Power-wash all vehicles and equipment involved in fuels 

management activities, prior to entering the area, to minimize the 

introduction of undesirable and/or invasive plant species.
C. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for 

Alternatives B and C

C-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

8. Design vegetation treatments in areas of high fire frequency which 

facilitate firefighter safety, reduce the potential acres burned, and 

reduce the fire risk to sage-grouse habitat. Additionally, develop 

maps for sage-grouse habitat which spatially display current fuels 

treatment opportunities for suppression resources.

9. Give priority for implementing specific sage-grouse habitat 

restoration projects in annual grasslands, first to sites which are 

adjacent to or surrounded by PH or that reestablish continuity 

between priority habitats. Annual grasslands are a second priority 

for restoration when the sites are not adjacent to PH, but within 

two miles of PH. The third priority for annual grassland habitat 

restoration projects are sites beyond two miles of PH. The intent is 

to focus restoration outward from existing, intact habitat.

10. As funding and logistics permit, restore annual grasslands to a 

species composition characterized by perennial grasses, forbs, and 

shrubs or one of that referenced in land use planning 

documentation.

11. Emphasize the use of native plant species, recognizing that nonnative species may be necessary depending on the availability of 

native seed and prevailing site conditions.

12. Remove standing and encroaching trees within at least 100 meters 

of occupied sage-grouse leks and other habitats (e.g., nesting, 

wintering and brood rearing) to reduce the availability of perch sites 

for avian predators, as resources permit.

13. Protect wildland areas from wildfire originating on private lands, 

infrastructure corridors, and recreational areas.

14. Reduce the risk of vehicle- or human-caused wildfires and the 

spread of invasive species by planting perennial vegetation (e.g., 

green-strips) paralleling road rights-of-way.

15. Strategically place and maintain pre-treated strips/areas (e.g., 

mowing, herbicide application, etc.) to aid in controlling wildfire, 

should wildfire occur near PH or important restoration areas (such 

as where investments in restoration have already been made).

Fire Operations

1. Compile district-level information into state-wide sage-grouse tool 

boxes. Tool boxes will contain maps, listing of resource advisors, 

contact information, local guidance, and other relevant information 

for each district, which will be aggregated into a state-wide 

document.
C. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for 

Alternatives B and C

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS C-9

2. Provide localized maps to dispatch offices and extended attack 

incident commanders for use in prioritizing wildfire suppression 

resources and designing suppression tactics.

3. Assign a resource advisor with sage-grouse expertise, or who has 

access to sage-grouse expertise, to all extended attack fires in or 

near sage-grouse habitat areas. Prior to the fire season, provide 

training to sage-grouse resource advisors on wildfire suppression 

organization, objectives, tactics, and procedures to develop a cadre 

of qualified individuals.

4. On critical fire weather days, pre-position additional fire 

suppression resources to optimize a quick and efficient response in 

sage-grouse habitat areas.

5. As appropriate, utilize existing fuel breaks, such as roads or discrete 

changes in fuel type, as control lines in order to minimize fire 

spread.

6. During periods of multiple fires, ensure line officers are involved in 

setting priorities.

7. To the extent possible, locate wildfire suppression facilities (i.e., 

base camps, spike camps, drop points, staging areas, heli-bases, etc.) 

in areas where physical disturbance to sage-grouse habitat can be 

minimized. These include disturbed areas, grasslands, near 

roads/trails or in other areas where there is existing disturbance or 

minimal sagebrush cover.

8. Power-wash all firefighting vehicles, to the extent possible, including 

engines, water tenders, personnel vehicles, and all-terrain vehicles 

prior to deploying in or near sage-grouse habitat areas to minimize 

noxious weed spread.

9. Minimize unnecessary cross-country vehicle travel during fire 

operations in sage-grouse habitat.

10. Minimize burnout operations in key sage-grouse habitat areas by 

constructing direct fireline whenever safe and practical to do so.

11. Utilize retardant, mechanized equipment, and other available 

resources to minimize burned acreage during initial attack.

12. As safety allows, conduct mop-up where the black adjoins unburned 

islands, dog legs, or other habitat features to minimize sagebrush 

loss.

13. Adequately document fire operation activities in sage-grouse habitat 

for potential follow-up coordination activities.
C. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for 

Alternatives B and C

C-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

ALTERNATIVES B AND C SOLID MINERAL DEVELOPMENT – REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES 

AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Introduction

The following measures outlined would be applied as RDFs for solid minerals, 

except locatable minerals. The measures outlined below would be applied as 

recommended BMPs for locatable minerals. The RDFs or BMPs would be 

applied as appropriate in PH and GH, and to the extent allowable by law (i.e., to 

prevent unnecessary and undue degradation). For example, Alternative B 

proposes to withdraw PH from locatable mineral entry; therefore, these 

measures would not be relevant to PH, but would apply to GH. Alternative C 

proposes to withdraw locatable minerals from both PH and GH; therefore, 

these measures would not be necessary.

Roads

• Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary 

to accommodate their intended purpose.

• Locate roads to avoid important areas and habitats.

• Coordinate road construction and use among ROW holders.

• Construct road crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages and 

stream crossings.

• Establish speed limits on BLM system roads to reduce 

vehicle/wildlife collisions or design roads to be driven at slower 

speeds.

• Do not issue ROWs to counties on mining development roads, 

unless for a temporary use consistent with all other terms and 

conditions included in this document.

• Restrict vehicle traffic to only authorized users on newly 

constructed routes (e. g., use signing, gates, etc.).

• Use dust abatement practices on roads and pads.

• Close and reclaim duplicate roads, by restoring original landform 

and establishing desired vegetation.

Operations

• Cluster disturbances associated with operations and facilities as 

close as possible.

• Place infrastructure in already disturbed locations where the habitat 

has not been restored.

• Restrict the construction of tall facilities and fences to the minimum 

number and amount needed.
C. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for 

Alternatives B and C

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS C-11

• Site and/or minimize linear ROWs to reduce disturbance to 

sagebrush habitats.

• Place new utility developments (power lines, pipelines, etc.) and 

transportation routes in existing utility or transportation corridors.

• Bury power lines.

• Cover (e.g., fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques) all 

pits and tanks regardless of size to reduce sage‐grouse mortality.

• Equip tanks and other above ground facilities with structures or 

devices that discourage nesting of raptors and corvids.

• Control the spread and effects of non‐native plant species (Gelbard 

and Belnap 2003, Bergquist et al. 2007).

• Restrict pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate 

threats from West Nile virus (Doherty 2007).

• Remove or re‐inject produced water to reduce habitat for 

mosquitoes that vector West Nile virus. If surface disposal of 

produced water continues, use the following steps for reservoir 

design to limit favorable mosquito habitat:

– Overbuild size of ponds for muddy and non‐vegetated 

shorelines.

– Build steep shorelines to decrease vegetation and increase 

wave actions.

– Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low 

lying areas.

– Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope 

seepage or overflow.

– Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond 

with crushed rock.

– Construct spillway with steep sides and line it with crushed 

rock.

– Treat waters with larvicides to reduce mosquito production 

where water occurs on the surface.

• Require sage‐grouse‐safe fences around sumps.

• Clean up refuse (Bui et al. 2010).

• Locate man camps outside of PH.

Reclamation

• Include restoration objectives to meet sage‐grouse habitat needs in 

reclamation practices/sites.
C. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for 

Alternatives B and C

C-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

• Address post reclamation management in reclamation plan such that 

goals and objectives are to protect and improve sage‐grouse habitat 

needs.

• Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long‐term access roads 

and well pads including reshaping, topsoiling and revegetating cut 

and fill slopes.

• Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to pre‐disturbance 

landform and desired plant community.

• Irrigate interim reclamation as necessary during dry periods.

• Utilize mulching techniques to expedite reclamation.

Literature Cited

Bergquist, E., P. Evangelista, T. J. Stohlgren, and N. Alley. 2007. Invasive species 

and coal bed methane development in the Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 128:381‐394.

Bui, T.D., J.M. Marzluff, and B. Bedrosian. 2010. Common raven activity in 

relation to land use in western Wyoming: implications for greater sage‐

grouse reproductive success. Condor 112:65‐78.

Doherty, M.K. 2007. Mosquito populations in the Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming: a comparison of natural, agricultural and effluent coal bed 

natural gas aquatic habitats. Thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman, 

U.S.A.

Gelbard, J.L., and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in 

a semiarid landscape. Conservation Biology 17:420‐432.
Appendix D

Required Design Features and Best Management 

Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for 

Alternative D

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS D-1

APPENDIX D

REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES AND BEST 

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR GREATER SAGEGROUSE HABITAT FOR ALTERNATIVE D

INTRODUCTION

Required Design Features (RDFs) are a suite of features that would establish 

the minimum specifications for certain activities (i.e., water developments, fluid 

mineral development, and fire and fuels management) to help mitigate adverse 

impacts. In general, the design features are accepted practices that are known to 

be effective when implemented properly at the project level. However, their 

applicability and overall effectiveness cannot be fully assessed until the projectlevel when the project location and design are known. Because of site-specific 

circumstances, some features may not apply to some projects (e.g., a resource is 

not present on a given site) and/or may require slight variations (e.g., a larger or 

smaller protective area). All variations in design features would require 

appropriate analysis and disclosure as part of future project authorizations. 

Additional mitigation measures may be identified and required during individual 

project development and environmental review, and it is not possible to list 

them all at the planning level.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) are a suite of techniques that guide or 

may be applied to management actions to aide in achieving desired outcomes. 

BMPs are continuously improving as new science and technology become 

available and therefore are subject to change.

Alternatives Summary: There are no RDFs in the current Judith Resource 

Area and Headwaters Resource Management Plans (RMPs); therefore, 

Alternative A does not have any RDFs. The RDFs listed below apply where 

applicable and appropriate for Alternative D, in the Lewistown Field Office 

Greater Sage-Grouse RMP Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement.
D. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D

D-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

ALTERNATIVE D REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES

Required Design Features for how to make a pond that won’t produce 

mosquitoes that transmit West Nile virus (from Doherty (2007)

1. Increase the size of ponds to accommodate a greater volume of 

water than is discharged. This will result in un‐vegetated and muddy 

shorelines that breeding Cx. tarsalis avoid (De Szalay and Resh 2000). 

This modification may reduce Cx. tarsalis habitat but could create 

larval habitat for Culicoides sonorensis, a vector of blue tongue 

disease, and should be used sparingly (Schmidtmann et al. 2000). 

Steep shorelines should be used in combination with this technique 

whenever possible (Knight et al. 2003).

2. Build steep shorelines to reduce shallow water (>60 centimeters 

[cm]) and aquatic vegetation around the perimeter of 

impoundments (Knight et al. 2003). Construction of steep 

shorelines also will create more permanent ponds that are a 

deterrent to colonizing mosquito species like Cx. tarsalis which 

prefer newly flooded sites with high primary productivity (Knight et 

al. 2003).

3. Maintain the water level below that of rooted vegetation for a 

muddy shoreline that is unfavorable habitat for mosquito larvae. 

Rooted vegetation includes both aquatic and upland vegetative 

types. Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low 

lying areas. Aquatic habitats with a vegetated inflow and outflow 

separated by open water produce 5‐10 fold fewer Culex 

mosquitoes than completely vegetated wetlands (Walton and 

Workman 1998). Wetlands with open water also had significantly 

fewer stage III and IV instars which may be attributed to increased 

predator abundances in open water habitats (Walton and Workman 

1998).

4. Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope seepage 

or overflow by digging ponds in flat areas rather than damming 

natural draws for effluent water storage, or lining constructed 

ponds in areas where seepage is anticipated (Knight et al. 2003).

5. Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with 

crushed rock, or use a horizontal pipe to discharge inflow directly 

into existing open water, thus precluding shallow surface inflow and 

accumulation of sediment that promotes aquatic vegetation.

6. Line the overflow spillway with crushed rock, and construct the 

spillway with steep sides to preclude the accumulation of shallow 

water and vegetation.
D. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS D-3

7. Fence pond site to restrict access by livestock and other wild 

ungulates that trample and disturb shorelines, enrich sediments with 

manure and create hoof print pockets of water that are attractive 

to breeding mosquitoes.

Literature Cited

De Szalay, F.A. and V.H. Resh. 2000. Factors influencing macroinvertebrate 

colonization of seasonal wetlands: responses to emergent plant cover. 

Freshwater Biology. 45: 295‐308.

Doherty, M.K. 2007. Mosquito populations in the Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming: a comparison of natural, agricultural and effluent coal bed 

natural gas aquatic habitats. M.S. Thesis. Montana State University, 

Bozeman, U.S.A.

Knight, R.L., W.E. Walton, G.F. Meara, W.K. Riesen and R. Wass. 2003. 

Strategies for effective mosquito control in constructed treatment 

wetlands. Ecological Engineering. 21: 211‐232.

Schmidtmann, E.T., R.J. Bobian, R.P. Beldin. 2000. Soil chemistries define aquatic 

habitats with immature populations of the Culicoides variipennis complex 

(Diptera: Ceratopogonidae). Journal of Medical Entomology. 37: 38‐64.

Walton, W.E., and P.D. Workman. 1998. Effect of marsh design on the 

abundance of mosquitoes in experimental constructed wetlands in 

Southern California. Journal of the American mosquito control 

Association 14:95‐107.

REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES FOR FLUID MINERAL DEVELOPMENT IN PRIORITY AND 

GENERAL HABITAT

Roads

• Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary 

to accommodate their intended purpose.

• Locate roads to avoid important areas and habitats.

• Coordinate road construction and use among rights-of-way (ROW)

holders. 

• Construct road crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages and 

stream crossings.

• Establish speed limits on BLM system roads to reduce 

vehicle/wildlife collisions or design roads to be driven at slower 

speeds.

• Establish trip restrictions or minimization through use of telemetry 

and remote well control (e.g., Supervisory Control and Data 

Acquisition).
D. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D

D-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

• Do not issue ROWs to counties on newly constructed energy 

development roads, unless for a temporary use consistent with all 

other terms and conditions included in this document.

• Restrict vehicle traffic to only authorized users on newly 

constructed routes (use signing, gates, etc.).

• Use dust abatement practices on roads and pads.

• Close and rehabilitate duplicate roads, by restoring original 

landform and establishing desired vegetation.

Operations

• Cluster disturbances, operations (fracture stimulation, liquids 

gathering, etc.), and facilities.

• Use directional and horizontal drilling to reduce surface disturbance.

• Place infrastructure in already disturbed locations where the habitat 

has not been restored.

• Consider using oak (or other material) mats for drilling activities to 

reduce vegetation disturbance and for roads between closely spaced 

wells to reduce soil compaction and maintain soil structure to 

increase likelihood of vegetation reestablishment following drilling.

• Apply a phased development approach with concurrent reclamation.

• Place liquid gathering facilities outside of priority areas. Have no 

tanks at well locations within priority areas (minimizes perching and 

nesting opportunities for ravens and raptors and truck traffic). 

Pipelines must be under or immediately adjacent to the road (Bui et 

al. 2010).

• Restrict the construction of tall facilities and fences to the minimum 

number and amount needed.

• Site and/or minimize linear ROWs to reduce disturbance to 

sagebrush habitats.

• Place new utility developments (power lines, pipelines, etc.) and 

transportation routes in existing utility or transportation corridors.

• Bury distribution power lines.

• Corridor power, flow, and small pipelines under or immediately 

adjacent to roads.

• Design or site permanent structures which create movement (e.g. a 

pump jack) to minimize impacts to sage-grouse.

• Cover (e.g., fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques) all 

drilling and production pits and tanks regardless of size to reduce 

sage-grouse mortality.
D. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS D-5

• Equip tanks and other above ground facilities with structures or 

devices that discourage nesting of raptors and corvids.

• Control the spread and effects of non-native plant species (e.g. by

washing vehicles and equipment).

• Use only closed-loop systems for drilling operations and no reserve 

pits.

• Restrict pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate 

threats from West Nile virus (Doherty 2007).

• Remove or re-inject produced water to reduce habitat for 

mosquitoes that vector West Nile virus. If surface disposal of 

produced water continues, use the following steps for reservoir 

design to limit favorable mosquito habitat:

– Overbuild size of ponds for muddy and non-vegetated 

shorelines.

– Build steep shorelines to decrease vegetation and increase 

wave actions.

– Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low 

lying areas.

– Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope 

seepage or overflow.

– Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond 

with crushed rock.

– Construct spillway with steep sides and line it with crushed 

rock.

– Treat waters with larvicides to reduce mosquito production 

where water occurs on the surface.

• Limit noise to less than 10 decibels above ambient measures (20-24 

dBA) at sunrise at the perimeter of a lek during active lek season 

(Patricelli et al. 2010, Blickley et al. In preparation).

• Require noise shields when drilling during the lek, nesting, 

broodrearing, or wintering season.

• Fit transmission towers with anti-perch devices (Lammers and 

Collopy 2007).

• Require sage-grouse-safe fences.

• Locate new compressor stations outside priority habitats (PH) and 

design them to reduce noise that may be directed towards PH.

• Clean up refuse.

• Locate man camps outside of PH.
D. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D

D-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

• Use remote monitoring techniques for production facilities and 

develop a plan to reduce the frequency of vehicle use.

Reclamation

• Include objectives for ensuring habitat restoration to meet sagegrouse habitat needs in reclamation practices/sites (Pyke 2011). 

Address post reclamation management in reclamation plan such that 

goals and objectives are to protect and improve sage-grouse habitat 

needs.

• Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long-term access roads 

and well pads including reshaping, topsoiling and revegetating cut 

and fill slopes.

• Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to the pre-disturbance 

landforms and desired plant community.

• Irrigate interim reclamation if necessary for establishing seedlings 

more quickly.

• Utilize mulching techniques to expedite reclamation and to protect 

soils.

Literature Cited

Blickley, J.L., D. Blackwood, and G.L. Patricelli. In preparation. Experimental 

evidence for avoidance of chronic anthropogenic noise by greater sage‐

grouse. University of California‐Davis, California, USA.

Bui, T.D., J.M. Marzluff, and B. Bedrosian. 2010. Common raven activity in 

relation to land use in western Wyoming: implications for greater sage‐

grouse reproductive success. Condor 112:65‐78.

Doherty, M.K. 2007. Mosquito populations in the Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming: a comparison of natural, agricultural and effluent coal‐bed 

natural gas aquatic habitats. M.S. thesis, Montana State University, 

Bozeman, Montana, USA.

Evangelista, P.H., A.W. Crall, and E. Bergquist. 2011. Invasive plants and their 

response to energy development. Pages 115‐129 in D.E. Naugle, editor. 

Energy development and wildlife conservation in western North 

America. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Lammers, W.M., and M.W. Collopy. 2007. Effectiveness of avian predator perch 

deterrents on electric transmission lines. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 71:2752‐2758.

Lyon, A.G. and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage 

grouse nest initiation and movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 486‐

491.
D. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS D-7

Patricelli, G.L., J.L. Blickley, and S. Hooper. 2010. Incorporating the impacts of 

noise pollution into greater sage‐grouse conservation planning. 27th 

Meeting of the Western Agencies Sage and Columbian Sharp‐tailed 

Grouse Technical Committee Workshop. Twin Falls, Idaho, USA.

Pyke, D.A. 2011. Restoring and rehabilitating sagebrush habitats. Pp. 531‐548 in 

S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly (editors). Greater sage‐grouse: ecology 

and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian 

Biology 38. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES FOR FIRE & FUELS MANAGEMENT IN PRIORITY HABITAT

Fuels Management

1. Where applicable, design fuels treatment objectives to protect 

existing sagebrush ecosystems, modify fire behavior, restore native 

plants, and create landscape patterns which most benefit sagegrouse habitat.

2. Provide training to fuels treatment personnel on sage-grouse 

biology, habitat requirements, and identification of areas utilized 

locally.

3. Use burning prescriptions which minimize undesirable effects on 

vegetation or soils (e.g., minimize mortality of desirable perennial 

plant species and reduce risk of annual grass invasion).

4. Ensure proposed sagebrush treatments are planned with full 

interdisciplinary input pursuant to National Environmental Policy 

Act and coordination with state fish and wildlife agencies, and that 

treatment acreage is conservative in the context of surrounding 

sage-grouse seasonal habitats and landscape.

5. Where appropriate, ensure that treatments are configured in a 

manner that promotes use by sage-grouse.

6. Where applicable, incorporate roads and natural fuel breaks into 

fuel break design.

7. Power-wash all vehicles and equipment involved in fuels 

management activities, prior to entering the area, to minimize the 

introduction of undesirable and/or invasive plant species.

8. Design vegetation treatments in areas of high fire frequency which 

facilitate firefighter safety, reduce the potential acres burned, and 

reduce the fire risk to sage-grouse habitat. Additionally, develop 

maps for sage-grouse habitat which spatially display current fuels 

treatment opportunities for suppression resources.
D. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D

D-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

9. Give priority for implementing specific sage-grouse habitat 

restoration projects in annual grasslands, first to sites which are 

adjacent to or surrounded by PH or that reestablish continuity 

between priority habitats. Annual grasslands are a second priority 

for restoration when the sites are not adjacent to PH, but within 

two miles of PH. The third priority for annual grassland habitat 

restoration projects are sites beyond two miles of PH. The intent is 

to focus restoration outward from existing, intact habitat.

10. As funding and logistics permit, restore annual grasslands to a 

species composition characterized by perennial grasses, forbs, and 

shrubs or one of that referenced in land use planning 

documentation.

11. Emphasize the use of native plant species, recognizing that nonnative species may be necessary depending on the availability of 

native seed and prevailing site conditions.

12. Remove standing and encroaching trees within at least 100 meters 

of occupied sage-grouse leks and other habitats (e.g., nesting, 

wintering and brood rearing) to reduce the availability of perch sites 

for avian predators, as resources permit.

13. Protect wildland areas from wildfire originating on private lands, 

infrastructure corridors, and recreational areas.

14. Reduce the risk of vehicle- or human-caused wildfires and the 

spread of invasive species by planting perennial vegetation (e.g., 

green-strips) paralleling road rights-of-way.

15. Strategically place and maintain pre-treated strips/areas (e.g., 

mowing, herbicide application, etc.) to aid in controlling wildfire, 

should wildfire occur near PH or important restoration areas (such 

as where investments in restoration have already been made).

Fire Operations

1. Compile district-level information into state-wide sage-grouse tool 

boxes. Tool boxes will contain maps, listing of resource advisors, 

contact information, local guidance, and other relevant information 

for each district, which will be aggregated into a state-wide 

document.

2. Provide localized maps to dispatch offices and extended attack 

incident commanders for use in prioritizing wildfire suppression 

resources and designing suppression tactics.

3. Assign a resource advisor with sage-grouse expertise, or who has 

access to sage-grouse expertise, to all extended attack fires in or 
D. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS D-9

near sage-grouse habitat areas. Prior to the fire season, provide 

training to sage-grouse resource advisors on wildfire suppression 

organization, objectives, tactics, and procedures to develop a cadre 

of qualified individuals.

4. On critical fire weather days, pre-position additional fire 

suppression resources to optimize a quick and efficient response in 

sage-grouse habitat areas.

5. As appropriate, utilize existing fuel breaks, such as roads or discrete 

changes in fuel type, as control lines in order to minimize fire 

spread.

6. During periods of multiple fires, ensure line officers are involved in 

setting priorities.

7. To the extent possible, locate wildfire suppression facilities (i.e., 

base camps, spike camps, drop points, staging areas, heli-bases, etc.) 

in areas where physical disturbance to sage-grouse habitat can be 

minimized. These include disturbed areas, grasslands, near 

roads/trails or in other areas where there is existing disturbance or 

minimal sagebrush cover.

8. Power-wash all firefighting vehicles, to the extent possible, including 

engines, water tenders, personnel vehicles, and all-terrain vehicles

prior to deploying in or near sage-grouse habitat areas to minimize 

noxious weed spread.

9. Minimize unnecessary cross-country vehicle travel during fire 

operations in sage-grouse habitat.

10. Minimize burnout operations in key sage-grouse habitat areas by 

constructing direct fireline whenever safe and practical to do so.

11. Utilize retardant, mechanized equipment, and other available 

resources to minimize burned acreage during initial attack.

12. As safety allows, conduct mop-up where the black adjoins unburned 

islands, dog legs, or other habitat features to minimize sagebrush 

loss.

13. Adequately document fire operation activities in sage-grouse habitat 

for potential follow-up coordination activities.

ALTERNATIVES D SOLID MINERAL DEVELOPMENT – REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES AND 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Introduction

The following measures outlined would be applied as RDFs for solid minerals, 

except for locatable minerals. The measures outlined below would be applied as 

recommended BMPs for locatable minerals. The RDFs and BMPs would be 
D. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D

D-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

applied as appropriate in PH and GH, and to the extent allowable by law (i.e., to 

prevent unnecessary and undue degradation).

Roads

• Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary 

to accommodate their intended purpose.

• Locate roads to avoid important areas and habitats.

• Coordinate road construction and use among ROW holders.

• Construct road crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages and 

stream crossings.

• Establish speed limits on BLM system roads to reduce 

vehicle/wildlife collisions or design roads to be driven at slower 

speeds.

• Do not issue ROWs to counties on mining development roads, 

unless for a temporary use consistent with all other terms and 

conditions included in this document.

• Restrict vehicle traffic to only authorized users on newly 

constructed routes (e. g., use signing, gates, etc.).

• Use dust abatement practices on roads and pads.

• Close and reclaim duplicate roads, by restoring original landform 

and establishing desired vegetation.

Operations

• Cluster disturbances associated with operations and facilities as 

close as possible.

• Place infrastructure in already disturbed locations where the habitat 

has not been restored.

• Restrict the construction of tall facilities and fences to the minimum 

number and amount needed.

• Site and/or minimize linear ROWs to reduce disturbance to 

sagebrush habitats.

• Place new utility developments (power lines, pipelines, etc.) and 

transportation routes in existing utility or transportation corridors.

• Bury power lines.

• Cover (e.g., fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques) all 

pits and tanks regardless of size to reduce sage‐grouse mortality.

• Equip tanks and other above ground facilities with structures or 

devices that discourage nesting of raptors and corvids.
D. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS D-11

• Control the spread and effects of non‐native plant species (Gelbard 

and Belnap 2003, Bergquist et al. 2007).

• Restrict pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate 

threats from West Nile virus (Doherty 2007).

• Remove or re‐inject produced water to reduce habitat for 

mosquitoes that vector West Nile virus. If surface disposal of 

produced water continues, use the following steps for reservoir 

design to limit favorable mosquito habitat:

– Overbuild size of ponds for muddy and non‐vegetated 

shorelines.

– Build steep shorelines to decrease vegetation and increase 

wave actions.

– Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low 

lying areas.

– Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope 

seepage or overflow.

– Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond 

with crushed rock.

– Construct spillway with steep sides and line it with crushed 

rock.

– Treat waters with larvicides to reduce mosquito production 

where water occurs on the surface.

• Require sage‐grouse‐safe fences around sumps.

• Clean up refuse (Bui et al. 2010).

• Locate man camps outside of PH.

Reclamation

• Include restoration objectives to meet sage‐grouse habitat needs in 

reclamation practices/sites.

• Address post reclamation management in reclamation plan such that 

goals and objectives are to protect and improve sage‐grouse habitat 

needs.

• Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long‐term access roads 

and well pads including reshaping, topsoiling and revegetating cut 

and fill slopes.

• Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to pre‐disturbance 

landform and desired plant community.

• Irrigate interim reclamation as necessary during dry periods.

• Utilize mulching techniques to expedite reclamation.
D. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D

D-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Literature Cited

Bergquist, E., P. Evangelista, T. J. Stohlgren, and N. Alley. 2007. Invasive species 

and coal bed methane development in the Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 128:381‐394.

Bui, T.D., J.M. Marzluff, and B. Bedrosian. 2010. Common raven activity in 

relation to land use in western Wyoming: implications for greater sage‐

grouse reproductive success. Condor 112:65‐78.

Doherty, M.K. 2007. Mosquito populations in the Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming: a comparison of natural, agricultural and effluent coal bed 

natural gas aquatic habitats. Thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman, 

U.S.A.

Gelbard, J.L., and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in 

a semiarid landscape. Conservation Biology 17:420‐432.

ADDITIONAL SOLID MINERAL DEVELOPMENT RDFS AND BMPS TO BE IMPLEMENTED 

• Recommend minimization of surface-disturbing or disrupting 

activities (including operations and maintenance) where needed to 

reduce the impacts of human activities on greater sage-grouse 

habitats. Apply these measures during activity level planning.

• Encourage development in incremental stages to stagger 

disturbance; design schedules that include long-term strategies to 

localize disturbance and recovery within established zones over a 

staggered timeframe.

• Use off-site mitigation or purchase conservation easements with 

industry dollars to offset habitat losses.

• Remove facilities and infrastructure when use is completed.

• Allow no surface use in nesting habitat from March 1 through June 

15.

• Restrict maintenance and related activities in Greater Sage-Grouse 

breeding/nesting complexes – March 1 through June 15 – between 

the hours of 4:00 – 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 – 10:00 p.m.

• Allow no surface use activities within Greater Sage-Grouse 

wintering areas from December 1 through March 31.

• Use minimal surface disturbance to install roads and pipelines and 

reclaim site of abandoned wells to natural communities.

• Locate storage facilities, generators, and holding tanks outside the 

line of sight and sound of breeding habitat.

• See conservation actions related to preventing the spread of weeds 

and controlling infestations of noxious weeds.
D. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS D-13

• Engage industry as a partner to develop and establish new sources 

of seed of native plant species for restoration of sites disturbed by 

development.

• Design impoundments and manage discharge so as not to degrade 

or inundate leks, nesting sites, and wintering sites.

• Protect natural springs from any source of disturbance or 

degradation from energy-related activities.

• Provide for long-term monitoring of siting requirements to examine 

effects of current and future development on sage-grouse.

• Set up a schedule for reviewing and revising siting and use criteria 

with industry.

Literature Cited 

Bergquist, E., P. Evangelista, T. J. Stohlgren, and N. Alley. 2007. Invasive species 

and coal bed methane development in the Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 128:381-394.

Blickley, J.L., D. Blackwood, and G.L. Patricelli. In preparation. Experimental 

evidence for avoidance of chronic anthropogenic noise by greater sagegrouse. University of California-Davis, California, USA.

Bui, T.D., J.M. Marzluff, and B. Bedrosian. 2010. Common raven activity in 

relation to land use in western Wyoming: implications for greater sagegrouse reproductive success. Condor 112:65-78.

Connelly, J.W., M.A Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun 2000. Guidelines to 

Manage Sage-grouse Populations and Their Habitats. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 28:967-985.

De Szalay, F.A. and V.H. Resh. 2000. Factors influencing macroinvertebrate 

colonization of seasonal wetlands: responses to emergent plant cover. 

Freshwater Biology. 45: 295-308.

Doherty, M.K. 2007. Mosquito populations in the Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming: a comparison of natural, agricultural and effluent coal bed 

natural gas aquatic habitats. M.S. Thesis. Montana State University,

Bozeman, U.S.A.

Evangelista, P.H., A.W. Crall, and E. Bergquist. 2011. Invasive plants and their 

response to energy development. Pages 115-129 in D.E. Naugle, editor. 

Energy development and wildlife conservation in western North 

America. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Gelbard, J.L., and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions 

in a semiarid landscape. Conservation Biology 17:420-432.
D. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D

D-14 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Knight, R.L., W.E. Walton, G.F. Meara, W.K. Riesen and R. Wass. 2003. 

Strategies for effective mosquito control in constructed treatment 

wetlands. Ecological Engineering. 21: 211-232.

Lammers, W.M., and M.W. Collopy. 2007. Effectiveness of avian predator 

perch deterrents on electric transmission lines. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 71:2752-2758.

Lyon, A.G. and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage 

grouse nest initiation and movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 486-

491.

Patricelli, G.L., J.L. Blickley, and S. Hooper. 2010. Incorporating the impacts of 

noise pollution into greater sage-grouse conservation planning. 27th 

Meeting of the Western Agencies Sage and Columbian Sharp-tailed 

Grouse Technical Committee Workshop. Twin Falls, Idaho, USA.

Pyke, D.A. 2011. Restoring and rehabilitating sagebrush habitats. Pp. 531-548 

in S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly (editors). Greater sage-grouse: ecology 

and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in 

Avian Biology 38. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

Schmidtmann, E.T., R.J. Bobian, R.P. Beldin. 2000. Soil chemistries define aquatic 

habitats with immature populations of the Culicoides variipennis 

complex (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae). Journal of Medical Entomology. 

37: 38-64.

Walton, W.E., and P.D. Workman. 1998. Effect of marsh design on the 

abundance of mosquitoes in experimental constructed wetlands in 

Southern California. Journal of the American mosquito control 

Association 14:95-107.
Appendix E

Area of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation 

of Relevance and Importance Criteria

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS E-1

APPENDIX E

AREA OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

EVALUATION OF RELEVANCE AND IMPORTANCE 

CRITERIA 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) are BLM-administered lands 

where special management attention is needed to protect important and 

relevant values. Special management attention refers to management 

prescriptions developed during preparation of a resource management plan 

(RMP) or RMP amendment (RMPA) expressly to protect the important and 

relevant values of an area from the potential effects of actions permitted by the 

RMP, including proposed actions deemed to be in conformance with the terms, 

conditions, and decisions of the RMP (BLM Manual 1613).

To be a potential ACEC, a nominated area must meet the criteria of relevance 

and importance as outlined in 43 CFR 1610.7-2 and BLM Manual 1613. If the 

relevance and importance criteria are met, an area must be identified as a 

potential ACEC and considered for designation and management in the 

resource planning process. Designation is based on whether or not a potential 

ACEC requires special management attention in the selected plan alternative.

An area meets the “relevance” criteria if it contains one or more of the 

following relevance values:

• A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value (including but not 

limited to rare or sensitive archeological resources and religious or 

cultural resources important to Native Americans).

• A fish and wildlife resource (including but not limited to habitat for 

endangered, sensitive, or threatened species or habitat essential for 

maintaining species diversity).
E. Area of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation of Relevance and Importance Criteria 

E-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

• A natural process or system (including but not limited to 

endangered, sensitive, or threatened plant species; rare, endemic, or 

relic plants or plant communities, which are terrestrial, aquatic, or 

riparian; or rare geological features).

• Natural hazards (including but not limited to areas of avalanche, 

dangerous flooding, landslides, unstable soils, seismic activity, or 

dangerous cliffs). A hazard caused by human action may meet the 

relevance criteria if it is determined through the resource 

management planning process that it has become part of a natural 

process.

The value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above must have 

substantial significance and values in order to satisfy the “importance” criteria. 

This generally means that the value, resource, system, process, or hazard is 

characterized by one or more of the following:

• More than locally significant qualities which give it special worth, 

consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern, 

especially compared to any similar resource.

• Qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, 

irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, or 

vulnerable to adverse change.

• Recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national 

priority concerns or to carry out the mandates of the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).

• Qualities which warrant highlighting in order to satisfy public or 

management concerns about safety and public welfare.

• Poses a significant threat to human life and safety, or to property.

Because the importance criteria are subjective, it is essential to create common 

assumptions on how they are applied by the RMPA. The facts on the ground 

need to support the decisions made. BLM, working with Montana Fish, Wildlife, 

and Parks (MFWP), has developed preliminary priority habitat (PPH) maps, 

displaying habitat that has been identified as the most important to the longterm viability of the Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG).

In response to the “Notice of Intent to Prepare Environmental Impact 

Statements To Incorporate Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measures Into 

Land Use Plans and Land Management Plans” (76 Fed. Reg. 77008), the BLM 

received an ACEC nomination for GRSG that was considered in this planning 

process. This report presents the completed evaluation form for the nominated

ACEC in the planning area (Table E-1, Greater Sage-Grouse Relevance and 

Importance Evaluation). An ACEC that meets both relevance and importance 
E. Area of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation of Relevance and Importance Criteria 

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS E-3

Table E-1

Greater Sage-Grouse Relevance and Importance Evaluation

Area Considered: Fergus and Petroleum Counties, Montana (counties within the Lewistown Field 

Office (LFO) that contain preliminary priority habitat [PPH])

General Location: BLM-administered lands managed by the LFO in the north central portion of 

Montana

General Description: Priority habitat areas for Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) with at least 4,000 acres 

of contiguous BLM surface ownership

Acreage: 96,246 acres

Values Considered: GRSG priority habitat

Relevance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

A significant historic, 

cultural, or scenic 

value

No No significant historic or cultural values are known. Scenic values are 

moderate and are similar to those of many other areas in the 

planning area.

A fish and wildlife 

resource

Yes The nomination meets the relevance criterion for wildlife resources. 

The nominated area provides habitat for GRSG, a BLM sensitive 

species, and the area has also been identified as PPH by Montana 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) and BLM.

A natural process or 

system

Yes The nomination also meets the criterion for a natural system or 

process because of the condition of the sagebrush habitat in portions 

of the nomination area.

Natural hazards No No natural hazards are known.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

More than locally 

significant qualities

No Although the area contains habitat for GRSG conservation as noted 

in the nomination material, the area is not significantly unique or 

more important than other habitat areas in this region. GRSG are 

distributed throughout the western United States. The portion of 

the distribution in Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, 

Alberta, and Saskatchewan are designated as Western Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies Management Zone I (Stiver et al. 2006).

While all of these areas are considered important to GRSG

conservation, the areas are dispersed throughout the region and are 

not significantly unique to a specific region or planning unit. In 

addition, GRSG habitat in these core areas is owned by a number of 

different entities and habitat on BLM-administered lands is not 

distinct from habitat managed by other ownership.

Special qualities No The area is not particularly fragile or sensitive to change as 

compared to other sites in Montana.

Warrants national 

priority/FLPMA 

protection

Yes Satisfies national priority concerns.
E. Area of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation of Relevance and Importance Criteria 

E-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table E-1

Greater Sage-Grouse Relevance and Importance Evaluation

Safety/public welfare 

concerns

No No safety or public welfare concerns are known.

Poses a significant 

threat

No No significant threats.

criteria is included in at least one management alternative analyzed in the 

RMPA/environmental impact statement. The attached map identifies the 

locations of the nominated ACEC.

Whether a particular ACEC nomination meets the relevance and importance 

criteria depends on the specific facts of each area. GRSG conservation is a 

national priority, and PPH has been recognized as having the highest 

conservation value to maintaining sustainable populations. This appendix

documents and substantiates how the ACEC nomination meets the existing 

relevance and importance criteria.

A finding that the ACEC nomination meets the relevance and importance 

criteria does not mean that it requires special management attention or will be 

designated as an ACEC. However, it does mean that the ACEC nomination will

be carried forward for the development of management prescriptions in at least 

one alternative.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

GRSG are distributed throughout the western United States (Figure E-1, 

Greater Sage-Grouse Distribution). The portion of the distribution within the 

planning area being considered for ACEC designations is located within

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Management Zone I (Figure 

E-2, Greater Sage-Grouse Management Zones) (Stiver, et al. 2006).

Management Zone 1 includes all of Montana (except the Dillon Field Office), 

North Dakota, South Dakota, and northeastern Wyoming. Management zones 

are delineations of GRSG populations and sub-populations within floristic zones 

with similar management issues. Within Management Zone I in Montana, MFWP

designated core areas (MFWP 2009). In addition, Montana Audubon has also 

designated five important bird areas for sage-steppe associated birds, including 

GRSG, in Montana, most of which are contained within the MFWP core areas.
E. Area of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation of Relevance and Importance Criteria 

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS E-5

Figure E-1

Greater Sage-Grouse Distribution

Source: Stiver, et al. 2006

Figure E-2

Greater Sage-Grouse Management Zones

Source: Stiver, et al. 2006

Appendix F

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands 

Administered by the Bureau of Land Management 

for Montana and the Dakotas

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines 

for Livestock Grazing Management

for Public Lands Administered

by the Bureau of Land Management

for Montana and the Dakotas

Note: These standards and guidelines apply to the Lewistown and Malta Field Offices 

Standards 

Standards are statements of physical and biological condition or degree of function required for 

healthy sustainable rangelands. Achieving or making significant and measurable progress 

towards these functions and conditions is required of all uses of public rangelands. Historical 

data, when available, should be used when assessing progress towards these standards. 

Lewistown STANDARD #1: Uplands are in proper functioning condition.

This means that soils are stable and provide for capture, storage and safe release of water 

appropriate to soil type, climate and landform. The amount and distribution of ground cover (i.e., 

litter, live and standing dead vegetation, microbiotic crusts, and rock/gravel) for identified 

ecological site(s) or soil-plant associations are appropriate for soil stability. 

Evidence of accelerated erosion in the form of rills and/or gullies, erosional pedestals, flow 

patterns, physical soil crusts/surface scaling and compaction layers below the soil surface is 

minimal. Ecological processes including hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle and energy flow are 

maintained and support healthy biotic populations. Plants are vigorous, biomass production is 

near potential and there is a diversity of species characteristic of and appropriate to the site. 

Assessing proper functioning conditions will consider use of historical data. 

• As indicated by 

Physical Environment 

- erosional flow patterns; 

- surface litter; 

- soil movement by water and wind; 

- soil crusting and surface sealing; 

- compaction layer; 

- rills; 

- gullies; 

- cover amount; and 

- cover distribution. 

Biotic Environment 

- community richness; 

- community structure; 

- exotic plants; 

- plant status; 

- seed production; 

- recruitment; and 

- nutrient cycle. 
Lewistown STANDARD #2: Riparian and wetland areas are in proper functioning condition.

This means that the functioning condition of riparian-wetland areas is a result of the interaction 

among geology, soil, water and vegetation. Riparian-wetland areas are functioning properly when 

adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to dissipate stream energy 

associated with high waterflows, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; filter 

sediment, capture bedload, and aid flood plain development; improve flood water retention and 

groundwater recharge; develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting action; 

develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth, 

duration, and temperature necessary for native fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other 

uses appropriate for the area that will support greater species richness. 

The riparian-wetland vegetation is a mosaic of species richness and community structure serving 

to control erosion, shade water, provide thermal protection, filter sediment, aid flood plain 

development, dissipate energy, delay flood water, and increase recharge of groundwater where 

appropriate to landform. The stream channels and flood plain dissipate energy of high waterflows 

and transport sediment appropriate for the geomorphology (e.g., gradient, size, shape, 

roughness, confinement, and sinuosity), climate, and landform. Soils support appropriate riparianwetland vegetation, allowing water movement, filtering sediment, and slowing ground water 

movement for later release. Stream channels are not entrenching beyond natural climatic 

variations and water levels maintain appropriate riparian-wetland species. 

Riparian areas are defined as land directly influenced by permanent water. It has visible 

vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of permanent water influence. Lake shores and 

streambanks are typical riparian areas. Excluded are such sites as ephemeral streams or washes 

that do not exhibit the presence of vegetation dependent upon free water in the soil. Assessing 

proper functioning conditions will consider use of historical data. 

• As indicated by: 

Hydrologic 

- flood plain inundated in relatively frequent events (1-3 years); 

- amount of altered streambanks; 

- sinuosity, width/depth ratio, and gradient are in-balance with the landscape 

setting (i.e., landform, geology, and bioclimatic region); and 

- upland watershed not contributing to riparian degradation. 

Erosion Deposition 

- plain and channel characteristics; i.e., rocks, coarse and/or woody debris 

adequate to dissipate energy; 

- point bars are being created and older point bars are being vegetated; 

- lateral stream movement is associated with natural sinuosity; 

- system is vertically stable; and 

- stream is in balance with water and sediment being supplied by the watershed 

(i.e., no excessive erosion or deposition). 

Vegetation 

- reproduction and diverse age class of vegetation; 

- diverse composition of vegetation; 

- species present indicate maintenance of riparian soil moisture characteristics; 

- streambank vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant communities that 

have deep binding root masses capable of withstanding high streamflow events; 

- utilization of trees and shrubs; 
- riparian plants exhibit high vigor; 

- adequate vegetative cover present to protect banks and dissipate energy during 

high flows; and 

- where appropriate, plant communities in the riparian area are an adequate 

source of woody debris. 

Lewistown STANDARD #3: Water quality meets Montana State standards.

This means that surface and groundwater on public lands fully support designated beneficial uses 

described in the Montana Water Quality Standards. Assessing proper functioning conditions will 

consider use of historical data. 

• As indicated by 

- dissolved oxygen concentration; 

- pH; 

- turbidity; 

- temperature; 

- fecal coliform; 

- sediment; 

- color; 

- toxins; and 

- others: ammonia, barium, boron, chlorides, chromium, cyanide, endosulfan, lindane, 

nitrates, phenols, phosphorus, sodium, sulfates, etc. 

Lewistown STANDARD #4: Air quality meets Montana State standards.

This means that air quality on public lands helps meet the goals set out in the State of Montana 

Air Quality Implementation Plan. Efforts will be made to limit unnecessary emissions from existing 

and new point or nonpoint sources. 

The BLM management actions or use authorizations do not contribute to air pollution that violates 

the quantitative or narrative Montana Air Quality Standards or contributes to deterioration of air 

quality in selected class area. 

• As indicated by: 

- Section 176(c) Clean Air Act which states that activities of all federal agencies must 

conform to the intent of the appropriate State Air Quality Implementation Plan and not: 

- cause or contribute to any violations of ambient air quality standards; 

- increase the frequency of any existing violations; and 

- impede the State's progress in meeting their air quality goals. 

Lewistown STANDARD #5: Habitats are provided to maintain healthy, productive and 

diverse populations of native plant and animal species, including special status species 

(federally threatened, endangered, candidate or Montana species of special concern as 

defined in BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Management).

This means that native plant and animal communities will be maintained or improved to ensure 

the proper functioning of ecological processes and continued productivity and diversity of native 

plant lifeforms. Where native communities exist, the conversion to exotic communities after 

disturbance will be minimized. Management for indigenous vegetation and animals is a priority. 

Ecological processes including hydrologic cycle, and energy flow, and plant succession are 

maintained and support healthy biotic populations. Plants are vigorous, biomass production is 

near potential, and there is a diversity of plant and animal species characteristic of and 
appropriate to the site. The environment contains components necessary to support viable 

populations of a sensitive/threatened and endangered species in a given area relative to site 

potential. Viable populations are wildlife or plant populations that contain an adequate number of 

reproductive individuals distributed on the landscape to ensure the long-term existence of the 

species. Assessing proper functioning conditions will consider use of historical data. 

• As indicated by: 

- plants and animals are diverse, vigorous and reproducing satisfactorily noxious weeds 

are absent or insignificant in the overall plant community; 

- spatial distribution of species is suitable to ensure reproductive capability and recovery; 

- a variety of age classes are present; 

- connectivity of habitat or presence of corridors prevents habitat fragmentation; 

- species richness (including plants, animals, insects and microbes) are represented; and 

- plant communities in a variety of successional stages are represented across the 

landscape. 

Grazing Management Guidelines 

Guidelines for management of herbivory (including domestic animals and wildlife) are preferred or 

advisable approaches to ensure that standards can be met or that significant progress can be 

made toward meeting the standard(s). Responsible state and Federal wildlife agencies must be 

involved in this management if standards are to be achieved. 

Guidelines are provided to maintain or improve resource conditions in upland and riparian 

habitats. In both riparian and upland habitats, these guidelines focus on establishing and 

maintaining proper functioning conditions. The application of these guidelines is dependent on 

individual management objectives. Desired future conditions in plant communities and 

streambank characteristics will be determined on a case-by-case basis. 

Lewistown GUIDELINE #1:

Grazing will be managed in a manner that will maintain the proper balance between soils, water, 

and vegetation over time. This balance varies with location and management objectives, historic 

use, and natural fluctuations, but acceptable levels of use can be developed that are compatible 

with resource objectives. 

Lewistown GUIDELINE #2:

Manage grazing to maintain watershed vegetation, species richness, and flood plain function. 

Maintain riparian vegetative cover and structure to trap and hold sediments during run-off events 

to build streambanks, recharge aquifers, and dissipate flood energy. Grazing management should 

promote deep-rooted herbaceous vegetation to enhance streambank stability. Where non-native 

species are contributing to proper functioning conditions, they are acceptable. Where potential for 

palatable woody shrub species (willows, dogwood, etc.) exists, promote their growth and 

expansion within riparian zones. 

Lewistown GUIDELINE #3:

Pastures and allotments will be managed based on their sensitivity and suitability for livestock 

grazing. Where determinations have not been previously documented, suitability for grazing will 

be determined by: topography, slope, distance from water, vegetation habitat types, and soil 

types must be considered when determining grazing suitability. Unsuitable areas should be 

excluded from grazing. 
Lewistown GUIDELINE #4:

Management strategies for livestock grazing will ensure that long-term resource capabilities can 

be sustained. End of season stubble heights, streambank moisture content, and utilization of 

herbaceous and woody vegetation are critical factors which must be evaluated in any grazing 

strategy. These considerations are essential to achieving long-term vegetation or stream channel 

objectives and should be identified on a site-specific basis and used as terms and conditions. 

Lewistown GUIDELINE #5:

Grazing will be managed to promote desired plants and plant communities of various age 

classes, based on the rate and physiological conditions of plant growth. Management approaches 

will be identified on a site-specific basis and implemented through terms and conditions. Caution 

should be used to avoid early spring grazing use when soils and streambanks are wet and 

susceptible to compaction and physical damage that occurs with animal trampling. Likewise, late 

summer and fall treatments in woody shrub communities should be monitored closely to avoid 

excessive utilization. 

Lewistown GUIDELINE #6:

The development of springs and seeps or other projects affecting water and associated resources 

shall be designed to protect the ecological functions and processes of those sites. 

Lewistown GUIDELINE #7:

Locate facilities (e.g., corrals, water developments) away from riparian-wetland areas. 

Lewistown GUIDELINE #8:

When provided, supplemental salt and minerals should not be placed adjacent to watering 

locations or in riparian-wetland areas so not to adversely impact streambank stability, riparian 

vegetation, water quality, or other sensitive areas (i.e., key wildlife wintering areas). Salt and 

minerals should be placed in upland sites to draw livestock away from watering areas or other 

sensitive areas and to contribute to more uniform grazing distribution. 

Lewistown GUIDELINE #9:

Noxious weed control is essential and should include: cooperative agreements, public education, 

and integrated pest management (mechanical, biological, chemical). 

Lewistown GUIDELINE #10:

Livestock management should utilize practices such as those referenced by the NRCS published 

prescribed grazing technical guide to maintain, restore or enhance water quality. 

Lewistown GUIDELINE #11:

Grazing management should maintain or improve habitat for federally listed threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive plant and animals. 
Lewistown GUIDELINE #12:

Grazing management should maintain or promote the physical and biological conditions to 

sustain native populations and communities. 

Lewistown GUIDELINE #13: 

Grazing management should give priority to native species. Non-native plant species should only 

be used in those situations where native seed is not readily available in sufficient quantities, 

where native plant species cannot maintain or achieve the standards, or where non-native plant 

species provide an alternative for the management and protection of native rangelands. 

Lewistown GUIDELINE #14:

Allotment monitoring determines how on-going management practices are affecting the 

rangeland. To do so, the evaluations should be based on: measurable management objectives; 

permanent and/or repeatable monitoring locations; and short-term and long-term data. 
Appendix G

Regional Mitigation Strategy

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS G-1

APPENDIX G

REGIONAL MITIGATION STRATEGY

INTRODUCTION

Mitigation strategies, which take into account the mitigation hierarchy (avoid, 

minimize, restore, offset), are an important tool for ensuring the US Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) meet their Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) resource 

objectives while continuing to honor our multiple-use mission. The BLM priority 

is to mitigate impacts to an acceptable level onsite, to the extent practical, 

through avoidance (not taking a certain action or parts of an action), 

minimization (limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation), rectification (repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected 

environment), or reduction of impacts over time (preservation and maintenance 

operations during the life of the action). While mitigating impacts for proposed 

projects to an acceptable level onsite is typically analyzed and determined 

through site-specific, implementation-level National Environmental Policy Act 

documents and their commensurate decision documents, the analysis and 

mitigation for project level activities would be tiered to the analysis and 

mitigation proposed throughout each of the action alternatives in this Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) amendment.

For those impacts that cannot be sufficiently avoided or minimized onsite, the 

BLM must ensure implementation of effective measures to offset (or 

compensate for) such impacts and to maintain or improve the viability of GRSG 

habitat and populations over time, as described in the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) Conservation Objectives Team Report. Regional mitigation 

may be a necessary component for many large renewable and nonrenewable 

energy development projects as well as many smaller projects with cumulative 

effects on the GRSG and its habitat.

Any regional mitigation strategy for BLM-administered lands would comply with 

BLM’s Regional Mitigation Manual Section (MS) 1794, which provides policies, 

procedures, and instructions for:
G. Regional Mitigation Strategy

G-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

1. Adopting a regional approach to planning and implementing 

mitigation, including pre identifying potential mitigation sites, 

projects, and measures; and

2. Identifying the type of mitigation that is needed to compensate for 

impacts to resources or values caused by a land use authorization. 

It is important to note that any mitigation strategy must include the cooperation 

and coordination of appropriate and pertinent federal, state and local land and 

resource management agencies across the landscape. The final strategy adopted 

and implemented within a landscape would be dependent on the unique 

resources and values of the regional landscape and the mitigation strategies and 

resources contributed by the regional partners. It is important to acknowledge 

that the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP) working with the BLM as a 

cooperating agency on this RMP amendment may have already completed, or is 

currently working on, statewide mitigation strategies. The BLM would continue 

to work with and support those MFWP efforts. 

The BLM would establish a Mitigation Implementation Team for each of the six 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) management 

zones in the West, following the completion of each of the 15 sub-regional 

environmental impact statements (EIS) that are associated with the National 

Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy. The planning area presented in this subregional EIS lies within WAFWA Management Zones I and IV. The teams are 

responsible for developing a Mitigation Strategy consistent with BLM MS 1794, 

as appropriate. The teams would coordinate recommended mitigation strategies 

between RMP planning areas, WAFWA management zones, and local and state 

jurisdictions for mitigation consistency, where appropriate.

These implementation teams would be responsible for implementing BLM MS 

1794, and making recommendations regarding the following items related to 

compensatory mitigation:

1. A structure for determining appropriate mitigation, including impact 

(debit) and benefit (credit) calculation methods, mitigation ratios, 

mitigation “currency” (i.e., numbers of birds, acres, etc.), location, 

and performance standards options by considering local and 

regional, mitigation options;

2. How to resolve mitigation oriented discrepancies that arise within 

the WAFWA management zone or between zones;

3. The application and the holding and disposition of any mitigation 

funds;

4. The most appropriate mitigation for impacts from a given land use 

authorization and type of seasonal habitat impacted;
G. Regional Mitigation Strategy

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS G-3

5. Prioritization of potential mitigation sites, projects, and measures, 

as guided by conservation strategies (e.g. Priority Areas of 

Conservation (PACs), priority habitat areas); and

6. Reviewing mitigation monitoring reports and analyzing and reporting 

on project effectiveness, corrective measures/adaptive management 

(where required), and cumulative effects of mitigation actions at the 

PAC and the WAFWA management zone.

These WAFWA management zone Implementation Teams would function as 

inter-disciplinary teams composed of BLM, US Forest Service, USFWS and state 

fish and game agencies. The Mitigation Implementation Team would make 

recommendations to the BLM Authorized Officer. If the recommendations are 

rejected for any reason, the Mitigation Implementation Team would be reconvened to develop additional recommendations.
G. Regional Mitigation Strategy

G-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix H

Land Pattern Review and Land Adjustment

LAND PATTERN REVIEW 

- AND 

~ LAND ADJUSTMENT 

Supplement to State Director 


Guidance for Resource Management 


PlanninginMontana andthe Dakotas 


Edwin Zaidlicz 

State Director 
BLM-MT-PT-84-015-4111 

J}'; Rf.P\.Y REFf.R TO· 

1601 (930) United States Department ofthe Interior 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 


222 North 32nd Street 


P.O. Box 30157 


Billings. Montana 59107 


June 8, 1984 

Dear Reader: 

This s upplement to the "State Director Guidance for Resource Management 

Planning in Montana and the Dakotas" encorporates changes and corrections 

resulting from · the public review of the Harch 1984 draft. The document 

updates and replaces the Land Adjustment portion of the April 1983 State 

Director Guidance . 

The portions of the 1983 document replaced are as follows : on page B- 1 

beginning with the "Land Pattern Review and Adjustments" paragraph 

continuing to "Corridor Planning" on the middle of page B-6. Appendix 1 

is deleted because this information has been revised and incorporated 

into the Supplement. The Rec r eation Program Guidance (pages H-1 through 

H-3) is replaced with minor revisions. 

I appreciate the effort and concern of all who s ubmitted comments on the 

draft. All comments were carefully considered and many of the suggestions 

have been incorporated . 

Response to Comments Not Incorporated 

Some comments urged greater emphasis on wildlife values in the planning 

for land adjustment, and to eliminate reference to economics, agricultural 

and community expansion interests. We believe the criteria as developed 

provide a balanced treatment of all resources and public interests. 

This is an objec tive we strive for a·s a multiple use agency, within the 

constraints established by the law and national policy . 

Questions were raised regarding definition of several terms such as 

public interest and public values . These are general terms which we 

beli eve should not be rigidly defined in a broad scope guidance document. 

They take on specific meaning as land adjustments are considered and 

processed. At each step relevant laws, regulations, national policies 

and public involvement guide the Bureau in defining what decisions are 

in the public int erest or which may reflect the highest public interest. 

In r esponse to a question raised about the program specific acquisition 

criteria, no priority is implied by the order of their listing. 

Concern was expressed over the Bureau's evaluation of the resources 

involved in exchanges or other land adjustments. The information and 
rationale for BLM land adjustments are always open to public scrutiny, 

and opportunity for formal comment or protest occurs at key points in 

the process (i.e., during land use planning and when a Notice of Realty 

Action is issued). 

One commentor perceived differences between field offices in making land 

adjustment decisions. All such variation cannot be eliminated, but it 

is one of the purposes of this guidance to increase consistency across 

our three states. It also provides standards against which consistencv 

can be measured . 

More exchanges between the BLM and the US Forest Service were urged and 

we are open to these opportunities. We plan to act on these opportunities 

within priorities as they are established for the limited r esources 

available for land adjustment. 

In a similar vein we were urged to support three-way exchanges involving 

the state or other Federal agencies. Such actions are within the scope 

of the guidance as written. However, regardless of the agencies involved 

BLM will evaluate the lands to be disposed or acquired against the 

criteria in this document and the overall objective under the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act that the bulk of the public lands be 

retained and managed for multiple use and sustained yield . 

Finally, one commentor urged that an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) be prepared on the Guidance Supplement. An EIS was not prepared 

for the following reasons: The document is guidance for preparation of 

land use plans and s ub s equent program management. A land use plan 

(Resource Management Plan) includes an EIS and a plan amendment requires 

an Environmental Assessment (EA) or possibly an EIS . Every specific 

land adjustment pr oposal r equires its own EA and technical report on the 

land involved. Environmental i~pacts will be thoroughly examined, and, 

most appropriately, at the stages in case processing when the actions 

are tangible and meaningful analysis can be done. 

Map Revisions 

\~ e have reprinted the South Dakota map because of several errors. There 

were minor errors on the Montana map and the North Dakota map which are 

addressed with the enclosed errata sheet . 

Some commentors seemed concerned that the maps present final Bureau 

decisions. This is not the case; the maps are generalized graphic 

displays of long term goals and expectations for the Land Adjustment 

Program. As was explained in the document, exceptions will be made in 

both retention and non-retention zones as the adjustment process unfolds 

and more detailed information is acquired on specific land transactions . 
It should not be assumed that lands outside a retention zone are automatically intended for disposal. For example, concern was expressed 

over some small BLM tracts at Big Lake in Yellowstone County. These 

lands are involved in a cooperative wildlife project and will be retained. 

The overriding issue is not the zone in which a tract of land is displayed 

but whether it meets criteria for retention or disposal. The zones 

provide insight into Bureau emphasis and the most probable type of 

adjustment action, but are not meant to be tract specific in most cases. 

One comment requested widening the retention zone along the Yellowstone 

River between Glendive and Sidney. We believe that expanding this 

corridor might raise the issue of conflict with important agricultural 

development i~ this area. We intend to retain and acquire lands in this 

corridor which have wildlife and recreation values but which are not 

primarily valuable for agricultural use. \.;Te do no t intend to pursue 

acquisitions in conflict with productive agriculture. 

Finally, two larger retention areas were inadvertently omitted from the 

Montana map. These involve BLM lands on the upper Stillwater River in 

Stillwater County and land along the lower Missouri River extending to 

the North Dakota border . These areas are defined in more detail on the 

errata sheet and will be added to the map when next revised . 

Sincerely yours, 

2 Enclosures 

Encl . 1 - Guidance Supplement 

Encl. 2 - South Dakota Map 
ERRATA 


Land Pattern Adjustment Maps 

Montana Map 

Roosevelt County- Within T. 27 N .. R. 59 E .. an area ofapproximately 2,500 federally-owned 

acres should be mapped as a retention zone. Other lands north of the Missouri River which 

possess river access will also be considered for retention. The retention zone south of the 

Missouri in Richland County should also he extended eastward to the North Dakota statt> line. 

This includes the area in Townships 26 N. and 27 N. 

Stillwater County - BLM administered land in the upper Stillwater drainage should be 

mapped as a retention zone. These lands are in Bad Canyon and south of Beehive. In total 

about 2,500 acres are involved and lie primarily in Township 4 S., R. 16 E. 

North Dakota Map 

Burleigh-Marton Counties- A zone along the Missouri should be mapped for retention from 

the upper end of Oahe Reservoir northward approximately six miles. 

McKenzie County- The retention zone on the lower Yellowstone is incorrectly placed on the 

east side of the river. This retention zone should include both sides of the Yellowstone and 

extended to its confluence with the Missouri. 
••••• • ••• 

CONTENTS 


STATE DIRECTOR GUIDANCE 

LAND BASE ADJUSTMENT SUPPLEMENT 

Introduction .................................... .. ......... .. ....... . ......... .. ....... ... . . 


Scope o f Program ..... .... . . .. ........ . . . ............................. .. ...... .. ....... ... .. 2 


Goals a nd Objectives . ............... ..... ...... .. ......... .. ....... . ......... . ............. :~ 

Map Basis and Interpretation ...................................... .......... ...... .. ...... :~ 

Retention Zones ........... . 3 


Public Review . .............. . .. : ........................................................... 3 


Planning .......... . ......... . ......... .. ............................ . ......... . ....... . . . .. 3 


Map Interpretation . . ..... . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. ....... .. ...... . .. . . .. ... .......... .. . . .. 0 3 


0 •••••••• • ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 •••••••••••••• 0 • • • • • • • • • • • 

Other Lands ........................ . ............................. . ....................... 3 


Land Pattern Review . ......... 0 •• 0 •• •••• ••••••• • ••••• 0 •••• • •••• 0 •• •• •••• • ••• • •••••• 0 0 • •• 0 •• -1


Land Adjustment Program Phases ......... 0 ••••••••••••••• •• •••••••••••••••••••••• 0 0 ••• 0 • • • 4


Land Pattern Review and Adjustment Criteria .... . 0 ••••••• • •••••••• 0 • • ••••••• 0 • • ••• ••• •••••• 4


Retention .................. . ... 0 ••••••••••••••• •• ••••••••••••••• • • • ••••••••••••••••••••••• 4


Disposal ........... 0 0. 0 •••• 0 •••••••• •• •••• 0 ••••• 0 •••••••••• 0 •••••••••• 0 •••••••••• 0 •• • • •••• 5


Acquisition ..... 0 • • 0 ••••• • • •• • • 0 0 •• 0 • • •• • 0 •• 0 • • •• ••••••• •• 0 • • •• • ••••••• •• •••• 0 •• 0 •• ••••• •• 6


General Criteria for Aquisition a nd Retention . . 0 •• 0 •••• • •••• 0 0 •• •• •••••••• • •••••••••••••• () 

Program Specific Acquisition Criteria .... . . 0 •••••••••• 0 ••••••••••••• 0 •••• 0 ••••••••• 0 •••• 6


Minerals ....... 0 0. 0 ••••••••••••••••••••• 0 • • 0 • •• •••••••• 0 ••••• •••• 0. 0 ••••••••••••• • ••• 6


Livestock Management ........................ 0 ••••• •• • 0 ••••••••• 0 •••• •• ••• 0 ••••••• • • 7


Timber Ma nagement.. ..... ... .... 0 •••••••• • •••••••• 0 ••••• ••• • 0 ••••••••• •• •••••• 0 ••••• 7


Recreation ... 0 •• 0 ••• ••••••• 0 •••• •••••• 0 0 ••••••••••••• 0 ••••• 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••• • •• 7


\\:ildern ess ............ .. ............................................................. ';' 


Cultural Resources . ........ 0 ••••• •• •••••••••••• 0. 0 ••• • •••• 0 •••• • ••• 0 ••••• • •••••• • • •• 0 • 1 


Wildlife Habitat .... . . . 0 •• 0 •••• •• ••• 0 •• 0 •• •••• 0. 0 0 •••• 0 . 0 0 • •••••• ••• ••••• 0. 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 8

Map A n alysis . 0 ••• • 0 . 0 0. 0 •• 0 •••• 0 ••••••••••••••••••• 0 •••• 0 0 ••••• 0. 0 •••• ••••••• •• 0. 0 •••• ••• •• 9


Retention Zones . 0 •••• 0 ••••• •• 0 •• 0 ••••• 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• .' ••••••• 0 •••••••• 9


Other Lands ...... . . 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 •• 0 •••• • 0 •••••••• 0 • 0. 0 •• 0 ••••••• 0 ••••• 0 •• 0 ••••• 9


Montana l\1ap . 0 •• 0 . 0. 0 ••• ••• •••••••• •••••• •••• 0 • ••••••• 0 • • • • 0 0. 0 •••• ••••••• • • • •••• 0 0 •• •• • • 0 9


South Dakota Map . .. 0 • 0 ••• ••••• 0 • 0 •••••••• 0 •• 0 • •• ••••• 0 0 • 0 •• 0. 0 •••• • •••••••••• ••• • 0 •• 0 • • •• 0 9


Korth Dakota Map ..... 0 •• 0 •••• 0 •• 0 •• •••• ••••••• •• ••••••••••••• 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 10


Land Adjustment Impacts .. .. ... 0 ••••• • •••• 0 •• 0 ••••• 0 •••••••••••••••• • •••••• •••• ••• 0 •••••• 11


Resourc<' Impacts ... . 0 0. 0 •• 0 • ••• 0 0. 0 0 ••••••••• 0 0 • • • •• 0. 0 0 •• • • 0 0 0 •••••••••• 0 •••• •••• • • 0 • • ••• 11


Management and Access 0 0 0 • •• • • 0 ••• • 0 • • 0 ••••••• • 0 •••• 0 •• 0 • • ••••• 0 • • ••• 0 0 0 ••• • ••••••••• 0 ••• 11


Social nnd Economic Effects .... 0 •••• ••••• • 0 ••••• ••••• ••••• ••• ••• 0 •• 0 •••• 0 ••••••••••••••••• 11


RECREATION PROGRAM GUIDANCE REVISIONS 

Recreation ......... .. ... 0. 0 • •••••• •••• •• • • • 0 ••• •• 0 0 0 •• • 0. 0 •• • •• •• 0 0 • • •• • 0 0 •• •• •• 0 •••••••• •• 13


Kin d of Ownership Actions Vole Will Table . 0 0. 0 ••••• 0 •• 0 •••• • ••••• 0 ••••• • 0 0 ••••••••••••••••• 13 

Kinds of Opportunities on Which V•/e Will Concentrate ...... ...... 0 ••••••• 0 • ••••• ••••••••••• 13

Kinds and Levels of Development We Will Consider ............ 0 0 •••• 0 •• 0. 0 •••••••••••• 0 •••• 14


Off.Road Vehicle Designations. 0 •••••••••••••• 0 •• • 0 0 •• 0 • • • •• 0 •••••••••• • ••• 0 •• •• ••• 0. 0 •••• • 14

STATE DIRECTOR GUIDANCE 


LAND BASE ADJUSTMENT SUPPLEMENT 


This supplement replaces the "Land Pattern Review a nd Land Adjustments"' Section of the 1983 

State Director Guidance beginning on page B-1 through midpage B-6 and including Appendix 1. In 

addition, pages H-1 through H-3 ofthe Recreation Program Guidance are revised and included with 

the Supplement. 

INTRODUCTION 

A new era in public land management began with t he enactment of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA) in 1976. Prior to FLPMA public land management policy emphasized 

custodial management pending disposal. FLPMA prescribed retention of the public lands. but also 

authorizes BLM to enter into land adjustments. 

The 8.4 million acre public land pattern in Montana and the Dakotas is ch aracteristicall y fragmented. and typically consists oflands left over after the most desirable areas were placed in private 

ownership. Some 2.5 million acres exist in a scattered pattern ofrelatively small tracts from 40 to 160 

acres in size. 

Additional large but fragmented areas ofsplit mineral estate occur. particularly in eastern Montana 

and the Dakotas. Some ofthese areas are underlain by minable coal deposits and/ or have oil and gas 

development potential. The remaining public lands occur in relatively large tracts but it is usually 

only coincidental when the BLM lands are in a pattern conducive to ease ofmanagement or optimum 

utilization of the resources. 

Major types of land adjustment concerning the BLM in Montana and the Dakotas are: 

State Exchange 

Regular Private Exchange 

Multi-party Exchanges 

State Selection 

Mineral Exchanges 

Acquisition 

BLM, Forest Service Jurisdictional Transfers 

Withdrawals 

Community Expansion 

Publi c Sale 

No particular priority is implied by this list other than state land adjustments will take precedence 

over priva te proposals. 

The State Director Guidance issued in April 1983 included criteria for planning decisions involving 

exchanges. jurisdictional tra nsfers. or land sales. This supplement integrates existing plans and 

categorizes lands to provide a framework for future planning. Using this framework and the 1983 

State Director Guidance v-: e have completed maps showing a reas where public lands will generally be 

retained. Until s uch tim e as land use plans are amended or revised. these maps will serve as a guide 

for all land adjustments. 

The land retention maps are presented as a gt-neral policy guide to aid the public and agency 

personnel in evaluating proposals for la nd transactions. They should be helpful in distinguishing 

between proposals worthy of more detailed evaluation and those which are n ot. These maps and the 

accompanying analysis provide an indica tion of the probable long term magnitude of land adjustment in Montana and the Oakot.:ts. This guidance supplement also provides an opportunity to revise 

and clarify the criteria published in 10x:; and for public revi ew and comment on these revisions. 

Tract-specific land adjustments must he based upon land use plan decisions followed by more detailed 

activity planning. Land exc hange~ will be based upon the voluntary offering by the owners of the 

land which BLM may acquire. and ,._·i ll involve exchange of appraised value for value. This does not 

mean that the same kind of values mu.-< iw exchanged. Relative abundance ofthe resources involved 

and their place in agency and public , .. iorities must be considered. 

1 
SCOPE OF THE PROGRAM 

Of the 8.4 million acres administered by BLM in Montana and the Da kotas. 7.3 million acres (87 

percent) are classified within retention zones. Approximately 1.1 million acres (13 percent) lie outside 

these retention zones, and it is estimated that over the expected life of the program (7 to 10 years) 

roughly half of this acreage may be involved in some type of land adjustment. 

A stable level of land adjustment actions over the life ofthe program is our objective. however. some 

year-to-year variation will occur. Long-term accomplishments will depend upon public response in 

offering suitable lands in exchange for BLM disposal tracts as well as the availability of budgets to 

carry through the necessary planning and implementation action. Other factors which may limit the 

level of adjustment actions include the presence of mining claims, sensitive resource values such as 

archeological sites, unique fish, wildlife and recreational values, and economic limitations on the 

capacity of some adjacent landowners to participate. 

Land adjustment would be predominately through exchanges. A small acreage may be disposed of 

under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act and some acreage may be involved in boundary 

adjustments with the U.S. Forest Service. Based on experience to date, sales will be a very minor part 

of the total land transactions. Although exchange will predominate there could be some reduction in 

total federal ownership because many transactions will require that the BLM acreage be greater than 

the acreage acquired to equalize values. 

Goals and Objectives 

The overall goal of the land adjustment program is a public land pattern which balances multiple 

resource valu es while at the same time brings a bout better manageability. N o individual land 

adjustment will ach ieve all resource objectives listed in this document. but the cumulative effect of 

land adjustments should result in improved multiple use management. These adjustments will 

achieve better overall public usability. greater management efficiency, and optimum accomplishments for a ll resource interests. 

The Burea u's adjustment decisions should be made after thorough analysis and study of land use 

potential a nd s hou ld achieve the following long term objectives: · 

1. 	 Retain those public lands having significant public values; acquire (primarily by exchange) 

other lands which will contribute significantly to accomplishing public land management 

objectives. 

2. 	 Adjus t the BLM land pattern to gt>t the highest public value. 

3. 	 Land use planning and public revi ew and participation will occur as required by FLPMA. 

!'\EPA. a nd other related legislation. 

4. 	 Identify a nd transfer those public lands which could attain a higher and better use in the private 

sector or if managed by a nother public agency. 

2 

MAP BASIS AND INTERPRETATION 

Public Review 

The land retention maps in this supplement were prepared using criteria published in the 1983 State 

Director Guidance. This guidance, and in particular the land review and adjustment criteria. received 

extensive inter-governmental and public review. In accordance with the majority of the comments 

received, the land adjustment program will emphasize exchanges. 

Planning 

The land review criteria were applied in four recently completed land use plans. These are the Billing-s 

and Headwaters Resource Management Plans (RMPs) in Montana and the Southwf'st and Md~(·nzie

Williams Management Framework Plans (MFPs) in North Dakota. RMPs are in progress in tht' 

Powder River, Garnet and South Dakota Resource Areas. 

The maps in this supplement incorporate decisions made in the recently completed plans. In areas 

where plans are under way, the retention zones are preliminary and may be adjusted when the land 

use plans are completed. In other areas retention zones were developed by District interdisciplinary 

teams applying the adjustment criteria and using existing planning documents and inventory. 

Map Interpretation 

As stated earlier,the maps of public land retention zones are presented as a policy guide. not as a rigid 

prescription. Future land use plans may revise the boundaries currently drawn. Activity plans done 

on individual tracts may reveal lands within the retention zone appropriate for disposal and many 

tracts outside the retention zones essential to retain or acquire. 

Retention Zones 

The retention zones define art'as where BLM intends primarily to retain or enhance the existing 

public land holdings. Public lands in most of these zones amount to sizeable acreages. most are in 

reasonably consolidated holdings or contain resource values appropriate for public ownership. 

Individual tracts in retention zones rna~· he exchanged when significant management efficiency or a 

greater public values would be acquired. Under some circumstances a tract may be sold to serve an 

important public purpose. Public land acreage within these zones is not anticipated to decline butmay 

increase because land acquisition in exchanges will be concentrated in these zones. 

Other Lands 

Public lands in this area are open to consideration on theirindividual merits for retention, exchange. 

transfer or sale. In general. the lands are in small tracts. widely scattered and often without legal or 

physical access. It is in this zone that the majority ofdisposal tracts will be found. Lands meeting the 

retention criteria (having significant public values) will be retained or exchanged for land with higher 

public values. 

The preferred action regarding lands which fit the disposal criteria is to exchange them for lands 

within a retention zone. Recent examples inc! ude the acquisition of recreation and wildlife lands on 

Holter Lake near Helena and Howery Island on the Yellowstone River in exchange for a number of 

rangeland tracts in eastern Montana. Exchanges may also be considered which will acquire publicly 

desirable tracts outside the retention zones. A net reduction in BLM administered acreage outside the 

retention zones is expected. 

3 

LAND PATTERN REVIEW AND LAND ADJUSTMENT 

PROGRAM (EXCHANGES, JURISDICTION TRANSFERS, 

SALES) 

Land Adjustment Program Phases 

Phase /-State Director Guidance 

Published in 1983 and containing criteria for categorizing public lands, State Director Guidance is . revised with this supplement. 

Phase II-Land Categorization 

Retention areas a re delineated th roug-h use of existing com pleted pla ns, ongoing planning and the 

State Director Guidance Supplement. The current delineation/ categorization effort is summarized in 

this supplement and may be modified as a result of future land use planning. 

Phase Ill-Land Actiuity Planning and Realty Implementation 

Progra m priorities are developed followed by implementation which includes site specific land 

report-environmental analysis, a ppraisal, decisionmaking and land title processing. 

Land Pattern Review and Adjustment Criteria 

Three types of criteria are presented (retention. disposal. and acquisition) to provide guid a nce in 


categorizing the public lands and in making decisions concerning specific land pattern a djustment 


action s. 


The criteria range from specific to general a nd give direction forsta tewide consistency while allowing 


the ma nager flexibility in responding to local circumstance$. 


The criteria will be applied on an interdisciplinary basis. This requires consideration of all resource 


values. but since all valut:s a re not normally represented on every tract of land, trade-offs between 


resource values will usually be necessary when making decisions on specific land adjustment actions. 


Such trade-offs will be based on a hi erarch y of values defi ned as follows: 


1. 	 Requirements of applicabl e iaws. executive orders and regulations will be followed. 

2. 	 Priority will be determined by the area directly impacted a nd the significance ofthe resources in 

descending order of national. regwnal. statewide, and local. Both econ omic a nd non-economic 

val ues will be considE>red in assessing resource significance. 

::1. 	 A critica l level of significance will be nssigned to resource values ifthey are adversely impacted 

over an area larger than the specific tract bein g con sidered for land adjustment action. 

4. 	 P ubli c value losses which cannot be mitigated will be assigned a higher level of significance 

than those which can be mitigated. 

5. 	 A higher level ofsignificance will be assigned to public values which a re associated with solving 

chronic management problems which past efforts have failed to resolve a nd for which no other 

solutions are evident. 

Retention 

These a re la nds which will remain in public ownership and be ma naged by BLM. BLM is interested in 

exchanges to improve manageability ofareas with important public values. Alt hough the underlying 

philosophy is long term public owner~ hip. minor ad justments involving sales and exchanges oflands 

may occur when the public interest is better served. 

1. 	 Areas of n a tion a l environmental s ignificance: These include but are not limited to: 

a. 	 Wilderness. Wilderness Study Areas and Former WSAs being Studied for Protective 

Management 

b. 	 Wild & Scenic River~ 

c. 	 !\Jation a l Scenic & Hist oric· Tra ils a nd Study Trails 

d. 	 Lands containing nation;: i! ~· significan t cultural resource sites nominated to or eligible for 

the Nation a l Register of r: :swric Places 

e. 	 :'\ationol Conservation ar, 

f. 	 Wetlands and Riparian A: ·::s under Executive Order 11990 

g. 	 Other Congressionally Designated Areas and Study Areas 

h. 	 Wild Horse Mana gement Arens 

1. 	 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

4 

2. Areas of national economic significance: these include but are not limted to: 

a. 	 Designated Mineral Resource Areas where disposal of the surface v.:ould unnecessarily 

interfere with the logical development of the mineral estate, e.g.. surface minerals, coal. 

phosphate, known geologic structures, etc. 

h. 	 Public lands containing strategic mineral~ needed for national defense. 

~- Public lands used in support of national defense: these incl ude but are not limited to !\ational 

Guard maneuver areas. 

4. 	 Areas where management is cost-effective or lands containing other important characteristics 

and public values which can best be managed in public ownership b~· BLM will be retained. 

These include hut are not limited to: 

a. 	 strategic tra-cts along rivers. streams, lak(.'s. ponds, springs. and trails 

b. 	 community watersheds and 1 or flood plains 

c. 	 wildlife priority areas as defined under acquisition criteria for wildlife habitat areas 

d. 	 Important hunting or fishing areas 

P. 	 R<>creation sites anrl an•as 

f. 	 Cultural resource sites where the cost of mitigation actions req uired by chsposal would 

exceed the public benefits of land disposal. 

5. 	 Lands with a combination ofmultiple use valurs which dictate they should be retained in public 

ownership and managed b;,· BLM. 

6. 	 Areas where futur<> plans will lead to further consolidation and improvement of land patterns 

and management efficiency. 

7. 	 Areas which the general public. state and local government consider suitable for permanent 

public ownership. 

8. 	 Public lands withdrawn by the BLM or another federal agency for which the purpose of the 

withdrawal remains valid a nd the resource uses can be managed concurrently by BLM. 

9. 	 Public lands that contribute significantly to the stability of the local economy by virture of 

federal ownership. 

10. 	 Public lands which provide public access and contain previously mentioned public values 

which. when considered together. warrant their retention. 

Guidelines for the retention of the mineral estate are fairlv well described and are mandated under 

FLPMA. These require that the mineral estate will be reser~ed by the U .S. in all land disposals except 

in som<> cases where exchanges are involved. In exchanges. the mineral estate may be reserved by 

both parties presuming no material interference with development of the mineral resource due to 

disposal of the s urface estate. If values are equal. title may pass with the surface estate. 

Disposal 

These are lands identified for potential removal from BLM administration through exchange. 

through transfer to federal, state. county or local public entities or through sale. In addition to land 

internally identified for disposal. BLM will respond to proposals from the public. Disposal decisions 

will be made in the public interest based upon the following criteria: 

1. 	 Lands specifically identified through land use plans for exchange, transfer, Recreation and 

Public Purposes Act applications or sale. 

2. 	 Lands of limited public value. 

:3. 	 Widely scattered parcels which an· rliffi('ult for Bl .M to manage with anything beyond minimal 

custodial administration and have no significant public values. 

4. 	 Lands with high public values proper for management by other federal agencies, orstate or local 

government. 

;:>. 	 Lands which will serve important nuhlic objectives (such as community expansion) as provided 

in FLPMA Sec. 2m3(a)(~) . 

6. 	 Lands where disposal would aid in aggregating or repositioning other public lands or public 

land resource values in retention ar<>as to facilitate national. state and local objectives. 

5 
7. 	 Lands acquired for a specific federal purpose which are no longer required for that or any other 

federal purpose. 

8. 	 Lands with long term unauthorized use problems, if the lands are not required for public 

purposes. 

9. 	 Lands in which the highest public value will be attained through long term agricultural. 

commercial or industrial development. 

Acquisition Criteria 

These are used to evaluate proposals which would result in the acquisition of lands. easements or 

minerals by the Bureau of Land Management through exchange or other transactions. 

These criteria help to assure that any BLM decision to acquire a tract of land provides significant 

public benefits. The criteria range from "general" standards to evaluate all proposals, to "specific'' 

guidelines covering the selected or prioritized program areas. 

These standards are designed to provide consistent direction, while allowing management flexibility 

to meet local, state and national needs. 

General Criteria for Acquisition (and Retention Decisions) 

All proposals will be evaluated to determine if the acquired lands will: 

1. 	 Facilitate access to areas retained for long term public use. 

2. 	 Enhance Congressionally designated areas, rivers or trails. 

3. 	 Be primarily focused in the "retention" areas. Acquisition outside the retention areas will only 

be considered if the action leads to and; or facilitates long term needs or program objectives. 

4. 	 Facilitate national. state and local BLM priorities or mission statement needs. 

5. 	 Place emphasis where BLM land use or activity plans are completed. Proposals must facilitate 

implementation a nd t or be consistent with these plans. 

6. Stabilize or enhance local economies or values. 


' · Meet long term public lnnd mana~ ment goals as opposed to shor t term. 


8. 	 Be ofsufficient size to improve use ofadjoining public lands or. ifisolated, large enough to allow 

the identified potential public land use. 

9. 	 Allow more diverse use. more intensive use, or a change in uses to better fulfill the Bureau's ·mission. 

10. 	 Enhance the opportunity for new or emerging public land uses or values. 

11. 	 Contribute to a wide spectrum of uses or large number of public land users. 

12. 	 Facilitate management practices. uses. scale of operations or degrees of management intensity 

that are viable under economic program efficiency standards. 

13. 	 Secure for the public sit.mificant water related land interests. These interests will include lake 

s hore. river front. stream. pond or spring sites. 

Program Specific Acquisition Criteria 

Any of these program criteria may providt• the rationale for acquiring a particular tract of land in 

la nd adjustment transaction: however. priority' will be determined on the basis of multiple use 

analysis. That is, the greater the numhPr of programs and public values served, the higher the priority 

for acquisition. 

Minerals 

1. 	 Consolidation of a 5 mint'ral estates-from the minerals program viewpointthisis probably 

the most important reason for ::1cquisition. The primary purpose for consolidation of estates is 

improvement ofpotential fordevt·topment while improving resource management and economic 

values. 

This concept can be appli ed to soml· deposits ofcoal, phosphate, potash, oil shale and tar sands. 

Itis difficult to envision that this approach would be useful for oil and gas or locatable minerals. 

6 

2. 	 Acquisition in response to a federal project need. as in the case of a dam project. Criteria for this 

type of acquisition would generally include: 

a. 	 Where development of the federal project would preclude the mineral estate owner from 

exercising development rights; or 

b. 	 Where the exercise of the mineral e~tate owners right of development would materially 

interfere with the federal project. 

3. 	 Acquisition mandated by law. The best example of this would be where an a lluvial valley floor 

has precluded coal mining, triggering an exchange. 

Livestock Management 

Acquire non-federal holdings in key allotments which will enhance manageability and investment 

opportunity in improvement and maintenance category allotments. 

Timber Management 

Focus acquisition priority on areas: 

1. 	 Which exceed 30 cu. ftlacre in growth of commercial timber unless the areas will enhance the 

harvest of adjacent lands. In this case. the standard may be lowered to 20 cu. ft/ acre in annual 

growth. 

2. 	 Contiguous to, or which facilitate access to public forest land. 

3. 	 Containing 80 acres or more of commercial timber. If less than 80 acres, the tract(s) must be 

logical logging unit(s) or facilitate commercial management of adjacent public forest land. 

4. 	 Containing enough h arvestable volume for a feasible commercial logging unit after physical. 

biological or other land use constraints are considered. 

Recreation 

Acquire lands with the following significant public values: 

1. 	 National Values 

a. 	 Congressionally designated areas/ rivers/ trails 

b. 	 Congressionally designated study areas/ rivers/ trails 

2. 	 State Values 

a. 	 Select lands that enhance state recreation trails and waterways (see State Comprehensive 

Outdoor Recreation Plan; SCORP Vol. :2, 1978, p. 149) or those with interstate, state, a nd 

multi·county use significance 

b. Other statewide and multi-county values 

:3 . Local values for extensive use. such as hunting, fishing. ORV and snowmobile use. Higher 

priority will be given to acquisition of these values where such extensive use will compliment and 

enhance these uses on public lands. 

4. 	 Acquire access through easement to the above significant values as needed to facilitate public 

use if surface acquisition is undesirable or not possible. 

WildNness 

Acquire in-holdings within the boundaries of Congressionally designated wilderness areas under 

BLM administration. Priorities are: 

l . 	 State in-holdings to be acquired through exchange only 

Private in-holdings to be acquired by mutual agreement involving-exchange, purchase, or gift 

In the acquisition of access to designated wilderness areas highest priority will be: 

1. 	 Wh ere no access exists 

2. 	 Where it is needed for proper r:~anagement as identified m wilderness management plans 

Cultural Resources 

Any cultural site to be acquired should meet the following evaluation standards of MSO Manual 

Supplement 8111.24: 

7 


0 
I. 	 High Research Value 

2. 	 Moderate Scarcity 

3. 	 Possess some other unique values such as association with an important his toric person or high 

aesthetic values, or 

4. 	 Contribute significantly to interpretive potential of cultural resources already in public owner 

ship. 

Stron~ consideration should be given to manageability. There are only a limited number of potential 

uses to which a cultural resource can be put (see IM 78-339). The principal use is probably research. 

Any site acquired for this purpose should be protectable and accessible. The second most important 

use may be some form of visitor or recreation use. Acquired sites in this case should be in areas also 

important to the Recreation Program unless they can stand on their own. 

The major deciding factor for site acquisition after applying the basic criteria should be the potential 

for actively managing the site. Sites should not be acquired on scattered or isolated parcels unless 

they are of overwhelming cultural importance. 

Wildlife Habitat Management 

In general, areas with important wildlife habitat which are large enough and suitable for public 

hunting, fishing and trapping and a reas suitable for cooperative ma nagement under the Sikes Act. 

High priority areas for retention and acquisition will be lands with significant wildlife values as 

defined below. These areas may be of any size. 

1. 	 Threa tened and Endangered Species (approved recovery plans will also govern actions on 

these areas) 

a. 	 Blach.[ooted Ferret. Occupied habitat or areas identified through planning for future 

fe rret populations. 

b. 	 Grizzly Bear. Lands containing grizzly population centers (Management Situation 1 and 

2 Lands*). 

c. 	 Whooping Crane. Suitable or potential habitat. 

d. 	 Bald Eagle. Historical nest sites· with remaining potential, present nest sites, or docu· 

mented roosting or wintering areas. 

e. 	 Grey Wolf. Occupied h abitat. 

f. 	 Peregrine Falcon. Verified nest areas and suitable sites for reestablishment. 

2. 	 Fish£>ries. ** Access to or larger areas adjacent to Class 1. 2 or 3 streams** and lake and pond 

fi s h eries. Stream areas with restoration potential to become Class 1, 2 or 3 streams. Sites to 

develop additional fisheries especially near population centers. Sites supporting spawning or 

nursery a reas which may be temporal in nature but important to downstream fisheries. Land 

that would enable us to acquire needed instream flow reservations. 

3. 	 Big Game. Important habitat areas s uch as crucial winter and associated spring/ fall transi· 

tion a reas. kidding/ fawning/ calving/ lambing areas. crucial wallow complexes, mineral licks. 

and secu rity areas. 

4. 	 Upland Game Birds. Migratory Birds and Waterfowl. Crucial breeding. nesting, resting, roost· 

i~g. feeding and wintering habitat areas or complexes. These will vary in size, for example. a 

h1ghly productive one acre wetland or 100 acres of nesting cover for pheasants. 

<> . Raptors. Existing and potential nesting areas for sensitive s pecies or significant nesting 

complexes for nonsensitive species. 

6. 	 Nongame. Crucial habitat complexes. 

*From Guidelines for Management Ir.·:olving Grizzly Bears in Yellowstone Area, USFS. NPS 1979. 

"'*Class _of streams defined by Mont..ma Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 1980. Stream 

Evaluatwn Map State of Montana. 

8 

MAP ANALYSIS 

Table I summarizes the acreage identified for retention by district a n d by state. Montana districts 

range from 91 percent retention in Lewistown to ~5 percent in Miles City. The state average is 8~ 

percent. Retention percentages in North and South Dakota are 65 and 68 percent respectively. but 

because of smaller total acreages in those states. the three-state average is 87 percent. 

TABLE I 


POTENTIAL LAND ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY 


BLM ACREAGE (X 1000) 


Other Lands 

Outside 

In Retention Percent of Retention Percent 

Zones Total Zone Total Total 

Montana* 7.122 88% 987 12'To 8.109 

South Dakota 177 68'1.· 85 82'':· 262 

North Dakota 44 651

li> 24 35% 6~ 

Three State 7,343 87'~, 1,096 13% R.439 

*Break-down of Montana by District Office: 

Butte DO 1.259 88% 175 12'li• 1.434 

Lewistown DO 3.119 91'/t• 315 9'!\· 3.-la4 

Miles City D01 2.744 85% 497 15% 3. ~41 

Montana Total 7.122 987 8.109 

1 Miles City DO total does not include South Dakota Resource Area. 

Retention Zones 

These zon es predominantly contain public lands that meet the retention criteria. 


All BLM iands in nationall y designated areas will be retained: including the Upper Missouri 


?\ a ti ona! Wild and Scenic River. all wilderness study areas. Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. 


Pryor Mountai n Wild Horse Ra nge. Square Butte Outstanding Natural Area and all designated 


National Register Hist orical a nd Cultural Sites. 


Other Lands 

These lands generally are scattered tracts that are difficult to manage due to their small size. very 

limited legal access. a nd distance from the office administering t hem. In many cases. the resource 

values of these lands are low. 

Although these lands are open to consideration for all types ofland adjustment acti ons. many parcels 

of land where significant resource values are found will be retained under BLM management. Also, 

some parcels may be encumbered in a vari ety of ways that require public retention. Examples are 

\vithdruwals, recreation and public purpose leases. or mining claims. The Dillon Resource Area has 

several strips of land withdrawn for stock driveways that lie in the open zone. Land within a 

muni cipal watershed would be retai ned. Also. tracts wou ld be retained to be consistent with state and 

local land use plans or other agency's pol ici,~s. Enhancement of national historic trails such as the 

Continental Divide Trail may req uire that isolated tracts be retained. 

The Montana Map 

The BLM ownership information on tl.i s map was taken from a base prepared several years ago and 

is no longer completely accurate; however, the retention zone boundaries were developed using 

current larger scale work ma ps. 

9 

In Montana the retention zones encompass large. generally compact areas of public land which 

provide for the most efficient management and the fewest access problems. Smaller units were 

delineated where resource values are high. This includes areas along rivers or where the lands n•n(•ct 

public priorities such as wilderness study areas. In eastern Montana some areas of rather limited 

surface ownership are classified for retention because of a significant Federal mineral estate. 

The zones. as delineated. are generally con::;istent with existing pl a ns and plans in progress. How· 

ever. in the Dillon Resource Area <southwest Montana) the land use plan completed in Hl79 did not 

identify zones, but instead identified specific tracts for acquisition and disposal. A programmatic 

environmental assessment was completed for these disposal tracts in October 1983. The adjustment 

zones as defined in this document are not entirely consistent with the terms ofthe Dillon MFP. in that 

considerations of any additional land sale proposals not covered in the programmatic environmental 

assessment in 1983 would require plan amendments. 

A substantial block ofBLM-adminstered land in the Big Snowy Mountains a djacent to the Lewis and 

Clark National Forest is not included in a retention zone. This apparent inconsistency results from a 

decision in the Billings Resource Management Plan to transfer this land to the U.S. ForestService at 

some future date. · 

South Dakota Map 

The South Dakota Resource Area. under the Miles City District. covers the entire state. The lands 

administered by BLM in South Dakota total approximately 262.000 acres. A single map showing the 

BLM lands in South Dakota was n ot available, therefore, the retention zones were delineated from 

large scale working maps. The BLM ownership within the retention zones was then drafted using 

current information. BLM ownership outside the retention zone is not shown. 

A total of l 77,000 acres or 68 percent ofthe BLM lands in South Dakota are contained in the retention 

zones. These are in fou r relatively compact clusters in the northwest quarter ofthe State. These zones 

were defined to correspond to the larger concentrations of public lands. A number of the tracts 

contain ed in the eastern-most zone along the Oahe Reservoir also reflect high recreation values. 

A total of85,000 acres or 32 percent ofthe lands administered by BLM in this resource area lie outside 

the retention zones. These are scattered tracts mostly in the western part ofthe state and intermingled 

with state lands. other federal lands and tribal lands. 

North Dakota Map 

The Dickinson District contains all of the BLM administered lands in North Dakota, a total of 

approximately 68.000 acres. :V1ost BLM lands are in the western half ofthe state a nd there are on!~· 

two areas ofsignificant con centration . These lie along the Little Missouri River in Dunn County and 

western Bowman County in the southwest corner of the statP. As in South Dakota. a single current 

map ofBLM administration in ]\;orth Da kota was not available. Retention zones were identified from 

larger scale maps and within those zones the current land holdings are shown. 

The retention zones contain approximately 44.-tOO acres or 65 percent of the total surface acreaj!e 

BLM administers in North Dakota. About 40.600 acres ofthe BLM lands within these zones are in two 

counties. Dunn a nd Bowman: and there are minor :..tcreages in Williams, McHenry, Divide, Burleigh 

and McLean counties. totalling 3.800 acres. 

Generall~·. la nds within the retention zone will he retained in federal ownership or exchanged for 

~ther lands .,.,·ithin these zones. T hese land~ rna\' also serve as core areas for acquiring adjacent lands 

m exchange for BLM lands categorizecl for disposal outside the retention zones. 

There are ronny valuable resources on BLM lands in Bowman a nd Dunn Counties, and a variety of 

uses occur. including grazing. dispersed recreation. hunting, fishing. and oil and gas development. 

Lands located within the retention zc.r:-.·s in other counties may also contain many resources or may 

be wetlands orriparian lands with roo:··· li mited use::;, such as providing wildlife habitat, recreation or 

water storage. 

The area outside the retention zones contains approximately 23,600 acres or 35 percent of the BLM 

~rface in Korth Dakota. Of this. 6.000 acres are located in Bowman County, and the remaining 

1 • .600 are scattered among 31 counties across the State. Generally, the tracts ofland within this zone 

10 

RECREATION PROGRAM GUIDANCE 


REVISIONS 


are available for disposal, except for wetlands. which have public value for water retention and 

wildlife habitats. Lands that fall within this area are available for disposal through exchange or 

transfer to another public agency or through sale. Preference will be given to exchanging lands in thi::; 

area for lands within the retention zone. 


It is also recognized that limited acquisition outside the retention zones may be justified on th e basis 


of one or more of the acquisition criteria listed in this document. 


The primary objectives ofadjusting BLM land pattern are to: improve manageme~t effici~ncy: make 


the public lands in North Dakota more accessible and usable ~y t~e general pubhc: and. m general. 


enhance recreation opportunities and natural resource protecuon m the State. 


LAND ADJUSTMENT IMP ACTS 

About 1.1 million acres of BLM administered land is found outside the designated retention an·a~. 

Less than half of this acreage may actually be affected by land adjustment~ because of a variety of 

constraints. Ifa detailed examination of any tract finds values that fulfill the retention criteria it will 

normallv be retained. Opportunities for publicly beneficial exchanges or transfers may not be found 

for man;, tracts of otherwise disposable land. 

Resource Impacts 

Effects on the Bureau':; resource programs are expected to be significantly positive. Under terms of 

the land adjustment criteria the lands important to BLM resource management programs will he 

retained. Lands of lesser ,.<due will generally be exchanged for lands which will make a greater 

contribution to public resource management objectives. 

SomP adverse ('ffects ma~: occur to lands whi ch pass out ofBureau control beca u~ e the Bureau c·annot 

j.!uarante~:> the future stewardship of the new owner. However. it is BLM policr to avoid disposal 

action s where the intended future u~t· i::; harmful to the resource base or to community interests. 

Generally the lands coming into feder<J.I ownership and control will be important for public use. 

Management and Access 

By consolidating its land holdings the BL!'vl can increase its management efficiency through economics ofscale. This could be the result of working with fewer livestock operators. decreased travel costs to 

manage isolated tracts and decreased paperwork associated with casefiles and other management 

problems. 

Consolidation would facilitate such manageme nt projects as land. water shed or vegetativ<:' treatments or wildlife habitat programs. Transfers of some public land tracts could make management 

more efficient and produce more public benefits under management of another agency or organiza· 

tion. 

Access to puhlic land:-; should he enhanced h.\· the BLM acquiring key tracts or easements that would 

assure the public leg-al access to blocks of publi<· lands. Improved access will generally increase 

recreational use in areas where a checkerboard ownership pattern now restricts public use. 

Social and Economic E f fects 

The BLM is required by law to establish throuf.!h standard appraisal procedure the fair market value 

of lands to be exchanged or sold. 

In some cases a private landowner who ndjoins n piece of public land and wishes to add it to his 

agricultural operation may feel that :'u:-h a valuation greatly exceeds the return that can reasonably 

be expected from the agricultural us,· of the land. This can result because the appraisal considers 

comparable sales on the open market .1d the potential highest and best use in economic terms, such 

as rural subdivision. 

Therefore. they fear loss ofagricultural usp ofthe public land to individuals who will pay fair market 

value because they intend to convert the land to another use such as homesites. 

11 
Similarly, the holder of a grazing lease on a tract identified by BLM for disposal will be offered the 

opportunity to acquire it through exchange or purchase. The ability of the lessee to participate can 

vary widely and there is a potential for adverse impacts to some operations through loss ofthe leased 

area or through additional financial burdens resulting from its acquisition. 

County governments will experience some effect on Payments in Lieu ofTaxes (PTLT) and payments 

from grazing and mineral receipts if public lands in their counties are exchanged for lands in another 

county. When public lands are transferred to private own ership the tax base in the affected county 

will thereby be. increased and the PILT and other payments decreased. 

The net fiscal effects on local governments depend upon the type of land adjustment. They depend 

· upon whether the land adjustments are with private landowners, state governments. local govern· 

ments or other federal agencies. They would also depend upon whether exchanges are largely within 

or between counties and h ow the tax return on lands passing into private ownership compares with 

the level ofPILTpayments and grazing a nd mineral fees returned for these lands. Tax exempt lands 

acquired from state or local governments through exchanges would be excluded from PILT. 

Public attitudes regarding specific land adjustments may also vary widely depending upon the type 

of!and transfer, the reasons for the transfer and individual perceptions ofwho may gain or lose from 

the transfer. 

12 

RECREATION 


The Bureau has demonstrat<>d a limited capabilit;.' to ohtain funds to sustain any kind of consistPnt 


rPcreation d('v(:'lopment pro;,.!rnm~ . 

Howevpr. we shou\d take adv;m tag-t' ofl'Xisting situations and t·a pahiIities to pro,·id,• fnr l"tlt u n· puhi j,· 


needs. We are in a better position. in terms ofskills and land pattern. than an;.· other Fech'ral age_nc;.· tll 


acquire recreation opportunities through purchas(' or exchanges. We have tht> capabilit;.· to usl:' thl' 


scattered tracts of public land as a trading base to acquire art>as or easements for access. This i~ 

particularly true in locations where there is no single Federal reserve and where there are limited 


public use areas. whether State or Federal. Throu!!h acquisition the public will he provided use ofsuch 


areas (described below) or they can be held for future public management options. 


The RMP should identifv access needs to recreation resources of national or state value. We would 


then he in a position to" ·acquire such values when opportunities for purchase or exchange present 


themselves. Parameters of such a program are listed below. hut generally. the objectiYe is to pro,·id~· 

both legal and physical access to strategic locations. For example. for river floating the strategic 


location could he-on<> a<'cess point per four hours of float or at highway crossings: for historic 


battlefields-one prominent vil-'wpoint: or for National trails- on<> access point p<>r 10-15 miies or at 


State highway crossing. Location and number of access points will depend on the significance of tht:' 


value and the anticipated demand. Hoth ofthese should be determined through the planning system 


with public involvemE'nt. 


New. fully developed destination type area~ will not be provided by the Bureau in the tri-state area. 


unless there is a significant issue identified that suggests Bureau development. Generally. this type ol 


facility will be recog-nized as being pro\'ided h~· other Federal or the State agencies. 


The following are the parameters of the suggested recreation program. These are outside parameters 


and a general (not absolute) hierarchy from most important to lowest priority. 


Opportunities he;.·ond those listed can b(• identifit·d anrl discussed in the RMPs. hut should he looked 


on as re<.:reation resources to manage on a custodial basis until some other agenc;.·. group or individual 


can he found to take over mnnagement. Such manngement <'an be by lease, cooperative agrt>ement. or 


tr<1nsfers . 


Kinds of Ownership Actions We Wili Take 

1. 	 Rl·tention of public use areas and acees~ routt'S (trail or motorized) to public lands involving the 

opportunities described below. 

Acquisition of .strategic-nil~- loc<ltt·cl l;tnds for public ust.• of recreation opportunities desc-rilwd 

h<·low. These can be through exc·hange. purchase. contributions or easements. 

A('quisition of nccess to opportunitit's or strat<>gically located lands for public use ofrecrention 

opportunitie~ descriiwd iwlow. 

GP rwrall;.·. w<• will not assi~t otlwr 1-\·ckra i ;lgt•nc·il';-; in hlockin;.! up or eliminating in-holdings for 

rt-'('rl'ation purpost>~ unles:- puiliic support and intl'rPst is ).!t•rwrated during the planning effort. 

Kinds of Opportunities on Whic-h W1.• Wiii Con<.:l.~ntratt' Our Efforts 

1. 	 Existin).! national!;.• recognizt·d rl';-;ourT''" !('ong-rt-ssionall;.· designated): 


:\. l:ppt•r Missouri Vvi lci and Sn·ni.- l{iq·r 


B. 	 Ll'\\'is and Clark :\ational Historic Trail 

Cppt>r Mis;-;ouri Wild and :-'c·Pnic ]{iVl'r :-;<·gment 


Yl•ilowstonl· Hi\·,·r Sl'i!m,·n; 


l ; pper :\·1is~our i 1\i vl'r ;m·; t 


Low(•r Mi:-;souri Riv1·r st:!!ment 


Land based trnil. T iwt·t· .Forks to Park Cit;.· 


Marias River area 


Blackfoot Hivc>r 


C. 	 Continental Divide :\ati<•; .. ;-;cPnic· Trail 

D. 	 .l'\ational Wilderness arl'a:-. under BLM managemt·nt 

E. 	 National Conservation. !'\atura l Histo ric.: or otherspec:ial type areas (Pryor Mtn. Wild Horse 

Range). 
'J 	 Potential national values (designated hy Con gress for study\: 

A. 	 Nez Perce Trail 

B. 	 Yellowstone Ri ver 

C. 	 North Country Trail 

:~ . Statewide recognized values defined in the Statt•wide Co mprch ensiw Outdoor Recreation Plan 

CSCORP ) as a Federal role or identified for cooperative manag-ement. 

A. 	 Recreation trails. waterways or rivers/ s treams with free flowing va lue (see SCORP Vol. 2. 

1978. p. 149). 

B. 	 Other recognized r ecreation sites/ areas, cultural. natural or scenic values under BLM 

management: ·Garnet. Fort Meade. and Square Butte. 

4. 	 Loca l recreation areas (see FLPMA. Sec. 206a) for extensive use such as hunting, fishing, and 

snowmobile use. 

Kinds and Levels of Development We Will Consider 

1. 	 Limited development/ uncontrolled use. Development will be limited to identification through 

signs and maps of public use areas a nd access routes. Heavy r eliance will be put on map 

handouts. 

2. 	 Primitive facilities where use exceeds natura l carryin g capacity. Development probably limited 

to parking, privy, a nd water access ramp on sites 10 acres or less. 

3. 	 Access development: Low standard (e.g.. foot trails. ORV trails, or primitive roads). 

4. 	 Low level developm<>nt site with camp unit. loop road. privies. water and other support facilities 

as necessary. Development will not exceed :W units on sites of 50 acres or less. 

Off-Road Vehicle D e signations 

Formal rlcsigna tions will bP made for a reas whert· problems h a ve been identifi ed. Pl a ns are to identify 

areas in which ORV use is restricwd or closed. All other an•ns will be considered open a nd receive 

for m;d dPs ign ation onl.'· when considt•rpd nec<•ssar~· b~· the District Manager. 

Ear h ani vity sp<·cialist shall ha,·e the responsibility for considPring ORV designation needs to 

protC'ct his own particular r(-'source \' <llues h.\' using tht· followi n;.! minimum s et of planning criteria: 

l. Damage caust>d by OR\' ust· to soi ls. wat<.•rshl'd and ve~ ti on shall be minimized. 

:2 . Harassm ent of wildlife or significa nt disruption of habitat shall be minimized. 

:~ . Conflicts between ORV use and other existing or proposed uses for the same or neighboring 

publi(' or priv:.lt£> lands shall be minimizt>d; e.g., wilderness. 

14 
Appendix I

Drought Policy

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS I-1

APPENDIX I

DROUGHT POLICY

Bureau of Land Management

POLICY FOR ADMINISTERING PUBLIC LAND GRAZING

IN

MONTANA, NORTH AND SOUTH DAKOTA

DURING PERIODS OF DROUGHT

I.1 INTRODUCTION

Livestock grazing is but one of the activities that BLM manages on the public 

lands. Drought stresses many resources and resource uses including recreation, 

soils, timber, vegetation, watersheds, and wildlife as well as livestock forage. 

However, only livestock and human activities can be readily controlled or 

restricted from access to public lands. The other resources are either immobile 

or not readily controlled. This policy deals with livestock use and implements 

provisions of current laws and regulations. Other uses that may require special 

consideration during severe drought may be addressed in separate policy 

statements or actions.

Vegetation cover is one part of productive rangelands because it strongly affects 

soil moisture. When drought reduces the total forage produced and the normal 

residual vegetation (standing and down plant material) is used by livestock, 

insects, and other grazing animals, soil moisture and temperature are affected. 

Soil temperatures are lowered by the residual cover during warm periods and 

are raised by the residual cover during cold periods. Moisture intake and 

penetration into soils is keyed to the amount and type of residual cover found 

on a soil/ecological site. In fact, with little or no residual cover on rangelands, 

moisture events will likely produce little effective penetration into the soil. 

Residual cover provides protection for soils, vegetation, wildlife, watersheds,

and for the many other resources dependent upon good vegetation and 

livestock management.
I. Drought Policy

I-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

I.2 AUTHORITY

This document implements provisions of:

• Taylor Grazing Act of June 28, 1934, as amended;

• Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended;

• Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978;

• Regulations in 43 code of Federal Regulations, Group 4100(43 CFR 

4100).

I.3 POLICY

This policy is meant to supplement the national drought policy as set forth by 

Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2013-094.

It is the policy and objective of the BLM to: manage the public lands and 

authorize livestock grazing under the principles of multiple use and sustained 

yield; provide for the orderly administration of grazing by domestic livestock on 

the public lands; and provide for productive and healthy soil and vegetation 

resources as well as other environmental values.

Accomplishment of these objectives becomes more difficult during periods of 

range depletion caused by drought. Normal grazing schedules and livestock 

management practices may have to be modified. Additional coordination, 

consultation, and data exchange between livestock operators and Bureau 

personnel will be required, over and above the level normally practiced. 

Appropriate local, state and Federal agencies and the interested public will have 

to be involved at times and consistently kept informed.

The principal thrust of the policy and procedures in this document, and other 

regulatory and procedural requirements not repeated here, will be for the 

livestock operator and BLM to jointly develop strategies for livestock use on 

public land during and following drought. Strategies selected should be those 

that best protect rangeland resources while minimizing impacts on the operator 

to the extent possible. To that end, every degree of flexibility provided by the 

laws and implementing regulations will be available to authorized officers of the 

Bureau.

Voluntary adjustments in livestock use of public lands should be sought at the 

earliest date it becomes apparent that "normal” grazing schedules cannot be 

followed, or, if followed, would result in long-term resource degradation. The 

earlier an agreement can be reached or a decision made that "normal” grazing 

schedules cannot be followed, the more opportunities livestock operators will 

have to consider alternatives to minimize impacts on his or her operation. 

Waiting until the last minute before scheduled turnout to make a determination 

or decision will reduce the options available to both the operator and the 

Bureau.
I. Drought Policy

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS I-3

An interdisciplinary approach (within the confines of scarce skills availability) to 

identify natural resources and other applicable public values vulnerable to 

drought will be used to prioritize allotments for attention. Second, efforts to 

manage public rangeland under drought conditions will be directed next to 

allotments with resource concerns—typically "I” category allotments. Specific 

allotments in the "M” and "C” categories can also be considered high priority 

when resource values or conditions so require. Regardless of the category 

assigned to an allotment, operators should be aware of the procedures and 

flexibilities available for dealing with drought conditions.

BLM fully expects that the vast majority of livestock operators will recognize the 

need and voluntarily make adjustments in livestock use of public lands the longer 

a drought persists. These adjustments will be recognized during the application 

process and grazing bills will be adjusted accordingly. Adjustments in grazing 

use may include but are not limited to reducing livestock numbers, shortening 

the season of use, altering pasture move dates, changing pasture rotations, 

authorizing water hauling (after documenting NEPA compliance), closing 

allotments to grazing use, or allowing use in vacant allotments.

• Regulatory mechanisms to voluntarily implement grazing use 

changes include approval of applications for voluntary non-use (43 

CFR 4130.2(g)), or approving applications for changes within the 

terms and conditions of permits and leases (43 CFR 4130.4(b)), or 

some combination. 

• Line officers also have the option to implement needed changes 

through a formal agreement between the BLM and grazing operator 

(which is recommended to be implemented by decision) that 

specifies the drought-related grazing adjustments (43 CFR 4110.3-

3(a)), or by temporarily suspending or otherwise modifying use via a 

decision that may be put into immediate effect, if necessary (43 CFR 

4110.3-2(a) and 3-3(b)).[2] 

• If using an agreement or decision, indicate within it the intended 

duration of the drought-related adjustments and include supporting 

rationale for the indicated timeframe. 

• Regulation 43 CFR 4130.6-2 provides the mechanism for the BLM 

to authorize use in vacant allotments. Do not modify permits and 

leases (43 CFR 4130.3-3) to make drought responsive short-term 

grazing use adjustments.

Offices are required to screen any proposed drought mitigation strategies and 

actions to determine if they trigger the requirement for National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) compliance documentation and if so, whether existing 

documentation is adequate or whether additional analysis is needed. Addressing 

drought management in Resource Management Plans or Allotment Management 
I. Drought Policy

I-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Plans, or preparing programmatic drought action plans, provides pro-active 

opportunities to address potential conditions and contingencies.

In those situations where agreement cannot be reached, authorized officers of 

the Bureau have the final responsibility and accountability for ensuring that 

public lands are not permanently damaged by improper use. If issuance of a 

decision concerning livestock use becomes necessary, the procedure specified in 

43 CFR 4160 will be followed. It should be further understood that final 

decisions can be modified or rescinded, if the conditions that existed when the 

decision was issued no longer exist. If significant amounts of precipitation occur 

during the growing season, producing significant changes in the amount of 

moisture available to plants, this may cause decisions to be reconsidered. The 

consultation, cooperation, and coordination process will be used to obtain 

livestock operator and stakeholder involvement in such cases.

I.4 PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES

The following guidelines and procedures are intended to provide the data, 

flexibility and direction for public land managers and livestock operators to 

develop strategies and make decisions during drought conditions. Consultation 

and coordination with livestock operators and other interested parties will be 

carried out during all procedural steps.

I.4.1 Winter Assessment (Late-October - February)

Analysis

1. Review the past season's monitoring results. Analyze plant growth, 

actual use, insect infestation occurrences, utilization, use pattern 

maps, residual cover, and especially the use of "rest” pastures. 

Review the past season’s land health assessments in areas of 

concern.

2. Analyze precipitation records and distribution patterns from the 

National Weather Service, the Montana Drought and Water 

Information website, the North Dakota Drought website, the South 

Dakota Drought website, local cooperators, BLM, and other 

agencies. Tabulate moisture departures from normal levels and 

timing of precipitation in relation to past years' growing season.

3. Determine whether currently available data is sufficient to inform 

and support drought responsive actions.

4. In identified priority or "I” allotments where there is concern 

because there is limited residual cover, effective precipitation well 

below normal, rest pastures already used, abnormally high utilization 

or use patterns, etc., field offices may opt to measure soil moisture 

in representative areas for additional data. Where available, use 

RAWS/OMNI sites, existing soil moisture stations, NRCS SCAN 

soil climate monitoring sites, etc. Additional soil moisture samples 
I. Drought Policy

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS I-5

are to be taken at the rooting depth of major forage species in 

representative areas using techniques found in agency 

manuals/handbooks, the professional literature and extension 

publications.

Action

1. Where it is apparent resource degradation might occur if drought 

continues, begin to notify operators through letters and news 

releases that the coming year's livestock grazing could be affected.

2. Set up range user meetings in affected communities to discuss 

available information and possible actions to prevent range resource 

damage.

3. Encourage operators to make needed changes in their grazing 

schedules, including applying for non-use. If non-use is taken, but 

activated later should conditions change, BLM will waive the $10 

service fee in accordance with 43 CFR 4130.8.3. Authorized officers 

may issue refund or credit of grazing fees under 43 CFR 4130.8-

2(b).

4. Meet with individual operators when available information indicates 

a particular allotment is affected by severe drought condition. 

Attempt to reach agreement on alternative grazing strategies if 

conditions do not change.

I.4.2 Late Winter and Spring Assessment (February - April)

Analysis

1. Review precipitation and soil moisture data for winter and early 

spring.

2. Review the effects of winter grazing use; snow pack influence for 

stock water, soil temperatures, etc3. Continue soil moisture measurements or monitoring where 

problems are apparent or in areas of concern. Measurements at 

rooting depth to measure available water for plants will be 

especially important during this period.

4. Assess availability of livestock water, in consultation with 

permittees.

5. Assess the availability of water for wildlife.

Action

1. If drought conditions are continuing, or becoming more severe, 

follow up winter letters and news releases with updates and 

attachments to grazing applications. Conduct meetings with 

Cooperative State Grazing Districts and Resource Advisory 
I. Drought Policy

I-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Councils. Meetings are encouraged with other concerned individuals 

and agencies as a part of the grazing management strategy.

2. Contact remaining operators who have not voluntarily made 

needed changes. Where you believe you have enough information 

to indicate an allotment is in severe drought condition, meet with 

the operator to review and explain the information you have and 

attempt to reach agreement on a grazing strategy. If an agreement 

cannot be reached and, especially if the allotment has a relatively 

early turnout date, issue a proposed decision. The extent of use 

adjustment contained in this decision (delayed turnout, reduction in 

numbers or duration, total exclusion, etc.) will depend on your 

assessment of all the factors involved. These include past grazing 

use, range condition, residual cover, precipitation, soil moisture and 

the land use objectives for the allotment.

3. If soil moisture is very dry and tending to blow away (Quick 

Assessment), or below the average soil moisture between field 

capacity and wilting point (Volumetric Measurement), delay turnout 

until key forage plants have grown to the 3-4 leaf stage

(approximately one-half their normal height--for most of our native 

grass species about 6 inches). (Manske 2003, Manske 2011, Fraser 

2003)

I.4.3 Continuing Assessment (throughout grazing season)

Analysis

1. Continue to closely monitor precipitation in "I” allotments and 

areas of concern. Attention is directed to determining effective (soil 

moisture) growing season precipitation.

2. Closely monitor utilization of key plant species and key areas. 

Remember to consider management objectives when selecting key 

species and areas.

3. Continue to monitor soil moisture in "I” allotments and areas of 

concern.

4. Monitor factors other than livestock grazing, such as insect 

infestations, congregations of wildlife, availability of livestock water, 

etc.

5. Monitor forage, habitat and water needs for wildlife. Consult with 

state wildlife agencies as needed.

Action

1. If soil moisture drops below the average soil moisture between field 

capacity and wilting point (Volumetric Measurement) and utilization 

has reached objective levels or a maximum of 30 percent utilization 

has occurred, livestock are to be removed.
I. Drought Policy

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS I-7

2. If soil moisture remains unacceptable (completely dry and blows 

away (Quick Assessment)) or below wilting point soil moisture 

levels (Volumetric Measurement) during most of the spring and 

early summer with little or no growth in primary forage species for 

livestock (i.e., range readiness has not been reached), advise affected 

permittees that fall and winter ranges may not be available for use 

during the current year. Also advise that production in subsequent 

years may be affected if plant basal areas and density have been 

severely reduced.

3. For those permittees in "I”, allotments with AMPs having available 

standing forage in rest pastures or fall or winter use pastures, advise 

the permittees that livestock must be removed from public lands 

when consumption of standing forage has reached objective levels 

or a maximum of 50 percent.

4. Adjust monitoring plans to collect data concerning residual cover, 

plant death, loss of basal area, density, and yield for analysis and use 

in later years.

5. Utilize interdisciplinary teams to ensure wildlife forage and water 

requirements are considered when determining adjustments.

I.4.4 Other Considerations

1. The use of salt, mineral, and certain mineral supplements as 

necessary to overcome natural shortages of minerals in rangeland 

forage may be authorized as necessary to provide for proper range 

management(4130.3-2(c)).

2. Maintenance feeding on public lands is not authorized except under 

very unusual short-term conditions and by permit only. 

Maintenance feeding during drought conditions is specifically 

excluded.

3. Applications for a maintenance feeding permit due to poor forage 

conditions associated with drought should be denied and livestock 

removed or not allowed.

4. Review RMP guidance on wildlife habitat objectives.

I.4.5 Definitions

Available water: That portion of water in a soil that plants can extract from the 

soil—generally measured per unit volume of soil; the amount of water in a soil 

between field capacity and permanent wilting point.

Basal area (range): The area of ground surface covered by the stem or stems of a 

range plant, usually measured 1 inch above the soil in contrast to the full spread 

of the foliage.
I. Drought Policy

I-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Density: (1) The number of individual plants per unit area; (2) Refers to the 

relative closeness of plants to one another.

Field Capacity: The maximum amount of water held in a soil, measured a few 

days after it has been thoroughly soaked and allowed to drain freely.

Flexibility: The ability to alter the grazing management plan to meet changing 

conditions.

Flushing: Feeding female animals a concentrated feed shortly before and during 

the breeding period for the purpose of stimulating ovulation.

Growing season: In temperate climates, that portion of the year when 

temperature and moisture are usually most favorable for plant growth.

Key species: (1) Forage species whose use serves as our indicator to the use of 

associated species; (2) Those species which must, because of their importance, 

be considered in the management program.

Maintenance feeding: Supplying feed to range animals when available forage is too 

limited to meet their minimum daily requirement (examples are cubes, pellets, 

baled or loose hay).

Permanent Wilting Point (PWP): The soil water content at which water is no 

longer available to plants, causing them to wilt because they cannot extract 

enough water to meet their requirements.

Phenology: The study of periodic biological phenomenon such as flowering, 

seeding, etc., especially as related to climate.

Range readiness: The defined stage of plant growth at which grazing may begin 

under a specific management plan without causing permanent damage to 

vegetation or soil.

Supplemental feed: A feed which supplements the forage available from the public 

lands and is provided to improve livestock nutrition and good animal husbandry 

and rangeland management practices. An example is salt or mineral block. 

Creep feeders to supplement feed for calves and supplemental feeding to "flush” 

cattle and sheep for breeding may be authorized on public lands when 

compatible with the resource management objectives.

I.4.6 Soil Moisture Monitoring Methods Appendix

Quick Assessment

Soil moisture readings taken from 3 rooting depths of key forage species (e.g., 

4-6 inches, 10-12 inches, 16 inches up to 3 feet) will indicate whether various 

key forage species have adequate moisture for growth. Squeeze the soil in your 
I. Drought Policy

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS I-9

hand. Does it form a ball? If so, you probably have adequate soil moisture for 

growth. If it doesn’t form a ball, but your hand feels cool, you probably have 

some soil moisture left. If the soil is completely dry and blows away, there is 

likely not enough moisture to sustain plant growth. (Howery 1999).

% 

Available 

water 

remaining

Coarse 

(Sand - Loamy 

Sand)

Light 

(Sandy Loam)

Medium 

(Loam, Silt 

Loam, Silty Clay 

Loam, Clay 

Loam, Sandy Clay 

Loam)

Heavy 

(Sandy Clay, Silty 

Clay, Clay)

0 

(PWP or 

drier)

Dry, loose, single 

grained, flows through 

fingers

Dry, loose, flows 

through fingers

Powdery, dry, 

sometimes slightly 

crusted but easily 

breaks down into 

powdery condition

Hard, baked, 

cracked, sometimes 

has loose crumbs on 

surface

< 50

Still appears to be dry; 

will not form a ball 

with pressure

Still appears to be 

dry; will not form 

a ball

Somewhat crumbly 

but will hold 

together from 

pressure

Somewhat pliable, 

will ball under 

pressure

50-75

Still appears to be dry; 

will not form a ball 

with pressure

Tends to ball 

under pressure 

but seldom will 

hold together

Forms a ball, 

somewhat plastic, 

will sometimes slick 

slightly with 

pressure

Forms a ball, will 

ribbon out between 

thumb and 

forefinger

(Table adapted from Manitoba 2013)

Volumetric Measurement

The soil moisture content may be expressed by weight as the ratio of the mass 

of water present to the dry weight of the soil sample, or by volume as ratio of 

volume of water to the total volume of the soil sample. To determine any of 

these ratios for a particular soil sample, the water mass must be determined by 

drying the soil to constant weight and measuring the soil sample mass after and 

before drying. The water mass (or weight) is the difference between the weights 

of the wet and oven dry samples. The criterion for a dry soil sample is the soil 

sample that has been dried to constant weight in an oven at temperature 

between 100 – 110oC (105oC is typical). Normally drying is conducted on 

samples for at least 24 hours. A precision balance scale is needed (±0.001 g.) 

Volumetric soil moisture can then be determined.

Gravimetric soil moisture (W%) = wt. (wet soil) – wt. (oven dry soil) x 100% 

 wt. (oven dry soil) 

Volumetric soil moisture (θ%) = gravimetric soil moisture x bulk density 

{Note: Bulk densities for specific soils can be obtained from the Web 

Soil Survey.}
I. Drought Policy

I-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Soil moisture measurements can then be compared with water content-15 bar 

and water content 1/3 bar data for a specific soil from the Web Soil Survey 

(http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/). Water content, 15 bar, is the amount 

of soil water retained at a tension of 15 bars, expressed as a volumetric 

percentage of the whole soil material. Water retained at 15 bars is significant in 

the determination of soil water-retention difference, which is used as the initial 

estimation of available water capacity for some soils. Water retained at 15 bars 

is an estimation of the wilting point. Water content, one-third bar, is the 

amount of soil water retained at a tension of 1/3 bar, expressed as a volumetric 

percentage of the whole soil. Water retained at 1/3 bar is significant in the 

determination of soil water-retention difference, which is used as the initial 

estimation of available water capacity for some soils. Water retained at 1/3 bar 

is the value commonly used to estimate the content of water at field capacity 

for most soils.

As soil moisture levels approach the wilting point of a soil, the less water 

available for plants. Plant growth becomes marginal and the plant is stressed. If 

the plant is further stressed by removal or damage to the top growth, it will 

begin to lose vigor, roots and thus its ability to grow. It is not unusual to reach 

this moisture level during late summer in much of Montana, Dakotas, and other 

semi-arid areas.

Other Soil Moisture Considerations

When monitoring soil moisture the following information should be kept in 

mind:

1. Soil moisture is measured at the depth of plant roots or to a root 

limiting layer. It will vary by plant(s) and soil type.

2. Soluble salts, gravel and heavy clay will decrease plant available 

water capacity.

3. Organic matter, good soil structure will increase plant available 

water capacity (The capacity increases about 1 percent for each 1 

percent of organic matter).

4. Soils with water restricting layers like naturally compact subsoil, 

shallow bedrock or stratification can increase plant available water 

capacity of the overlying soil layers.

5. Soils that are deep, medium textured and uniform can have 

decreased plant available water but allow for deeper rooting.

I.4.7 References

Fraser, D. A. 2003. Using range readiness criteria. Forest Practices Branch,

British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C. Rangeland Health 

Brochure 5.
I. Drought Policy

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS I-11

Howery, Larry. 1999. Rangeland Management Before, During, and After 

Drought, AZ1136 University of Arizona Cooperative Extension, 6p. 

ag.arizona.edu/pubs/natresources/az1136.pdf.

Manitoba Agriculture Food and Rural Initiatives Soil Management Guide, table 3-

2, website accessed April 2013, http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/

soilwater/soilmgmt/fsm01s03.html

Manske, L.L. 2003. Biologically Effective Management of Grazinglands, NDSU 

Dickinson Research Extension Center, Rangeland Research Extension 

Program 4005. 268p.

Manske, L.L. 2011. Biologically Effective Grazing Management Reduces the 

Detrimental Effects from Drought Conditions on Grasslands--2nd 

Edition. NDSU Dickinson Research Extension Center. Range Science 

Report. 7p.
I. Drought Policy

I-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix J

Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management 5001 Southgate Drive Billings, Montana 59101-4669

OIL AND GAS LEASE STIPULATIONS

ESTHETICS--To maintain esthetic values, all surface-disturbing activities, semi-permanent and permanent facilities may require special design including location, painting and camouflage to blend with the natural 

surroundings and meet the intent of the visual quality objectives of the Federal Surface Managing Agency 

(SMA).

EROSION CONTROL--Surface-disturbing activities may be prohibited during muddy and/or wet soil periods.

CONTROLLED OR LIMITED SURFACE USE STIPULATION --This stipulation may be modified, consistent with land use documents, when specifically approved in writing by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with concurrence of the SMA. Distances and/or time periods may be made less restrictive depending on the actual on-ground conditions. The prospective lessee should contact the SMA for more specific locations and information regarding the restrictive nature of this stipulation.

The lessee/operator is given notice that the lands within this lease may include special areas and that such areas 

may contain special values, may be needed for special purposes, or may require special attention to prevent damage to surface and/or other resources. Possible special areas are identified below. Any surface use or 

occupancy within such special areas will be strictly controlled, or if absolutely necessary, excluded. Use or 

occupancy will be restricted only when the BLM and/or the SMA demonstrates the restriction necessary for the protection of such special areas and existing or planned uses. Appropriate modifications to imposed restrictions 

will be made for the maintenance and operations of producing oil and gas wells.

After the SMA has been advised of specific proposed surface use or occupancy on the leased lands, and on 

request of the lessee/operator, the Agency will furnish further data on any special areas which may include:

100 feet from the edge of the rights-of-way from highways, designated county roads and appropriate federally-owned or controlled roads and recreation trails.

500 feet, or when necessary, within the 25-year flood plain from reservoirs, lakes, and ponds and intermittent, ephemeral or small perennial streams: 1,000 feet, or when necessary, within the 100-year flood plain from larger perennial streams, rivers, and domestic water supplies.

500 feet from grouse strutting grounds. Special care to avoid nesting areas associated with strutting 

grounds will be necessary during the period from March 1, to June 30. One-fourth mile from identified 

essential habitat of state and federal sensitive species. Crucial wildlife winter ranges during the period from December 1 to May 15, and in elk calving areas during the period from May 1 to June 30.

300 feet from occupied buildings, developed recreational areas, undeveloped recreational areas receiving concentrated public use and sites eligible for or designated as National Register sites.

Seasonal road closures, roads for special uses, specified roads during heavy traffic periods and on areas 

having restrictive off-road vehicle designations.

On slopes over 30 percent or 20 percent on extremely erodible or slumping soils.

See Notice on Back
NOTICE

APPLICATIONS FOR PERMIT TO DRILL (APDs)--The appropriate BLM field offices are responsible for the receipt, processing, and approval of APDs. The APDs are to be submitted by oil and gas operators pursuant to the requirements found in Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 -- Approval of Operations on Onshore Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases (Circular No. 2538). Additional requirements for the conduct of oil and gas operations can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 43, Part 3160. Copies of Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 

1, and pertinent regulations, can be obtained from the BLM field offices in which the operations are proposed. Early coordination with these offices on proposals is encouraged.

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES--The SMA is responsible for assuring that the leased lands are examined to determine if cultural resources are present and to specify mitigation measures. Prior to undertaking any surface-disturbing activities on the lands covered by this lease, the lessee or operator, unless notified to the contrary by the SMA, shall:

1. Contact the appropriate SMA to determine if a site-specific cultural resource inventory is required. If an inventory is required, then:

2. Engage the services of a cultural resource specialist acceptable to the SMA to conduct a cultural resource 

inventory of the area of proposed surface disturbance. The operator may elect to inventory an area larger than the area of proposed disturbance to cover possible site relocation which may result from 

environmental or other considerations. An acceptable inventory report is to be submitted to the SMA for 

review and approval no later than that time when an otherwise complete application for approval of drilling or subsequent surface-disturbing operation is submitted.

3. Implement mitigation measures required by the SMA. Mitigation may include the relocation of proposed lease-related activities or other protective measures such as testing salvage and recordation. Where impacts to cultural resources cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the SMA, surface occupancy on 

that area must be prohibited.

The operator shall immediately bring to the attention of the SMA any cultural or paleontological resources discovered as a result of approved operations under this lease, and not disturb such discoveries until directed to 

proceed by the SMA.

ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES--The SMA is responsible for assuring that the leased land is examined prior to undertaking any surface-disturbing activities to determine effects upon any plant or animal species, listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened, or their habitats. The findings of this examination may result in some restrictions to the operator's plans or even disallow use and occupancy that 

would be in violation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 by detrimentally affecting endangered or threatened 

species or their habitats.

The lessee/operator may, unless notified by the authorized officer of the SMA that the examination is not 

necessary, conduct the examination on the leased lands at his discretion and cost. This examination must be done 

by or under the supervision of a qualified resources specialist approved by the SMA. An acceptable report must be provided to the SMA identifying the anticipated effects of a proposed action on endangered or threatened 

species or their habitats.

Standard 16-3

Lewistown Field Office North Dakota Field Office Malta Field Office

Havre Field Office Glasgow Field Office
Appendix K

GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat 

Assessment

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS K-1

APPENDIX K

GRSG WILDFIRE AND INVASIVE SPECIES 

HABITAT ASSESSMENT

The following process is a suggestion for a consistent approach in conducting an 

assessment of the GRSG habitat and wildfire threat at the local planning area 

level. Variations to this approach may be made based on interdisciplinary team 

discussion or unique issues in a given planning area. This example format is 

intended to portray the degree of specificity required for offices which will 

complete these assessments. Note that this process has similarities to 

watershed analysis and ecoregional assessments, and as such these documents 

may prove useful where they exist.

INTRODUCTION

Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat 

Assessments (hereafter referred to as “stepdown assessments”) are 

interdisciplinary evaluations of the threats posed by wildfire and invasive species, 

as well as identification of priority areas/treatment opportunities for fuels 

management, fire management, and restoration. Priority areas are spatial 

delineations where treatments, management actions, or other emphasis should 

be placed due to factors such as habitat quality, threats, or opportunities to 

protect, enhance, and restore GRSG habitat. The stepdown assessments will 

serve as a bridge between Resource Management Plans (RMP) and project level 

planning, and will position planning efforts to conduct project-scale National 

Environmental Policy Act analysis following RMP Records of Decision.

The stepdown assessment process involves four steps, beginning with 

characterization of the planning area and concluding with spatial delineation of 

priority areas. The content and methods used by the US Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) in these documents should be consistent to ensure that 

priority areas are defined using similar criteria. These criteria and methods 

should be narratively described such that the US Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) and other audiences can understand the factors considered.
K. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

K-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

STEP 1: CHARACTERIZATION OF GREATER SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT

The purpose of this step is to broadly establish context of the planning area and 

GRSG habitat.

Location and Spatial Extent

• Describe the location of the planning area, and the relationship of 

GRSG habitat within the planning area.

Relationship to the Larger Scale Setting

• How does the planning area lie within the larger context of GRSG 

habitat?

Quantifying Habitat within Planning Area

• Brief description of GRSG habitat described in terms of acreage, 

habitat classes (e.g., Priority Habitat (PH), General Habitat (GH), 

and/or Priority Areas for Conservation [PAC]).

• Note: A summary map showing the planning area with habitat 

features is appropriate in Step 1. A tabular summary may also be 

included.

STEP 2: ISSUES AND KEY MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS

The purpose of this step is to devise management questions related to the 

issues of fuels management, fire management, and restoration. Note that this 

step should not answer each management question. Rather, management 

questions are answered in Step 4 through specific, quantified data.

Overview

• In coordination with state wildlife agencies, the USFWS, and your 

interdisciplinary team, develop an introductory section here which 

describes why fire or vegetation conditions pose a threat to GRSG 

in the local planning area. Describe where fire or vegetation 

conditions are a significant threat to GRSG habitat, and where fire, 

fuels, and restoration activities may help enhance habitat. In a brief 

paragraph or two, summarize the relationships between wildland 

fire, fuels management and invasives/restoration in the planning area. 

Examples would include annual grass/wildfire cycle, juniper 

encroachment into GRSG habitat, recently disturbed areas, etc.

Key Management Questions

Issue #1: Fuels Management

• In narrative format, develop management questions such as:

1. Based on fire risk to important GRSG habitats, what types 

of fuels treatments should be implemented that will reduce 

the risk? Where should fuels treatments be prioritized, and 
K. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS K-3

what’s the amount of treatment acres/miles needed for 

long-term enhancement and protection of GRSG habitat?

2. Based on opportunities for fire to improve/restore GRSG 

habitats, what types of fuels treatments should be 

implemented that will increase ability to allow fire? Where 

should fuels treatments be prioritized, and what amount of 

treatment is needed for long-term enhancement and 

protection of GRSG habitat?

3. What fuel reduction techniques will be most effective; 

including, but not limited to grazing, prescribed fire, 

chemical, biological and mechanical treatments?

4. What are the criteria for defining priority fuels management 

areas (example would be the intersection of high burn 

probability, PH, lek locations, and established GRSG 

population)?

5. Are there opportunities to utilize a coordinated approach 

across jurisdictional boundaries?

6. Are there areas where fuel treatments help restore GRSG 

habitat as well as reduce risk?

Issue #2: Fire Management

• In narrative format, develop management questions such as:

1. Where is the greatest wildfire risk, considering trends in 

fire occurrence, fuel conditions, and highly valued GRSG 

habitat?

2. Where will fire suppression resources be most successful to 

mitigate the risk and protect GRSG habitats?

3. Where do opportunities exist that could enhance or 

improve suppression capability in important GRSG habitats?

a. For example, increased water availability through 

installation of heli wells or water storage tanks.

b. Decreased response time through pre-positioned 

resources or staffing remote stations.

4. Where should wildfire be managed to achieve RMP 

objectives for improving or restoring GRSG habitat (limiting 

juniper expansion)?

5. What are the criteria for defining priority fire management 

areas? An example would be the intersection of PH, lek 

locations, and high burn probability.
K. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

K-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

6. How can fire management be coordinated across 

jurisdictional boundaries to reduce risk or to improve 

GRSG habitat?

Issue #3: Restoration

• In narrative format, develop management questions such as:

1. Are there opportunities for restoration treatments to 

protect, enhance or maintain GRSG habitat? Assume that 

funding is not a constraint, and describe which sites are 

biologically suitable for restoration to GRSG habitat in a 

reasonable period.

2. Considering the entire planning area, what are the site 

conditions, such as dominant vegetation, elevation, or 

precipitation zones, where restoration efforts have been 

proven to be most successful in the recent past? An 

example would be mountain sagebrush sites over 5,000’ in 

elevation, and in a 16” or greater precipitation zone.

3. What are the criteria for defining priority restoration areas?

An example would be recent burns, moderately disturbed 

sites, or recovering allotment pastures which have not 

crossed ecological thresholds or become highly degraded.

These may or may not be covered by existing emergency 

stabilization and restoration plans.

4. Are there opportunities to utilize a coordinated approach 

across jurisdictional boundaries?

STEP 3: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND TRENDS 

The purpose of this step is to develop information relevant to the issues and 

key questions identified in Step 2. It provides a snapshot of the present 

condition, statement of causal factors, and a summary of the trends which are 

occurring.

Biological Summary of Vegetation, Invasive Species, and Fire Regimes

[In this introductory section, provide a general biological summary of the 

planning area. Provide a narrative description of ecological trends, including 

description of plant communities, fire regimes, and other dominant biological 

factors affecting GRSG habitat.]

• Describe how fire has influenced current vegetation patterns. Are 

there large areas of even-aged communities, fine-scale mosaics, and 

annual grass monocultures?

• Describe if fire regimes are intact, or if they are altered. If they are 

altered, describe why. Use fire regime variables such as fire 

frequency, severity, or size to elucidate your points.
K. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS K-5

• Describe dominant cover types making up the planning area. These 

can be broad seral stage groupings, general life forms, or more finescale information such as plant associations, habitat types, or 

ecological systems. Note: this information should be available in the 

RMP.

• What has been the impact of fire exclusion (e.g., increased conifer 

encroachment, decadent shrub communities, etc.)?

• What is the current extent of annual grasses and other invasive 

species?

• What are the effects of invasive species on land health? On trends in 

plant succession? On fire regimes?

Fuels Management

• Describe current fuels management practices within the planning 

area (what are the types of fuels treatments commonly applied to 

which management issues)?

• How has past fuels management influenced today’s planning area 

(e.g., creation of mosaics, protecting certain features, increasing 

invasives, etc.)?

• What are causal factors which have created a need for fuels 

management practices?

• What are the trends in the fuels management program related to 

budget or capability?

Fire Management

• Describe the current fire suppression workload.

• Describe fire occurrence trends (include discussion of fire size, 

numbers of starts, ignition locations).

• Describe causal factors influencing suppression effectiveness.

• Describe suppression capabilities. Discuss types and numbers of 

resources within office, through interagency agreements, and 

through resource sharing.

Restoration

• Describe invasive species which are present in the planning area.

• Describe landscape conditions which may be suitable for restoration 

within the planning area, and the results of recent restoration 

efforts in the planning area.

• Describe invasive species occurrence.

• Describe causal factors influencing restoration needs.
K. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

K-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Methodology

• What are the analysis methods to be utilized and analysis 

assumptions?

Use of Best Available Science

• Describe data sets used, such as the FSim layer, local data, etc.

[Many data sets being used in RMPs will also be applicable to 

stepdown assessments].

• What are the elements of science used?

STEP 4: IDENTIFICATION OF TREATMENT OPPORTUNITIES, PRIORITY AREAS, AND 

ACTIONS

The purpose of this step is to utilize the information from steps 2 and 3 in order 

to quantify the overall need for treatment or other actions. Specifically, this step 

should spatially identify and quantify priority areas, using the criteria established 

in Step 2. Next, this step should identify treatment opportunities which fall 

within priority areas. Furthermore, treatments should be prioritized and an 

implementation schedule developed, reflecting the reality that not every acre in 

need of treatment can receive action within the planning horizon.

Fuels Management

• Spatially delineate priority areas for fuels management, based upon 

criteria established in Step 2. Fuels priority areas should be 

delineated by type, such as:

– Linear fuel break along roads

– Other linear fuel breaks to create anchor points

– Prescribed burning

– Mechanical (e.g., conifer removal)

– Other mechanical, biological, or chemical treatment

• Quantify the number of acres of needed fuels treatments.

• If they exist, spatially delineate areas where fuel treatments would 

increase the ability to use fire to improve/enhance GRSG habitat.

– Include tables, maps or appropriate information

• Identify coordination needed between renewable resource, fire 

management, and fuels management staff to facilitate planning and 

implementation of fuels treatments.

• Quantify a projected level of treatment within fuels management 

priority areas.

• Identify treatments to be planned within fuels management priority 

areas.
K. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS K-7

• Include a priority or implementation schedule for proposed 

treatments.

Fire Management

• Spatially delineate priority areas for fire suppression, based upon 

criteria established in Step 2. Priority areas for fire management 

should be delineated by type, such as:

– Initial attack priority areas

– Resource pre-positioning and movement priority areas

– Remote station staffing priority areas, if appropriate

– Include tables, maps or other supporting information

• Quantify the number of acres of GRSG habitats for aggressive initial 

attack that were identified at highest risk from losing key habitat 

components.

• Quantify the number and type of suppression resources that will be 

staged or otherwise pre-positioned, as well as the associated 

conditions, in order to enhance initial attack capabilities.

• Spatially delineate areas where opportunities exist to enhance or 

improve suppression capability.

– Include tables, maps or other supporting information

• Spatially delineate areas where wildfire can be managed to achieve 

RMP objectives.

– Include tables, maps or appropriate information

• Quantify the number of acres within fire management priority areas

• Include a priority or implementation schedule for fire suppression 

proposed actions.

Restoration

• Spatially delineate priority areas for restoration, using criteria 

established in Step 2. Priority areas for restoration should be 

delineated by type, such as:

– Seeding priority areas (aerial, drill, broadcast, or other)

– Invasive species priority areas (herbicide, mechanical, 

biological, combination)

– Priority areas requiring combinations of treatments (e.g.,

herbicide followed by seeding)

– Include tables, maps or appropriate information

• Identify locations where post-fire restoration treatments should be 

focused.
K. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

K-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

– Include tables, maps or appropriate information

• Spatially identify invasive species occurrence

• Identify coordination needed between renewable resource, fire 

management, and fuels management staff to facilitate planning and 

implementation of restoration treatments.

• Quantify the projected level of treatment within restoration priority 

areas.

• Identify treatments to be planned within restoration priority areas.

• Include a priority or implementation schedule for proposed 

restoration treatments.

Annual Treatment Needs

1. Based on the information above and within the planning area, what 

are the annual needs based on the key questions and summary 

statements?

Annual Treatment Abilities

1. Putting GRSG habitat protection and enhancement into perspective 

with other high valued resources and important land management 

goals, how does the annual need relate to capabilities? 

2. What are the realistic annual expectations in fire management, fuels 

management, and restoration for the next five years?
Appendix L

Special Status Species Confirmed or Likely to 

Inhabit the Planning Area

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS L-1

APPENDIX L

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES CONFIRMED OR LIKELY TO INHABIT THE 

PLANNING AREA

Table L-1

Special Status Species Confirmed or Likely to Inhabit the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Status1 General Habitat Likelihood of 

Occurrence

Mammals

Black-tailed prairie 

dog

Cynomys 

ludovicianus

BLM S Colonies are found on flat, open grasslands and shrub/grasslands 

with low, relatively sparse vegetation. The most frequently 

occupied habitat in Montana is dominated by western wheatgrass, 

blue grama, and big sagebrush. Colonies are associated with silty 

clay loams, sandy clay loams, and loams and fine to medium 

textured soils are preferred, presumably because burrows and 

other structures tend to retain their shape and strength better 

than in coarse, loose soils.

Documented

Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes BLM S Rocky outcroppings in mid-elevation ponderosa pine, 

piñon/juniper, oak, and mixed conifer woodlands, grasslands, 

deserts, and shrublands.

Documented
L. Special Status Species Confirmed or Likely to Inhabit the Planning Area

L-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table L-1

Special Status Species Confirmed or Likely to Inhabit the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Status1 General Habitat Likelihood of 

Occurrence

Fringe-tailed myotis Myotis thysanodes 

pahasapensis

BLM S Occurs primarily in caves in the Black Hills and Badlands. Occurs 

only in certain montane (mountainous) areas of South Dakota and 

Wyoming.

Documented

Gray wolf Canis lupis BLM S No particular habitat preference except for the presence of native 

ungulates within its territory on a year-round basis. Gray wolves 

establishing new packs in Montana have demonstrated greater 

tolerance of human presence and disturbance than previously 

thought characteristic of this species.

Documented

Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis BLM S Found in wooded and rocky areas. It has been located hibernating 

in mines and in riverbreaks habitat in northeastern Montana.

Documented

Long-legged myotis Myotis volans BLM S Typically occupy mountainous or relatively rugged areas. They 

often live in coniferous forest, although they are sometimes found 

in oak or streamside woodlands, and even deserts. They feed 

mostly on moths, but are opportunistic, eating whatever softbodied insects are most abundant.

Documented

Swift fox Vulpes velox BLM S Typically occupy open prairie and arid plains, including areas 

intermixed with winter wheat fields in north-central Montana. 

They use burrows when they are inactive; either dug by 

themselves or made by other mammals (marmot, prairie dog, 

badger). The burrows are usually located in sandy soil on high 

ground such as hill tops in open prairies, along fencerows, or 

occasionally in a plowed field. Suitable habitat generally extensive 

in size (preferably over 100,000 acres), with relatively level 

topography, and with greater than 50% of the area undisturbed by 

agriculture. A total of 8,000,000 suitable acres were identified in 

Montana.

Documented

Townsend’s big-eared 

bat

Plecotus townsendii BLM S Associated with caves and abandoned mines for day roosts and 

hibernacula. Will also use abandoned buildings in western 

shrubland, piñon/juniper woodlands, and open montane forests in 

elevations up to 9,500 feet.

Documented
L. Special Status Species Confirmed or Likely to Inhabit the Planning Area

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS L-3

Table L-1

Special Status Species Confirmed or Likely to Inhabit the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Status1 General Habitat Likelihood of 

Occurrence

Birds

Baird’s sparrow Ammodramus 

bairdii

BLM S Nest in native prairie, but structure may ultimately be more 

important than plant species composition. Nesting has been 

observed in crested wheat, while smooth brome is avoided. Areas 

with little to no grazing activity are required.

Documented

Bald eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

BLM S Found near open water including rivers, streams and lakes, nesting 

and roosting in large ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, or cottonwood 

trees in proximity to open water and rivers.

Documented

Black tern Chilodonias niger BLM S Wetlands, marshes, prairie potholes, and small ponds. 30%-50% of 

the wetland complex is emergent vegetation. Vegetation within 

known breeding colonies includes alkali bulrushes, canary reedgrass, cattail spp., sedge spp., rush spp., reed spp., grass spp.,

Polygonum spp., Juncus spp. and Potamogeton spp., indicating a wide 

variety of potential habitats are usable by Black Terns. Water 

levels range from about 0.5 meter to greater than 2.0 meter with 

most having depths between 0.5 meter and 1.0 meter.

Documented

Black-crowned night 

heron

Nycticorax 

nycticorax

BLM S Shallow bulrush or cattail marshes, most often within a grassland 

landscape. Also nest in cottonwoods, willows, or other wetland 

vegetation that allows them to nest over water or on islands that 

may afford them protection from mammalian Most colonies are 

located in large wetland complexes, typically with a one-to-one 

ratio of open water and emergent vegetation.

Documented

Bobolink Dolichonyx 

orysivorus

BLM S Nests built in tall grass and mixed-grass prairies. Prefers "old" hay 

fields with high grass-to-legume ratios.

Documented

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri BLM S Sagebrush, mountain meadows, and mountain shrub habitats. 

Nested in sagebrush averaging 16-inches high. The cover 

(concealment) for the nest provided by sagebrush is very 

important.

Documented
L. Special Status Species Confirmed or Likely to Inhabit the Planning Area

L-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table L-1

Special Status Species Confirmed or Likely to Inhabit the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Status1 General Habitat Likelihood of 

Occurrence

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BLM S Open grasslands, where abandoned burrows dug by mammals 

such as ground squirrels, prairie dogs, and badgers are available. 

Black-tailed prairie dog and Richardson's ground squirrel colonies 

provide the primary and secondary habitat for burrowing owls in 

the state.

Documented

Chestnut-collared 

longspur

Calcarius ornatus BLM S Species prefers short-to-medium grasses that have been recently 

grazed or mowed. Prefers native pastures.

Documented

Dickcissel Spiza americana BLM S Grasslands, meadows, savanna, cultivated lands, and brushy fields. 

Nest on ground in grass or rank herbage, or raised a little above 

ground, in grass tufts or tall weeds, or in low shrubs or trees, up 

to about 2 meters above the ground but usually low. Prefer 

habitat with dense, moderate to tall vegetation (particularly with 

some forbs) and moderately deep litter. Moderately grazed and 

idle prairie. A high abundance of forbs provides perches, nesting 

cover, nest support, and possibly increased invertebrate 

abundance.

Documented

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis BLM S Mixed-grass prairie, shrub-grasslands, grasslands, grass-sagebrush 

complex, and sagebrush steppe.

Documented

Franklin’s gull Larus pipixcan BLM S Preferring large, relatively permanent prairie marsh complexes. 

Builds its nests over water on a supporting structure of emergent 

vegetation. Nesting is noted to occur in cattails and bulrushes.

Documented

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BLM S Nest on cliffs and in large trees (occasionally on power poles), 

and hunt over prairie and open woodlands. Cliff nests selected for 

south or east aspect, less than 200 inches snowfall, low elevation, 

availability of sagebrush/grassland hunting areas

Documented

Greater Sage-Grouse Centrocercus 

urophasianus

BLM 

S/FC

Tall dense stands of sagebrush; 6 to 18 inch high sagebrush 

covered benches in June to July (average 213 acres); move to 

alfalfa fields (144 acres) or greasewood bottoms (91 acres) when 

forbs on the benches dry out; and move back to sagebrush 

(average 128 acres) in late August to early September.

Documented
L. Special Status Species Confirmed or Likely to Inhabit the Planning Area

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS L-5

Table L-1

Special Status Species Confirmed or Likely to Inhabit the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Status1 General Habitat Likelihood of 

Occurrence

Least tern Sternula antillarum FE Nest on unvegetated sand-pebble beaches and islands of large 

reservoirs and rivers in northeastern and southeastern Montana, 

specifically the Yellowstone and Missouri river systems.

Documented

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BLM S Open riparian areas, montane meadows, agricultural areas, 

grasslands, shrublands, and piñon/juniper woodlands.

Documented

Long-billed curlew Numenius 

americanus

BLM S Nests primarily in short-grass or mixed-prairie habitat with flat to 

rolling topography Habitats with trees, high density of shrubs (e.g., 

sagebrush [Artemisia spp.]), and tall, dense grass generally. Taller, 

denser grass used during brood-rearing when shade and 

camouflage from predators are presumably more important for 

chicks, but may also reflect decline in availability of shorter 

habitats with season.

Documented

Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BLM S Breeds in short, sparsely to moderately vegetated landscapes that 

include native grassland and wetlands. Ephemeral ponds, as well as 

temporary ponds and alkali wetland. Semi-permanent ponds used 

as well. Upland habitat during breeding season primarily idle 

grassland and pastures.

Documented

McCown’s longspur Calcarius mccownii BLM S Breeding habitat is a matrix of perennial shortgrass species (e.g., 

Bouteloua gracilis, Buchloe dactyloides) interspersed with cactus, and 

limited cover of midgrasses (e.g., Aristida longiseta, Agropyron 

smithii, Stipa comata) and shrubs (e.g., Gutierrezia sarothrae, 

Chrysothamnus nauseosus, Artemesia frigida).

Documented

Mountain plover Charadrius 

montanus

BLM S Prairie dog colonies and other shortgrass prairie sites are 

confirmed as preferred breeding habitat. Strong preference was 

also given to sites with slopes less than 5% and grass height of less 

than 3 inches.

Documented

Red-headed 

woodpecker

Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus

BLM S Along major rivers having riparian forest. Open savannah country 

w/ ground cover, snags and canopy cover. Large burns also 

utilized. Nest in holes excavated 2 to 25 meters above ground by 

both sexes in live trees, dead stubs, utility poles, or fence posts. 

Individuals nest in the same cavity in successive years.

Documented
L. Special Status Species Confirmed or Likely to Inhabit the Planning Area

L-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table L-1

Special Status Species Confirmed or Likely to Inhabit the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Status1 General Habitat Likelihood of 

Occurrence

Sage sparrow Amphispiza belli BLM S Prefers semi-open habitats with evenly spaced shrubs 1–2 meters 

high. Vertical structure, habitat patchiness, and vegetation density 

may be more important in habitat selection than specific shrub 

species, but this sparrow is closely associated with big sagebrush 

throughout most of its range. Historical records with in planning 

area 20+ years old. Extreme south central Montana.

Documented

Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes 

montanus

BLM S Sagebrush obligate in Montana. Abundance is generally positively 

correlated with the amount of sage cover and negatively 

correlated with grass cover.

Documented

Sprague’s pipit Anthus spragueii BLM 

S/FC

Native, medium to intermediate height prairie and in a short grass 

prairie landscape, can often be found in areas with taller grasses. 

More abundant in native prairie than in exotic vegetation; area 

sensitive, requiring relatively large areas of appropriate habitat; 

the minimum area requirement in a Saskatchewan study was 470 

acres. Known to utilize and breed in alkaline meadows and 

around the edges of alkaline lakes.

Documented

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni BLM S Nest in river bottom forests, brushy coulees, and shelterbelts. 

Hunt in grasslands and agricultural land, especially along river 

bottoms.

Documented

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi BLM S Freshwater wetlands, including ponds, swamps and marshes with 

pockets of emergent vegetation. Also use flooded hay meadows 

and agricultural fields as feeding locations. Nest in areas where 

water surrounds emergent vegetation, bushes, shrubs, or low 

trees. Use old stems in cattails (Typha spp.), hardstem bulrush 

(Scirpus acutus) or alkali bulrush (S. paludosus) over shallow water 

as their nesting habitat.

Documented
L. Special Status Species Confirmed or Likely to Inhabit the Planning Area

October 2013 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS L-7

Table L-1

Special Status Species Confirmed or Likely to Inhabit the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Status1 General Habitat Likelihood of 

Occurrence

Reptiles

Greater short-horned 

lizard

Phrynosoma 

hernandesi

BLM S Ridge crests between coulees, and in sparse, short grass and 

sagebrush with sun-baked soil. Limestone outcrops in canyon 

bottoms of sandy soil with an open canopy of limber pine-Utah 

juniper, and are also present on flats of relatively pebbly or stony 

soil with sparse grass and sagebrush cover.

Documented

Milk snake Lampropeltis 

triangulum

BLM S Open sagebrush-grassland habitat and ponderosa pine savannah 

with sandy soils, most often in or near areas of rocky outcrops 

and hillsides or badland scarps, sometimes within city limits.

Documented

Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentine BLM S Backwaters along major rivers, at smaller reservoirs, and in 

smaller streams and creeks with permanent flowing water and 

sandy or muddy bottoms.

Documented

Western hog-nosed 

snake

Heterodon nasicus BLM S Apparent preference for arid areas, farmlands, and floodplains, 

particularly those with gravelly or sandy soil, has been noted. 

They occupy burrows or dig into soil, and less often are found 

under rocks or debris, during periods of inactivity.

Documented

Amphibians

Great Plains toad Bufo cognatus BLM S Sagebrush-grassland, rainwater pools in road ruts, in stream 

valleys, at small reservoirs and stock ponds, and around rural 

farms; breeding has been documented in small reservoirs and 

backwater sites along streams. Appears to prefer stock tanks and 

roadside ponds rather than floodplains. Eggs and larvae develop in 

shallow water, usually clear or slightly turbid, but not muddy.

Documented

Northern leopard 

frog

Lithobates pipiens BLM S Wetland habitats of relatively fresh water with moderate salinity, 

including springs, slow streams, marshes, bogs, ponds, canals, 

flood plains, beaver ponds, reservoirs, and lakes, usually in 

permanent water with rooted aquatic vegetation.

Documented
L. Special Status Species Confirmed or Likely to Inhabit the Planning Area

L-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS October 2013

Table L-1

Special Status Species Confirmed or Likely to Inhabit the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Status1 General Habitat Likelihood of 

Occurrence

Plains spadefoot Spea bombifrons BLM S Soft sandy/gravelly soils near permanent or temporary bodies of 

water. Lives largely inactive in its burrows or occupies rodent 

burrows, and enters water only to breed. Following heavy rains, 

adults have been reported in water up to 30 centimeters deep in 

flooded wagon wheel ruts, temporary rain pools formed in wide 

flat-bottom coulees, water tanks, and badland seep ponds. Tadpoles 

and toadlets have been observed in stock ponds and small 

ephemeral reservoirs, usually in sagebrush-grassland habitats.

Documented

Western toad Anaxyrus boreas 

boreas

BLM S Utilize a wide variety of habitats, including desert springs and 

streams, meadows and woodlands, mountain wetlands, beaver 

ponds, marshes, ditches, and backwater channels of rivers where 

they prefer shallow areas with mud bottoms.

Documented

Plants

Little Indian 

Breadroot

Pediomelum 

hypogaeum

BLM S Grasslands/woodlands (open sandy soil). Documented

Platte Cinquefoil Potentilla plattensis BLM S Grasslands/sage brush (Mesic). Documented

Source:

• Montana/Dakotas Special Status Species List. Instruction Memorandum No. MT-2009-039 (Accessed April 24, 2009). 

http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/res/public_room/efoia/2009/IMs/09mtm039.html; USFWS 2012.

• Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species Montana Counties. Ecological Services Montana Field Office (Accessed August 21, 

2012). http://www.fws.gov/montanafieldoffice/Endangered_Species/Listed_Species.html

1

FE – Federally listed as endangered; FT – Federally listed as threatened; FC – Federal listed as a candidate species; FC (w) – Federal candidate species 

warranted for listing; SE – State listed as endangered; ST – State listed as threatened; SC – State listed as species of special concern (no legal status); BLM S –

BLM Sensitive; FS –Forest Service Sensitive