Lewistown Field Office 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Proposed 

Resource Management Plan Amendment and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

US Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

June 2015 

BLM 

Volume II: Chapters 5-7, Glossary, Index, and 

Appendices
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-15/009+1610 

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

Cover Photo: Steve Ting 
June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

VOLUME I

ABSTRACT

DEAR READER LETTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

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

1.2 Purpose and Need........................................................................................................................1-4

1.3 Proposed Action...........................................................................................................................1-4

1.4 Description of the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Area.....................................................1-5

1.4.1 Overview .........................................................................................................................1-5

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

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

1.5.2 Monitoring.......................................................................................................................1-7

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..............................................................................................................1-9

1.6.4 Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed......................................................1-10

1.6.5 Issues Beyond the Scope of the Plan.......................................................................1-12

1.7 Development of Planning Criteria ..........................................................................................1-13

1.8 Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs.........................................................1-15

1.8.1 National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy................................................1-16

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

Management Policies and Procedures .........................................................................1-17

1.8.3 National Level Programmatic EISs and Agreements...........................................1-18

1.8.4 Relevant Plan Amendments.......................................................................................1-18

1.8.5 National Grasslands Leasing Decisions..................................................................1-18

1.8.6 Greater Sage‐Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation 

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

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

the Range-Wide Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus).................................................................................................................1-20

1.8.8 Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Greater Sage-Grouse 

in North Dakota ..........................................................................................................1-20

1.8.9 Off-Highway Vehicle Record of Decision and Proposed Plan Amendment 

for Montana, North Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota............................1-20

1.8.10 County Plans.................................................................................................................1-21

1.8.11 Secretarial Order 3336 ..............................................................................................1-21

1.9 Description of the Public Comment Process and Development of the Proposed 

RMPA/Final EIS ............................................................................................................................1-22

1.10 Changes from Draft RMPA to the Proposed RMPA..........................................................1-22
Table of Contents

ii Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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

2.1 Changes Between the Draft EIS and Final EIS........................................................................2-1

2.2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................2-3

2.3 Introduction to Draft Alternatives...........................................................................................2-4

2.3.1 Components of Alternatives.......................................................................................2-4

2.3.2 Purpose of Alternatives Development.....................................................................2-4

2.4 Alternatives Development for the North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Plan 

Amendment.................................................................................................................................... 2-5

2.4.1 Develop a Reasonable Range of Alternatives.........................................................2-5

2.4.2 Resulting Range of Alternatives in Draft RMPA/EIS ..............................................2-6

2.5 BLM Resource Programs for Addressing GRSG Threats...................................................2-6

2.6 Proposed Plan Amendment........................................................................................................2-7

2.6.1 Development of Proposed RMPA.............................................................................2-7

2.6.2 Proposed Plan Amendment.......................................................................................2-10

2.7 Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and Mitigation............................................................2-28

2.7.1 Adaptive Management Plan........................................................................................2-28

2.7.2 Monitoring for the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy.............................2-29

2.7.3 Regional Mitigation ......................................................................................................2-30

2.8 Draft RMP/EIS Alternatives......................................................................................................2-33

2.8.1 Alternative A (No Action).........................................................................................2-33

2.8.2 Management Common to Action Alternatives ....................................................2-33

2.8.3 Alternative B.................................................................................................................2-34

2.8.4 Alternative C ................................................................................................................2-36

2.8.5 Alternative D................................................................................................................2-37

2.9 Summary Comparison of Proposed Plan Amendment and Draft Alternatives...........2-39

2.10 Detailed Description of Draft Alternatives..........................................................................2-43

2.10.1 How to Read Table 2-4..............................................................................................2-43

2.11 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis..................................................................2-63

2.11.1 National Technical Team Conservation Measures Not Applicable to 

North Dakota...............................................................................................................2-63

2.11.2 Eliminate Livestock Grazing from BLM-Administered Lands............................2-63

2.12 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences..................................................2-65

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

3.1 Changes Between the Draft EIS and Final EIS........................................................................3-1

3.2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................3-1

3.3 Organization of Chapter 3 .........................................................................................................3-2

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

3.4 Special Status Species—Greater Sage-Grouse ......................................................................3-5

3.4.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ................................................................................3-6

3.4.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-14

3.4.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-15

3.5 Lands and Realty .........................................................................................................................3-15

3.5.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-18

3.5.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-20

3.5.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-22

3.6 Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands)....................................3-22

3.6.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-23

3.6.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-26

3.6.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-28
Table of Contents

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS iii

3.7 Wildland Fire Management and Ecology ...............................................................................3-29

3.7.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-30

3.7.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-31

3.7.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-32

3.8 Fluid Minerals...............................................................................................................................3-33

3.8.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-33

3.8.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-37

3.8.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-42

3.9 Coal................................................................................................................................................3-43

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

3.9.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-44

3.9.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-44

3.10 Locatable Minerals......................................................................................................................3-44

3.10.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-45

3.10.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-45

3.10.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-45

3.11 Mineral Materials.........................................................................................................................3-45

3.11.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-46

3.11.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-46

3.11.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-46

3.12 Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management................................................3-46

3.12.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-46

3.12.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-48

3.12.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-49

3.13 Recreation ....................................................................................................................................3-49

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

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

3.13.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-51

3.14 Range Management.....................................................................................................................3-51

3.14.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-52

3.14.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-53

3.14.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-57

3.15 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ............................................................................3-57

3.15.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-58

3.15.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-58

3.16 Air Resources..............................................................................................................................3-58

3.16.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-58

3.16.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-62

3.16.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-62

3.17 Climate..........................................................................................................................................3-63

3.17.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-63

3.17.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-64

3.17.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-64

3.18 Soil Resources.............................................................................................................................3-65

3.18.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-66

3.18.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-66

3.18.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-67

3.19 Water Resources........................................................................................................................3-68

3.19.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-68

3.19.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-68
Table of Contents

iv Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

3.19.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-72

3.20 Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue..................................................................3-72

3.20.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-73

3.20.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-74

3.20.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-74

3.21 Renewable Energy ......................................................................................................................3-82

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

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

3.21.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-84

3.22 Social and Economic Conditions.............................................................................................3-84

3.22.1 Existing Conditions......................................................................................................3-85

3.23 Environmental Justice.................................................................................................................3-93

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

4.1 Changes Between the Draft EIS and Final EIS........................................................................4-1

4.2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2.1 Analytical Assumptions.................................................................................................4-3

4.2.2 General Methodology for Analyzing Impacts..........................................................4-7

4.2.3 Incomplete or Unavailable Information....................................................................4-8

4.3 Special Status Species—Greater Sage-Grouse ......................................................................4-9

4.3.1 Methods and Assumptions..........................................................................................4-9

4.3.2 Nature and Type of Effects.......................................................................................4-10

4.3.3 Alternative A.................................................................................................................4-16

4.3.4 Impacts Common to Alternatives B-D and the Proposed Plan 

Amendment...................................................................................................................4-21

4.3.5 Alternative B.................................................................................................................4-21

4.3.6 Alternative C ................................................................................................................4-27

4.3.7 Alternative D................................................................................................................4-31

4.3.8 Proposed Plan Amendment.......................................................................................4-36

4.3.9 Impacts Summary.........................................................................................................4-40

4.4 Lands and Realty .........................................................................................................................4-48

4.4.1 Methods and Assumptions........................................................................................4-48

4.4.2 Nature and Type of Effects.......................................................................................4-49

4.4.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.....................................................................4-50

4.4.4 Alternative A.................................................................................................................4-52

4.4.5 Alternative B.................................................................................................................4-52

4.4.6 Alternative C ................................................................................................................4-53

4.4.7 Alternative D................................................................................................................4-54

4.4.8 Proposed Plan Amendment.......................................................................................4-54

4.5 Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands)....................................4-55

4.5.1 Methods and Assumptions........................................................................................4-55

4.5.2 Nature and Type of Effects.......................................................................................4-57

4.5.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.....................................................................4-62

4.5.4 Alternative A.................................................................................................................4-62

4.5.5 Impacts Common to Alternatives B, C, and D and the Proposed Plan 

Amendment...................................................................................................................4-65

4.5.6 Alternative B.................................................................................................................4-66

4.5.7 Alternative C ................................................................................................................4-68

4.5.8 Alternative D................................................................................................................4-71

4.5.9 Proposed Plan Amendment.......................................................................................4-73
Table of Contents

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS v

4.6 Wildland Fire Management and Ecology ...............................................................................4-75

4.6.1 Methods and Assumptions........................................................................................4-75

4.6.2 Nature and Type of Effects.......................................................................................4-76

4.6.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.....................................................................4-78

4.6.4 Alternative A.................................................................................................................4-79

4.6.5 Impacts Common to Alternatives B, C, and D and the Proposed Plan 

Amendment...................................................................................................................4-81

4.6.6 Alternative B.................................................................................................................4-81

4.6.7 Alternative C ................................................................................................................4-84

4.6.8 Alternative D................................................................................................................4-85

4.6.9 Proposed Plan Amendment.......................................................................................4-87

4.7 Fluid Minerals...............................................................................................................................4-89

4.7.1 Methods and Assumptions........................................................................................4-89

4.7.2 Nature and Type of Effects.......................................................................................4-91

4.7.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.....................................................................4-93

4.7.4 Alternative A.................................................................................................................4-93

4.7.5 Alternative B.................................................................................................................4-97

4.7.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-100

4.7.7 Alternative D............................................................................................................. 4-103

4.7.8 Proposed Plan Amendment.................................................................................... 4-107

4.8 Coal............................................................................................................................................. 4-107

4.9 Locatable Minerals................................................................................................................... 4-108

4.10 Mineral Materials...................................................................................................................... 4-108

4.10.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-108

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

4.10.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-110

4.10.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-110

4.10.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-110

4.10.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-111

4.10.7 Alternative D............................................................................................................. 4-112

4.10.8 Proposed Plan Amendment.................................................................................... 4-112

4.11 Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management............................................. 4-112

4.11.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-113

4.11.2 Nature and Type of Effects.................................................................................... 4-114

4.11.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-114

4.11.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-115

4.11.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-115

4.11.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-115

4.11.7 Alternative D............................................................................................................. 4-116

4.11.8 Proposed Plan Amendment.................................................................................... 4-116

4.12 Recreation ................................................................................................................................. 4-116

4.12.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-116

4.12.2 Nature and Type of Effects.................................................................................... 4-117

4.12.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-119

4.12.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-119

4.12.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-120

4.12.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-122

4.12.7 Alternative D............................................................................................................. 4-123

4.12.8 Proposed Plan Amendment.................................................................................... 4-123

4.13 Range Management.................................................................................................................. 4-125
Table of Contents

vi Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

4.13.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-125

4.13.2 Nature and Type of Effects.................................................................................... 4-126

4.13.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-130

4.13.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-130

4.13.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-133

4.13.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-136

4.13.7 Alternative D............................................................................................................. 4-139

4.13.8 Proposed Plan Amendment.................................................................................... 4-141

4.14 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ......................................................................... 4-143

4.14.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-143

4.14.2 Nature and Type of Effects.................................................................................... 4-144

4.14.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-144

4.14.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-145

4.14.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-145

4.14.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-145

4.14.7 Alternative D............................................................................................................. 4-146

4.14.8 Proposed Plan Amendment.................................................................................... 4-146

4.15 Air Resources........................................................................................................................... 4-146

4.15.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-146

4.15.2 Nature and Type of Effects.................................................................................... 4-147

4.15.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-147

4.15.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-147

4.15.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-148

4.15.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-149

4.15.7 Alternative D............................................................................................................. 4-149

4.15.8 Proposed Plan Amendment.................................................................................... 4-150

4.16 Climate....................................................................................................................................... 4-150

4.16.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-150

4.16.2 Nature and Type of Effects.................................................................................... 4-151

4.16.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-151

4.16.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-151

4.16.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-152

4.16.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-153

4.16.7 Alternative D............................................................................................................. 4-153

4.16.8 Proposed Plan Amendment.................................................................................... 4-154

4.17 Soil Resources.......................................................................................................................... 4-154

4.17.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-154

4.17.2 Nature and Type of Effects.................................................................................... 4-155

4.17.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-156

4.17.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-157

4.17.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-158

4.17.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-159

4.17.7 Alternative D............................................................................................................. 4-161

4.17.8 Proposed Plan Amendment.................................................................................... 4-162

4.18 Water Resources..................................................................................................................... 4-164

4.18.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-164

4.18.2 Nature and Type of Effects.................................................................................... 4-165

4.18.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-167

4.18.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-168

4.18.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-169
Table of Contents

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS vii

4.18.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-171

4.18.7 Alternative D............................................................................................................. 4-172

4.18.8 Proposed Plan Amendment.................................................................................... 4-174

4.19 Special Status Species—Other Species of Issue ............................................................... 4-175

4.19.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-175

4.19.2 Nature and Type of Effects.................................................................................... 4-177

4.19.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-179

4.19.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-179

4.19.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-181

4.19.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-184

4.19.7 Alternative D............................................................................................................. 4-185

4.19.8 Proposed Plan Amendment.................................................................................... 4-187

4.20 Renewable Energy ................................................................................................................... 4-190

4.20.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-190

4.20.2 Nature and Type of Effects.................................................................................... 4-191

4.20.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-191

4.20.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-192

4.20.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-192

4.20.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-193

4.20.7 Alternative D............................................................................................................. 4-194

4.20.8 Proposed Plan Amendment.................................................................................... 4-195

4.21 Social and Economic Conditions.......................................................................................... 4-195

4.21.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-195

4.21.2 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-195

4.21.3 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-198

4.21.4 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-200

4.21.5 Alternative D and the Proposed Plan Amendment.......................................... 4-201

4.22 Environmental Justice.............................................................................................................. 4-202

4.23 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts............................................................................................... 4-203

4.24 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................................ 4-204

4.25 Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity.............. 4-205

TABLES Page

1-1 Land Ownership within the Planning Area............................................................................................1-7

1-2 Range-Wide Planning Issues for the Lewistown Field Office..........................................................1-12

2-1 USFWS Threats to GRSG and Their Habitat and Applicable BLM Resource Program 

Areas Addressing these Threats..............................................................................................................2-8

2-2 Habitat Objectives.....................................................................................................................................2-12

2-3 Specific Management Responses............................................................................................................2-34

2-4 Comparative Summary of Allocation Decisions of the Proposed Plan Amendment and 

Draft Alternatives......................................................................................................................................2-46

2-5 Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D.........................................................................................2-53

2-6 Summary of Impacts on GRSG...............................................................................................................2-75

2-7 Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed 

Plan Amendment........................................................................................................................................2-81

3-1 Average Range of Vital Rates for GRSG, range-wide and in Montana..........................................3-10
Table of Contents

viii Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

3-2 PH and GH Occurring on BLM-Administered Lands and Non-BLM Lands in the Planning 

Area...............................................................................................................................................................3-12

3-3 Acres of PH within Each Vegetation Type on BLM-Administered Lands and Non-BLMAdministered Lands in the Lewistown Field Office...........................................................................3-13

3-4 Acres of GH within Each Vegetation Type on BLM-Administered Lands and Non-BLMadministered Lands within the Lewistown Field Office....................................................................3-14

3-5 Surface Ownership in PH and GH.........................................................................................................3-17

3-6 2012/2013 Active Lek Sizes within Planning Area .............................................................................3-21

3-7 Land Ownership by Population Area in PH ........................................................................................3-22

3-8 Surface Ownership within the Planning Area .....................................................................................3-25

3-9 GRSG Habitat within City Limits...........................................................................................................3-26

3-10 Transmission Lines within GRSG Habitat............................................................................................3-26

3-11 Number of Communication Towers within GRSG Habitat............................................................3-26

3-12 Vertical Obstructions within GRSG Habitat.......................................................................................3-27

3-13 Active ROW Authorizations within GRSG Habitat..........................................................................3-28

3-14 ROW Avoidance Areas within the Planning Area.............................................................................3-29

3-15 Communication Sites within the Planning Area .................................................................................3-29

3-16 Withdrawal Lands within GRSG Habitat.............................................................................................3-30

3-17 Montana Noxious Weed List..................................................................................................................3-35

3-18 Cheatgrass Potential within GRSG Habitat.........................................................................................3-37

3-19 Cropland within GRSG Habitat..............................................................................................................3-38

3-20 Vegetation Communities within GRSG Habitat on BLM-Administered Lands...........................3-38

3-21 Wetland Vegetation and Aquatic Habitat within GRSG Habitat on BLM-Administered 

Lands.............................................................................................................................................................3-39

3-22 PFC Assessments within GRSG Habitat on BLM-Administered Lands........................................3-39

3-23 Wildland Fire within GRSG Habitat......................................................................................................3-43

3-24 High Probability for Wildland Fire within GRSG Habitat................................................................3-43

3-25 National Vegetation Condition Class on BLM-Administered Lands.............................................3-45

3-26 Fires on BLM-Administered Lands within the Judith Resource Area RMP Area 

(1992-2012).................................................................................................................................................3-45

3-27 2013 County Drilling and Production Statistics.................................................................................3-48

3-28 Open to Oil and Gas Leasing within GRSG Habitat.........................................................................3-49

3-29 Closed to Oil and Gas Leasing within GRSG Habitat.......................................................................3-50

3-30 Oil and Gas Leases within GRSG Habitat............................................................................................3-50

3-31 Oil and Gas Leases Held by Production within GRSG Habitat......................................................3-51

3-32 Oil and Gas Wells within GRSG Habitat.............................................................................................3-51

3-33 Federal Mineral Status in the Planning Area........................................................................................3-52

3-34 Existing Oil and Gas Leases.....................................................................................................................3-52

3-35 Salable Material Disposal Sites within GRSG Habitat .......................................................................3-56

3-36 Miles of Roads within GRSG Habitat....................................................................................................3-58

3-37 Acres of Roads within GRSG Habitat...................................................................................................3-58

3-38 Miles of Railroads within GRSG Habitat..............................................................................................3-59

3-39 Designated SRMAs in the Planning Area..............................................................................................3-61

3-40 Designated ERMAs in the Planning Area..............................................................................................3-62

3-41 Grazing Allotments within GRSG Habitat...........................................................................................3-66

3-42 Allotments Not Meeting Land Health Standards within GRSG Habitat.......................................3-66

3-43 Fences within GRSG Habitat ..................................................................................................................3-67

3-44 Lewistown Field Office Planning Area—Grazing Allocation...........................................................3-67

3-45 Lewistown Field Office Planning Area—Summary of Allotments and AUMs by Habitat 

Type ..............................................................................................................................................................3-68
Table of Contents

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS ix

3-46 Lewistown Field Office Planning Area—Land Health Assessment................................................3-69

3-47 Air Quality Monitor Values Near the Planning Area (2011-2013)* ..............................................3-75

3-48 Air Quality Index Report, 2011-2013...................................................................................................3-76

3-49 Annual Average Deposition (2011-2013)............................................................................................3-78

3-50 Dominant Soil Order on BLM-Administered Lands..........................................................................3-84

3-51 NRCS Farmlands in Planning Area ........................................................................................................3-85

3-52 Sensitive Soils in the Planning Area .......................................................................................................3-86

3-53 Soil Restoration Potential on BLM-Administered Lands..................................................................3-86

3-54 Developed Water Sources in the Planning Area ...............................................................................3-87

3-55 Watershed Acreages in the Planning Area..........................................................................................3-88

3-56 Streams on BLM-Administered Lands in the Planning Area............................................................3-89

3-57 Acres of Freshwater Pond and Lacustrine in PH and GH on BLM-Administered Lands 

in the Planning Area ..................................................................................................................................3-89

3-58 Impaired Streams on BLM-Administered Lands in the Planning Area ..........................................3-91

3-59 Habitat by Ownership within the Planning Area................................................................................3-94

3-60 Wildlife Species of the Lewistown Field Office..................................................................................3-96

3-61 Wind Potential on Slopes <15% on BLM-administered Lands .................................................... 3-101

3-62 Environmental Justice Data for the Planning Area by County, 2013 ......................................... 3-110

4-1 ROW Exclusion and Avoidance Areas in GRSG Habitat (PHMA and GHMA) .........................4-20

4-2 Acres and AUMs Available for Grazing in the Planning Area .........................................................4-20

4-3 Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative...4-38

4-4 Comparison of Lands and Realty Indicators by Alternative ............................................................4-54

4-5 Comparison of Vegetation Indicators by Alternative .......................................................................4-62

4-6 ReGAP Habitat Type including Non-BLM Acreage in PHMA and GHMA within Right-ofway Avoidance and Exclusion Areas by Alternative (Acres) ..........................................................4-69

4-7 Withdrawal from Locatable Mineral Entry in Decision Area..........................................................4-74

4-8 AUMs and Acres Available for Grazing in Decision Area ...............................................................4-76

4-9 Comparison of Wildland Fire Management and Ecology Indicators by Alternative..................4-83

4-10 Comparison of Fluid Minerals Indicators by Alternative..................................................................4-95

4-11 Comparison of Solid Leasable Minerals Indicators by Alternative.............................................. 4-101

4-12 Comparison of Solid Minerals (Locatables) Indicators by Alternative....................................... 4-105

4-13 Comparison of Solid Minerals (Salable Minerals) Indicators by Alternative............................. 4-109

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

Alternative................................................................................................................................................ 4-114

4-15 Areas Open/Closed to New Route Construction by Alternative.............................................. 4-116

4-16 Comparison of Recreation Indicators by Alternative.................................................................... 4-119

4-17 Comparison of Range Management Indicators by Alternative .................................................... 4-129

4-18 Impacts on Livestock Grazing from Lands and Realty Actions.................................................... 4-135

4-19 Fluid Mineral Impacts on Range Management by Alternative ...................................................... 4-137

4-20 Comparison of ACEC Indicators by Alternative ............................................................................ 4-147

4-21 ACECs by Alternative ........................................................................................................................... 4-151

4-22 Comparison of Air Resource Indicators by Alternative................................................................ 4-152

4-23 Comparison of Climate Change Indicators by Alternative........................................................... 4-156

4-24 Comparison of Soil Resources Indicators by Alternative............................................................. 4-160

4-25 Quantitative Impact Summary by Alternative for Soils................................................................. 4-163

4-26 Comparison of Water Resources Indicators by Alternative ....................................................... 4-173

4-27 Quantitative Impact Summary by Alternative for Water Resources......................................... 4-175

4-28 Comparison of Special Status Species-Other Species of Issue Indicators by Alternative ..... 4-186

4-29 Non-BLM Acreage, GHMA, and PHMA within Right-of-way Avoidance and Exclusion 

Areas by Alternative (Acres)............................................................................................................... 4-193
Table of Contents

x Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

4-30 Comparison of Wildlife Species Indicators by Alternative........................................................... 4-208

4-31 Comparison of Renewable Energy Resource Indicators by Alternative ................................... 4-220

4-32 BLM-Administered Lands Managed as ROW Exclusion and Avoidance Areas for Wind 

and Solar ROWs..................................................................................................................................... 4-221

4-33 Wind Potential Affected by Alternative B ........................................................................................ 4-223

4-34 Wind Potential Affected by Alternative C........................................................................................ 4-223

4-35 Wind Potential Affected by Alternative D ....................................................................................... 4-224

4-36 Wind Potential Affected by Proposed Plan Amendment.............................................................. 4-225

4-37 Employment Generated from Recreation and Grazing under the RMPA................................ 4-226

4-38 Labor Income Generated from Recreation and Grazing under the RMPA.............................. 4-226

DIAGRAMS Page

1-1 Nine-Step Planning Process.......................................................................................................................1-9

1-2 BLM and Forest Service GRSG Planning Strategy Sub-region/EIS Boundaries............................1-20

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

in PH 1952 – 2013.....................................................................................................................................3-20

3-2 Percentage of PH Leks in each Size Class 1952 – 2013 ...................................................................3-21

3-3 Land Use Authorizations .........................................................................................................................3-28

3-4 Cheatgrass on Non-Federal Rangeland................................................................................................3-37

3-5 Population Change for the Five-County Impact Area ................................................................... 3-102

3-6 Employment Distribution in the Five-County Impact Area and Montana ................................ 3-104

FIGURES (within Appendix A)

1-1 Project Planning Area

2-1 Sagebrush Focal Area - Proposed Plan

2-2 Major Rights-of-Way Avoidance Areas - Proposed Plan

2-3 Minor Rights-of-Way Avoidance Areas - Proposed Plan

2-4 Rights-of-Way Wind and Solar Energy -Proposed Plan

2-5 Areas Open and Closed, Grazing Allotments - Proposed Plan

2-6 Withdrawals and Recommend for Withdrawal - Proposed Plan

2-7 Nonenergy Leaseable Minerals - Proposed Plan

2-8 Salable Minerals - Proposed Plan

2-9 Rights-of-Way Avoidance Areas – Alternative A

2-10 Rights-of-Way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas – Alternative B

2-11 Rights-of-Way Exclusion Areas – Alternative C

2-12 Rights-Of-Way Avoidance Areas – Alternative D

2-13 Rights-Of-Way Wind Energy Avoidance Areas – Alternative D

2-14 Grazing Allotments Alternative A

2-15 Areas Open and Closed Grazing Allotments Alternative B and D

2-16 Areas Open and Closed Grazing Allotments Alternative C

2-17 Solid Leasable and Salable Minerals – Alternative A

2-18 Solid Leasable and Salable Minerals – Alternative B

2-19 Solid Leasable and Salable Minerals – Alternative C 

2-20 Solid Leasable and Salable Minerals – Alternative D

2-21 Withdrawals and Recommend for Withdrawal – Alternative A
Table of Contents

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS xi

2-22 Withdrawals and Recommend for Withdrawal – Alternative B

2-23 Withdrawals and Recommend for Withdrawal – Alternative C

2-24 Withdrawals and Recommend for Withdrawal – Alternative D

2-25 Area of Critical Environmental Concern – Alternative C

3-1 Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

3-2 Wetland and Riparian Areas

3-3 Fire Regime Condition Class

3-4 Fluid Minerals – Existing Leases

3-5 Recreation Management Areas

3-6 Resource Activity Plans – Grazing Authorization Renewal Areas

3-7 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

3-8 Major Soil Orders

3-9 NRCS Farmland Classification

3-10 Soil Restoration Potential

3-11 Water Features
Table of Contents

xii Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

VOLUME II

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

5.1 Changes Between Draft and Final EIS......................................................................................5-1

5.2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................5-1

5.2.1 Cumulative Analysis Methodology.............................................................................5-2

5.2.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions................................5-3

5.3 Greater Sage-Grouse...................................................................................................................5-7

5.3.1 Methods...........................................................................................................................5-9

5.3.2 Assumptions..................................................................................................................5-11

5.3.3 Existing Conditions in WAFWA Management Zone 1 and the LFO 

Planning Area ................................................................................................................5-12

5.3.4 Regional Efforts to Manage Threats to GRSG......................................................5-15

5.3.5 Relevant Cumulative Actions....................................................................................5-22

5.3.6 Threats to GRSG in Management Zone I..............................................................5-23

5.3.7 Conclusions...................................................................................................................5-56

5.3.8 MZ-Wide Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Summary Table...............5-64

5.4 Lands and Realty .........................................................................................................................5-67

5.5 Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands)....................................5-68

5.6 Wildland Fire Management and Ecology ...............................................................................5-72

5.7 Fluid Minerals...............................................................................................................................5-74

5.8 Solid Minerals (Solid Leasable Minerals)................................................................................5-74

5.9 Solid Minerals (Locatable Minerals)........................................................................................5-74

5.10 Solid Minerals (Salable Minerals).............................................................................................5-74

5.11 Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management................................................5-76

5.12 Recreation ....................................................................................................................................5-76

5.13 Range Management.....................................................................................................................5-78

5.14 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ............................................................................5-79

5.15 Air Resources..............................................................................................................................5-80

5.16 Climate..........................................................................................................................................5-81

5.17 Soil Resources.............................................................................................................................5-82

5.18 Water Resources........................................................................................................................5-84

5.19 Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue..................................................................5-86

5.20 Fish and Wildlife..........................................................................................................................5-88

5.21 Renewable Energy ......................................................................................................................5-90

5.22 Social and Economic Conditions.............................................................................................5-91

5.23 Environmental Justice.................................................................................................................5-92

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

6.1 Changes Between the Draft EIS and Final EIS........................................................................6-1

6.2 Consultation and Coordination ................................................................................................6-2

6.3 Cooperating Agencies .................................................................................................................6-3

6.4 Coordination and Consistency..................................................................................................6-4

6.5 Public Involvement........................................................................................................................6-4

6.5.1 Scoping Process..............................................................................................................6-5

6.5.2 Public Comment Period on the Draft RMPA and EIS...........................................6-6

6.5.3 Summary of Comments Received on the Draft RMPA/EIS .................................6-7

6.5.4 Future Public Involvement.........................................................................................6-15

6.6 Distribution of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS .....................................................................6-15
Table of Contents

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS xiii

6.7 List of Preparers..........................................................................................................................6-17

7. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................. 7-1

7.1 Chapters 1-6 References............................................................................................................7-1

7.2 Greater Sage-Grouse Cumulative Effects Analysis References (Section 5.3 in 

Chapter 5)....................................................................................................................................7-17

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

INDEX ...............................................................................................................................INDEX-1

TABLES Page

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

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

5-2 Management Jurisdiction in MZ I by Acres of Priority and General Habitats.............................5-12

5-3 Acres Open and Closed to Mineral Material Disposal in GRSG Habitat in MZ I......................5-31

5-4 Acres Open and Recommended for Withdrawal from Mineral Entry in GRSG Habitat 

in MZ I..........................................................................................................................................................5-33

5-5 Acres Open and Closed to Nonenergy Leasable Mineral Leasing in GRSG Habitat in 

MZ I...............................................................................................................................................................5-34

5-6 Acres of Rights-of-Way Designations in GRSG Habitat in MZ I....................................................5-37

5-7 Acres of Wind Energy Management Designations in GRSG Habitat in MZ I .............................5-39

5-8 Acres Available and Unavailable to Livestock Grazing in GRSG Habitat in MZ I......................5-43

5-9 Acres Identified for Retention and Disposal in GRSG Habitat in MZ I........................................5-50

5-10 Acres of Travel Management Designations in GRSG Habitat in MZ I..........................................5-55

5-11 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions in Management Zone I Likely to Impact GRSG 

Habitat..........................................................................................................................................................5-64

6-1 Cooperating Agencies ................................................................................................................................6-3

6-2 Number of Unique Submissions and Comments by Commenter Affiliation ..............................6-10

6-3 Summary of Comments Received on Draft RMPA/EIS by Category ............................................6-11

6-4 Overview of Comments by Category ..................................................................................................6-12
Table of Contents

xiv Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

APPENDICES

A Figures

B The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

C Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternatives B and C

D Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D and Proposed Plan 

Amendment

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

M Applying Lek Buffer Distances When Approving Actions

N Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance Caps

O Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental 

Impact Statement
June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS xv

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

BSU Biologically Significant Unit

CEA cumulative effects analysis

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cm centimeter

CO carbon monoxide

COA conditions of approval

COT Conservation Objectives Team

CSGD Cooperative State Grazing District

CSU controlled surface use

CTTM comprehensive travel and transportation management

DDCT density and disturbance calculation tool

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

ESD ecological site descriptions

FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act

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

ft foot

GHMA general habitat management area

GHG greenhouse gas

GIS geographic information system

GRSG Greater Sage-Grouse

HAF Habitat Assessment Framework

IM Instruction Memorandum
Table of Contents

xvi Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

km kilometer

kV kilovolt

LFO Lewistown Field Office

m meter

MCF thousand cubic feet

MFWP Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks

MOU memorandum of understanding

MSGOT Montana Sage Grouse Oversight Team

MTDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality

MTNHP Montana Natural Heritage Program

MZ Management Zone

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOC National Operations Center

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

PHMA priority habitat management area

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

SAIPE Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates

SFA sagebrush focal area

SGI NRCS Sage-Grouse Initiative

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area

SRP special recreation permit
Table of Contents

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS xvii

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

WAPA Western Area Power Administration

WSA Wilderness Study Area
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 5

Cumulative Impacts

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-1 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

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

5.1 Changes Between Draft and Final EIS...................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2.1 Cumulative Analysis Methodology............................................................................. 5-2

5.2.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions................................ 5-3

5.3 Greater Sage-Grouse................................................................................................................... 5-7

5.3.1 Methods ........................................................................................................................... 5-9

5.3.2 Assumptions .................................................................................................................. 5-11

5.3.3 Existing Conditions in WAFWA Management Zone 1 and the LFO 

Planning Area ................................................................................................................ 5-12

5.3.4 Regional Efforts to Manage Threats to GRSG...................................................... 5-15

5.3.5 Relevant Cumulative Actions.................................................................................... 5-22

5.3.6 Threats to GRSG in Management Zone I.............................................................. 5-23

5.3.7 Conclusions................................................................................................................... 5-56

5.3.8 MZ-Wide Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Summary Table............... 5-64

5.4 Lands and Realty ......................................................................................................................... 5-67

5.5 Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands).................................... 5-68

5.6 Wildland Fire Management and Ecology ............................................................................... 5-72

5.7 Fluid Minerals............................................................................................................................... 5-74

5.8 Solid Minerals (Solid Leasable Minerals)................................................................................ 5-74

5.9 Solid Minerals (Locatable Minerals)........................................................................................ 5-74

5.10 Solid Minerals (Salable Minerals)............................................................................................. 5-74

5.11 Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management................................................ 5-76

5.12 Recreation .................................................................................................................................... 5-76

5.13 Range Management ..................................................................................................................... 5-78

5.14 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ............................................................................ 5-79

5.15 Air Resources.............................................................................................................................. 5-80

5.16 Climate .......................................................................................................................................... 5-81

5.17 Soil Resources............................................................................................................................. 5-82

5.18 Water Resources........................................................................................................................ 5-84

5.19 Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue.................................................................. 5-86

5.20 Fish and Wildlife.......................................................................................................................... 5-88

5.21 Renewable Energy ...................................................................................................................... 5-90

5.22 Social and Economic Conditions............................................................................................. 5-91

5.23 Environmental Justice................................................................................................................. 5-92

TABLES Page 

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

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

5-2 Management Jurisdiction in MZ I by Acres of Priority and General Habitats............................. 5-12

5-3 Acres Open and Closed to Mineral Material Disposal in GRSG Habitat in MZ I...................... 5-31

5-4 Acres Open and Recommended for Withdrawal from Mineral Entry in GRSG Habitat 

in MZ I.......................................................................................................................................................... 5-33
Table of Contents

5-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

5-5 Acres Open and Closed to Nonenergy Leasable Mineral Leasing in GRSG Habitat 

in MZ I..........................................................................................................................................................5-34

5-6 Acres of Rights-of-Way Designations in GRSG Habitat in MZ I....................................................5-37

5-7 Acres of Wind Energy Management Designations in GRSG Habitat in MZ I .............................5-39

5-8 Acres Available and Unavailable to Livestock Grazing in GRSG Habitat in MZ I......................5-43

5-9 Acres Identified for Retention and Disposal in GRSG Habitat in MZ I........................................5-50

5-10 Acres of Travel Management Designations in GRSG Habitat in MZ I..........................................5-55

5-11 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions in Management Zone I Likely to Impact 

GRSG Habitat.............................................................................................................................................5-64
June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-1

CHAPTER 5

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

5.1 CHANGES BETWEEN DRAFT AND FINAL EIS

• Cumulative effects analysis in Section 5.3, Greater Sage-Grouse, 

was revised to include a cumulative effects analysis on GRSG at the 

WAFWA Management Zone level. This analysis was completed to 

analyze the effects of management actions on GRSG at a biologically 

significant scale which as determined to be at the WAFWA 

Management Zone. The Draft RMPA/EIS, in Chapter 5, included a 

qualitative analysis and identified that a quantitative analysis would 

be completed for the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS at the WAFWA 

Management Zone.

• The likely direct and indirect impacts on the human and natural 

environment that could occur from implementing the Proposed Plan 

Amendment presented in Chapter 2 were incorporated into 

Chapter 5.

5.2 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 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Introduction)

5-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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.

5.2.1 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.

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 5.3, 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 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Introduction)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-3

provinces. Analysis at this level enables the decision maker to understand the 

impacts on GRSG at a biologically meaningful scale.

5.2.2 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.

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. 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.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Introduction)

5-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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 2017. 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 2015.

Greater SageGrouse Habitat 

Conservation 

Strategy

The Governor of the State of Montana issued Executive Order 10-2014 which 

created the MSGOT and the Montana Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation 

Program. The executive order outlines a number of conservation strategies for 

state agencies to follow for land uses and activities in GRSG habitat in addition to 

establishing the MSGOT and habitat conservation program. The State 

conservation efforts are complementary to the conservation measures proposed 

in the BLM land use plans and when combined would provide conservation efforts 

across land ownership boundaries.

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.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Introduction)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-5

Table 5-1

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects, Plans, or Actions that Comprise the 

Cumulative Impact Scenario

Conifer removal. Approximately 1,000 acres of conifer removal was approved in 

PH within the Yellowstone Watershed GRSG population approximately 30 miles 

north of Winnett in 2014, with additional acres planned annually. The North Fork 

project proposes to remove approximately 300 acres of conifers, mostly Douglasfir in GH within the Belt Mountains GRSG population.

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 

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 (5 counties), the 

number of ROW actions (based on authorizations) has steadily increased since 

2006 (7) to a high of 13 in 2008. The average between 2008 and 2012 was

approximately 10 actions per year. The FY2013 actions included:

• Three temporary use (film) permits for 5,600 acres of temporary 

occupancy;

• Two power line ROWs (1 overhead and 1 buried) for 28.7 acres;

• Three road ROWs for 5 acres of disturbance; and
5. Cumulative Impacts (Introduction)

5-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 5-1

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects, Plans, or Actions that Comprise the 

Cumulative Impact Scenario

• Two overhead telecommunication ROWs for 2 acres of disturbance.

Total 2013 surface disturbance was approximately 5,635.6 acres (5,600.3 of which 

is temporary surface occupancy).

There is one pending land exchange in Petroleum County for 240 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 power line 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. 

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.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Introduction)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-7

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.

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.

5.3 GREATER SAGE-GROUSE

This cumulative effects analysis (CEA) discloses the long-term effects on GRSG 

from implementation of each of the Lewistown Field Office Greater SageGrouse RMPA/EIS alternative in conjunction with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. In accordance with CEQ guidance, 

cumulative effects need to be analyzed in terms of the specific resource and 

ecosystem being affected (Council on Environmental Quality 1997). As 

discussed in Chapter 1, the purpose for the proposed federal action is to 

identify and incorporate appropriate conservation measures to conserve, 

enhance, and restore GRSG habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing 

threats to GRSG habitat. The WAFWA delineated seven GRSG management 

zones based on populations within floristic provinces (Stiver et al. 2006). 

Therefore, the cumulative effects analysis study area extends beyond the LFO

planning area boundary and consists of WAFWA MZ I. 

The analysis of BLM actions in MZ I is primarily based on MZ-wide datasets 

developed by the BLM National Operations Center (NOC). Where quantitative 

data are not available, analysis is qualitative. This analysis includes past, present 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions are for all land ownerships in the MZ, 

and evaluates the impacts of the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse 

RMPA/EIS, by alternative, when added to those. The analysis of nonfederal lands 

and actions includes the following: 

• State plans

• Coordination with states and agencies during consistency reviews

• Additional data from non-BLM-administered lands 

The following diagram shows the boundaries of the WAFWA Management 

Zones and the BLM and National Forest System planning areas. The LFO

planning area has a small influence in the context of MZ I because it contains a 

small fraction of the PHMA (1,208,000 acres out of 12,506,500 total acres in MZ 

I; and GHMA (711,200 acres out of 28,417,600 total acres in MZ I). Of these 

acres in the LFO planning area, the BLM administers just over 233,000 acres of 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

PHMA and 112,000 acres of GHMA in MZ 1. Thus, actions in the Lewistown 

Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS are likely to have a smaller 

cumulative impact on GRSG in MZ I, compared to larger planning areas.

In addition to MZ I, LFO contains 303.800 acres of GHMA in MZ IV (The Belt 

Mountains area). However, BLM administers only 400 of these acres and no leks 

are present on BLM-administered land, the closest approximately 2.5 miles 

away. The MZ IV acreage is not discussed in detail in this CEA.

Section 5.3.2, Assumptions, lists assumptions used in the analysis. Section 

5.1.3, Existing Conditions in WAFWA Management Zone 1 and the LFO 

Planning Area, describes existing conditions in Management Zone I and in the 

LFO planning area. Section 5.3.4, Regional Efforts to Manage Threats to 

GRSG, discusses existing federal, state, tribal and private efforts to conserve 

GRSG in Management Zone I. Section 5.3.5, Relevant Cumulative Actions,

describes relevant cumulative actions for GRSG from the reasonably 

foreseeable future actions in GRSG habitat across MZ I. Section 5.3.6, Threats 

to GRSG in Management Zone I, analyzes threats to GRSG in MZ I and 

discusses the potential cumulative effects resulting from each threat for each 

alternative. Section 5.3.7, Conclusions, analyzes the cumulative effects on 

GRSG as a result of implementing each alternative in combination with other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in MZ I.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-9

5.3.1 Methods 

The CEA uses the following methods:

• Data from the USGS publication Summary of Science, Activities, 

Programs, and Policies That Influence the Range-Wide Conservation 

of Greater Sage-Grouse (Manier et al. 2013) establishes the baseline 

environmental condition against which the alternatives and other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are 

compared. Data from this publication are presented in terms of 

priority and general habitat.

• The USFWS’s 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater

Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or 

Endangered (USFWS 2010) and the USFWS publication 

Conservation Objectives: Final Report (i.e., the COT report; 

USFWS 2013) were reviewed to identify the primary threats facing 

GRSG in each WAFWA Management Zone. Table 2 of the COT 

report lists threats to GRSG that are present and widespread in 

each population in the Management Zone. 

• For MZ I the list of threats that are directly or indirectly affected by 

BLM actions are energy development/mining, infrastructure, grazing, 

conversion to agriculture, fire, spread of weeds, and recreation 

(USFWS 2013). Two other threats listed in the COT report, 

sagebrush eradication and isolation/small population size, affect 

GRSG populations in MZ I. 

• Sagebrush eradication is a component of many threats. 

Isolation/small population size is not analyzed separately, because no 

management actions directly address this threat. These two threats 

are discussed as a component of other threats and in the 

conclusions. Not all the threats discussed in this section represent 

major threats to GRSG in each planning area in the Management 

Zone, but each poses a present and widespread threat to at least 

one population.

• Predation was not included as a threat in the final COT report and 

was not identified by USFWS as a significant threat to GRSG 

populations (USFWS 2010). Predation is a natural occurrence that 

may be enhanced by human habitat modifications such as 

construction of infrastructure that may increase opportunities for 

nesting and perching or increase exposure of GRSG nests. In such 

altered habitats, predators may exert an undue influence on GRSG 

populations. Predation is discussed in this CEA in the context of 

these other threats.

• Each threat is analyzed, and a brief conclusion for each threat is 

provided.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

– The BLM NOC compiled MZ-wide datasets for quantifiable 

actions in all proposed BLM RMP/EISs in MZ I. These 

datasets provide a means by which to quantify cumulative 

effects of direct impacts of the threats identified in the COT 

report. 

– PHMA and GHMA were developed to protect the best 

habitat and highest population density of GRSG. Although 

Alternative A does not designate PHMA or GHMA, spatial 

GIS data were clipped to these boundaries to allow for a 

consistent comparison across all alternatives.

– Data and information were gathered from other federal, 

state, and local agencies and tribal governments, where 

available, and were used to inform the analysis of cumulative 

impacts on GRSG from each of the threats in MZ I. The 

tables in this cumulative analysis display the number of acres 

across the entire MZ and the percentage of those acres that 

are located within the LFO planning area. To calculate the 

total number of acres in the MZ, the number of acres in the 

other BLM and Forest Service proposed plans across MZ I 

are added to the number of acres in the applicable LFO

RMPA alternative. For example, the total number of acres 

for Alternative A includes all of the other proposed plans in 

MZ I plus LFO RMPA Alternative A. Likewise, Alternative B 

acreage includes all of the other proposed plans in MZ I plus 

LFO RMPA Alternative B.

• A discussion is provided for each alternative in Section 5.3.7, 

Conclusions. Each alternative considers the cumulative impacts on 

GRSG from each of the threats. It also considers whether those 

threats can be ameliorated by implementing that particular 

alternative in conjunction with past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable non-BLM actions in MZ I.

• The list of relevant cumulative actions in Section 5.3.5 was derived 

from each proposed BLM RMP in MZ I to provide an overview of 

the ongoing and proposed land uses there. 

• Baseline data that are consistent across planning areas and that 

analyze cumulative effects for each alternative, including the No 

Action Alternative and Proposed Plan Amendment, are used in this 

analysis. 

• This analysis uses the most recent information available. For 

purposes of this analysis, the BLM has determined that the 

Proposed Plans for the other ongoing GRSG planning efforts in MZ I 

are reasonably foreseeable future actions.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-11

The analysis begins with a broad-scale description of current federal, state, local, 

and private actions influencing GRSG in MZ I. A discussion of the major threats 

to GRSG in MZ I follows and a brief conclusion is provided for each major 

threat. Finally, in the Conclusions section, the cumulative effects on GRSG as a 

result of implementing each alternative are weighed when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within MZ I.

5.3.2 Assumptions

This cumulative analysis uses the same assumptions and indicators as those 

established for the analysis of direct and indirect effects on GRSG in Section 

4.3. In addition, the following assumptions have been made:

• The timeframe for this analysis is 20 years.

• The CEA area extends beyond the planning area and encompasses 

all of WAFWA MZ I; the quantitative impact analysis focuses on 

impacts across the MZ. The MZ is the appropriate geographic scope 

for this analysis because it encompasses areas with similar floristic 

conditions containing important GRSG habitat.

• The magnitude of each threat would vary geographically and may 

have more or less impact on GRSG in some parts of the MZ, 

depending on such factors as climate, land use patterns, and 

topography. 

• A management action or alternative would contribute a net 

conservation gain to GRSG if there is an actual benefit or gain above 

baseline conditions. Baseline conditions are defined as the preexisting condition of a defined area and/or resource that can be 

quantified by an appropriate metric(s). During environmental 

reviews, the baseline is considered the affected environment that 

exists at the time of the review's initiation, and is used to compare 

predictions of the effects of the proposed action or a reasonable 

range of alternatives.

• The CEA quantitatively analyzes impacts on GRSG and their habitat 

in the MZ. Impacts on habitat are likely to correspond to impacts 

on populations within the management zone (MZ I), since 

reductions or alterations in habitat could affect reproductive 

success through reductions in available forage or nest sites. Human 

activity could cause disturbance to the birds, preventing them from 

mating or successfully rearing offspring. Human activities also could 

increase opportunities for predation, disease, or other stressors 

(Connelly et al. 2004; USFWS 2010; Manier et al. 2013).
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

5.3.3 Existing Conditions in WAFWA Management Zone 1 and the LFO 

Planning Area 

This section summarizes existing conditions and past and present actions for the 

LFO planning area (discussed in more detail in Chapter 3) and for MZ I as a 

whole. Reasonably foreseeable future actions are discussed in Section 5.3.5.

GRSG Habitat and Populations

The LFO planning area is part of the Yellowstone Watershed GRSG population. 

MZ I contains some of the highest-connected networks of GRSG leks in the 

range (Knick and Hanser 2011); however, it 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 dominant presence of 

grassland ecosystems. In combination with agricultural pressure and energy 

production in the Powder River Basin and extensive infrastructure, including 

power lines, fences, and roads (USFWS 2010), this results in substantial habitat 

limitations for GRSG populations.

In MZ I, state and private lands account for approximately 35 million acres of 

GRSG habitat (approximately 75 percent of habitat), with BLM-administered and 

other federal land accounting for only 25 percent of surface estate (Manier et al. 

2013, p. 118). Table 5-2 provides a breakdown of landownership and acres of 

GRSG habitat in MZ I. As the table shows, approximately 26 percent of PHMA 

and 13 percent of GHMA is on BLM-administered lands. In the LFO RMPA/EIS

planning area, there are approximately 2 million acres of GRSG habitat, including 

approximately 350,000 acres (18 percent) on BLM-administered lands. The 

remaining 1.65 million acres (82 percent) of GRSG habitat comprise private, 

local, state, and other federal and tribal lands.

Table 5-2

Management Jurisdiction in MZ I by Acres of Priority and General Habitats

Total Surface 

Area (Acres) Priority (Acres) General (Acres) Non-habitat (Acres)

MZ I 84,110,800 (100%) 11,636,400 (14%) 34,663,000 (41%) 37,811,400 (45%)

BLM 8,325,300 (10%) 2,994,300 (26%) 4,524,900 (13%) 806,100 (10%)

Forest Service 4,532,500 (5%) 292,400 (3%) 515,300 (1%) 3,724,800 (82%)

Tribal and other 

federal

5,458,500 (6%) 219,700 (2%) 2,427,700 (7%) 2,811,100 (51%)

Private 54,998,900 (65%) 7,132,500 (61%) 24,682,800 (71%) 23,183,600 (42%)

State 5,421,400 (6%) 995,600 (9%) 2,498,400 (7%) 1,927,400 (36%)

Other 5,374,100 (6%) 1,900 (<1%) 13,900 (<1%) 5,358,300 (99%)

Source: Manier et al. 2013, p. 118
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-13

Due to the patchwork distribution of land ownership, BLM actions the 

conservation results obtained on any ownership are limited unless conservation 

actions are enacted across ownership boundaries.

Planning Area Habitat Conditions and Management

Sagebrush, primarily Wyoming big sagebrush, is the most dominant shrubland 

type in the planning area, but mountain big sagebrush also occurs. Wyoming big 

sagebrush tends to grow in the low to mid elevations on the drier sites, while 

mountain big sagebrush occurs in upper elevations in moister conditions. 

Vegetation communities in the planning area are naturally patchy because they 

represent a transition between the intermountain basin sagebrush communities 

to the west and the prairie communities to the east. The grasslands of the 

planning area are substantially threatened by conversion to agriculture, or tillage 

(see Chapter 3). 

In Montana, the GRSG population declined sharply from 1991 to 1996 before 

increasing in the early 2000s. In LFO, lek data have been collected since 1952. 

The number of males per lek has declined from approximately 30 to 10 males 

per lek over this period; however, not all leks were consistently counted during 

this period. In 2012-13 82 leks were active with an average of 10 males each 

(see Chapter 3). The highest recent male count for LFO leks in priority habitat 

was 2103 males in 2003 on 81 active leks (of 120 total surveyed). The overall 

trend in LFO lek counts appears stable (Beyer et al. 2010), though average lek 

size is declining. In portions of MZ 1, GRSG populations have declined through 

wholesale loss of habitat and through impacts of disturbance and direct 

mortality to birds on the remaining habitat. The most pervasive and extensive 

change to the sagebrush ecosystems in MZ 1 is the conversion of nearly 60 

percent of native habitats to agriculture (Samson et al. 2004). The COT report 

considers the Yellowstone Watershed population potentially at risk of 

extirpation (USFWS 2013).

LFO RMPA Alternatives

The LFO RMPA/EIS evaluated the following alternatives:

• Alternative A, current management (the No Action Alternative)

• Alternative B, which emphasizes conservation of physical, biological, 

cultural, and visual resources, with constraints on resource uses on 

BLM-administered lands in PHMA,

• Alternative C, which emphasizes conservation of resources, with 

constraints on resource uses on BLM-administered lands in both 

PHMA and GHMA,

• Alternative D seeks to balance competing human interests and 

resource uses with the conservation of natural resource values.

• Proposed Plan Amendment provides consistent GRSG habitat 

management across the range, prioritizes development outside of 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-14 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

GRSG habitat, and focuses on a landscape-scale approach to 

conserving GRSG habitat.

Though currently GRSG are not managed using PHMA and GHMA designations, 

for comparison purposes in the data tables in Section 5.3.5 below, delineates 

acreages by PHMA and GHMA for both the planning area and for MZ I as a 

whole.

Population Trends in Management Zone I

GRSG has been extirpated from almost half of its original range in MZ I; 

populations continue to decline by 2 to 4 percent annually (Manier et al. 2013). 

The MZ I GRSG population was estimated to be 14,814 males in 2007, having 

declined 17 percent in the number of males per lek since 1965. The number of 

leks declined by 22 percent over the same period (Manier et al. 2013). Lek 

counts indicate a 67 percent drop in MZ I from 2007 to 2013 (Garton et al. 

2015).

Wyoming data suggest a cyclical pattern, with population lows in 1995, 2002, 

and 2013, and peaks in 2000 and 2006. Actual trends are difficult to discern due 

to the smaller survey before 2007, meaning the number and proportion of 

active to inactive leks is unknown. Since 2007, the number of active leks has 

remained stable (approximately 1,100 active leks), but the number of males per 

active lek has declined by more than half, from 42 to 17. In northeast Wyoming, 

the decreasing number of active leks since 2007 suggests a population decline in 

that area that is greater than that indicated by the average lek size. Similar 

population trends are suggested at both state and local scales (Christiansen 

2013). Northern Montana population dropped 54 percent to 1,667 males in 

2013, while the Yellowstone Watershed population dropped 65 percent to 

3,045 males (Garton et al. 2015).

Similarly, in Montana, the GRSG population changes cyclically. The GRSG 

population declined sharply from 1991 to 1996, before increasing through 2000 

(Montana Sage Grouse Work Group 2005). The population is thought to be 

down 33 percent from historic levels. Between 2004 and 2013, the average 

number of displaying males per lek in a given year in Montana ranged from 7 to 

19 (Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy 2014). The Powder 

River Basin population dropped 76 percent from 2007 to 2013, to 1,651 males 

(Garton et al. 2015).

In the Dakotas, GRSG numbered approximately 300 male birds on leks in 2013, 

a drop of 72 percent from 2007 (Garton et al. 2015). Although North and South 

Dakota populations remain connected to populations in Montana, their small 

size, situation on the edge of GRSG range, and ongoing threats place them at 

high risk (Manier et al. 2013, p. 127; USFWS 2013).
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-15

5.3.4 Regional Efforts to Manage Threats to GRSG

Across the GRSG range, other BLM and Forest Service sub-regions are 

undergoing RMP revision or amendment processes similar to this one for the 

Lewistown Field Office. The Proposed RMP or RMPA/Final EIS associated with 

each of these efforts has identified a Proposed Plan or Proposed Plan 

Amendment that meets the purpose and need of conserving, enhancing, and/or 

restoring GRSG habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats. The 

management actions from the various Proposed Plans or Proposed Plan 

Amendments would cumulatively decrease the threat of GRSG habitat loss and 

would limit fragmentation throughout the range. Key actions present in many of 

the Proposed Plans include changes in land use allocations, a mitigation 

framework, an adaptive management strategy, anthropogenic disturbance cap, 

and protective management actions in priority and general habitat areas.

The BLM has incorporated management of SFAs into its proposed management 

approach for GRSG. SFAs are a subset of PHMA and represent recognized 

“strongholds” for the species that have been noted and referenced by the 

conservation community as having the highest densities of the species and other 

criteria important for the persistence of the species. Those portions of SFAs on 

BLM-administered lands would be petitioned for withdrawal from mineral entry, 

subject to an NSO stipulation with no exceptions, modifications, or waivers, and 

are prioritized for management and conservation actions, including, but not 

limited to, review of livestock grazing permits/leases. The LFO planning area 

contains a portion of the 1,807,600-acre North Central Montana SFA. In 

addition, there are several regional efforts to manage threats to GRSG in MZ I. 

These efforts may have a greater ability to alleviate threats to GRSG than BLM 

actions. This is because state and private lands account for approximately 35 

million acres (approximately 75 percent) of GRSG habitat in MZ I (Manier et al. 

2013, p. 118).

The WAFWA Sage-Grouse Strategy (Stiver et al. 2006) outlines a plan for 

monitoring, research, outreach, and funding for conservation projects for 

GRSG. A basic premise of the WAFWA Sage-Grouse Strategy is that additional 

conservation capacity must be developed at all local, state, federal, and rangewide levels for both the short term (3 to 5 years) and for the long term (10 

years or more) to ensure GRSG conservation.

South and North Dakota Statewide Efforts

The South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks published its SageGrouse Management Plan in 2014 (South Dakota Wildlife Division 2014). While 

the plan does not address disturbance caps or impose restrictions that are 

required, it is designed to provide biological information about sage-grouse, 

identifies factors that influence sage-grouse in South Dakota, and guides future 

management direction and actions by establishing objectives to:
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-16 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

• Maintain or increase/improve the existing status and range of 

sagebrush steppe habitat in South Dakota

• Use results from lek counts and inference from past hunting seasons 

to guide recommendations for the annual hunting season

• Annually monitor GRSG population status and distribution

• Develop a public outreach and educational plan that informs the 

public, landowners, stakeholders, and wildlife conservation agencies 

on GRSG management and the issues of highest concern in South 

Dakota

• Support local, interstate and interagency GRSG research projects 

and collaborative conservation planning efforts

• Document disease outbreaks and develop management responses

The NDGFD has developed its Management Plan and Conservation Strategies 

for Greater Sage-Grouse in North Dakota (Robinson 2014). The purpose of the 

plan is in part to meet the objectives outlined in the COT report (USFWS 

2013), which include: 

• Stop population declines and habitat loss

• Implement targeted habitat management and restoration

• Develop and implement GRSG conservation strategies and 

associated actions and regulatory mechanisms

• Develop and implement proactive, voluntary conservation actions

• Develop and implement monitoring plans to track success of 

conservation strategies

• Prioritize, fund, and implement research to address existing 

uncertainties

Similar to the South Dakota plan, the North Dakota plan does not address 

disturbance caps or impose required restrictions but instead is intended to 

provide biological information on GRSG in North Dakota and be used as the 

conservation framework to minimize impacts to GRSG in North Dakota across 

all land ownerships.

Wyoming Statewide Efforts

Wyoming has established Core Population Areas to help delineate landscape 

planning units by distinguishing areas of high biological value. These areas are 

based on the locations of breeding areas and are intended to help balance GRSG 

habitat requirements with demand for energy development (Doherty et al. 

2011). 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-17

In 2000, the Wyoming Sage-Grouse Working Group (WSGWG) was formed to 

develop a statewide strategy for GRSG conservation. This group prepared the 

Wyoming GRSG Conservation Plan (WSGWG 2003) to provide coordinated 

management and direction across the state. In 2004, local GRSG working 

groups were formed to develop and implement local conservation plans. Eight 

local working groups around Wyoming have completed conservation plans, 

many of which prioritize addressing past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

threats at state and local levels, and prescribe management actions for private 

landowners to improve GRSG conservation at the local scale, consistent with 

the overall Wyoming Core Strategy. The Northeast Wyoming Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Plan was completed in 2006 and was updated in 2014 (Northeast 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Working Group 2014). The local and regional working 

group plans would assist in GRSG conservation through monitoring, public 

awareness, and voluntary conservation actions on private land.

Wyoming Executive Order. Wyoming Governor Matt Mead issued an executive 

order on June 2, 2011 that complemented and replaced several executive 

orders issued by his predecessor. The 2011 Wyoming executive order 

articulates the State’s Core Population Area Strategy (Core Area Strategy) as an 

approach to balancing GRSG conservation and development. It also provides an 

approach to mitigating human disturbances to GRSG. 

The Wyoming executive order applies to state trust lands starting in 2008. 

These trust lands cover almost 23 percent of GRSG habitat and benefit 

approximately 80 percent of the estimated breeding population in the state 

(USFWS 2010). All proposed activities are evaluated through a 

density/disturbance calculation tool to determine if the project would exceed 

recommended density/disturbance thresholds. Additionally, the order has 

stipulations to be included in such permits, with varying restrictions, depending 

on whether the proposed development activity occurs within or outside 

delineated Core Population Areas (Wyoming Executive Order, June 2, 2011). 

In Core Areas, there is a 0.6-mile no NSO buffer around occupied leks and 

restrictions on activities in breeding and winter concentration habitat. 

Wyoming’s Industrial Siting Council, which permits large development projects 

on all lands in the state, is subject to the terms of the executive order. This 

buffer provides protection for males during lekking season and acts in 

coordination with the density disturbance cap. The combination of protections 

could offer GRSG considerable regulatory protection when large wind energy 

and other development projects are being considered in Wyoming (USFWS

2010; Manier et al. 2013). Statewide modeling of trends under the Core Area 

Strategy suggests that with effective enforcement statewide, the strategy could 

reduce population losses by 9 to 15 percent across Wyoming. Moreover, the 

number of Core Areas predicted to maintain 75 percent of their current 

populations could increase from 20 to 25 under long-term scenarios (Copeland 

et al. 2013). Combining the Core Area Strategy with $250 million in target 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-18 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

conservation easements (provided willing landowners and funding are available) 

could reduce population declines by another 9 to 11 percent (Copeland et al. 

2013).

In BLM planning areas in Wyoming, however, the Core Area Strategy may be 

less protective than in other areas, because much development in GRSG habitat 

has already occurred and populations are already in decline. As stated in the 

Viability Analysis for Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse Populations for the 

Buffalo Field Office (Taylor et al. 2012), Core Areas in northeastern Wyoming 

were delineated only after widespread development had already occurred in 

GRSG habitat, leaving few options for conserving populations in this region.

Core Population Areas in Wyoming also incorporate connectivity corridors 

(Wyoming Executive Order 2011). These are areas GRSG use to maintain 

connectivity between habitat areas (Manier et al. 2013). Connectivity reduces 

isolation, thereby also reducing a population’s vulnerability to disease, drought, 

or other events that may result in extirpation. 

Umbrella Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances for Wyoming 

Ranch Management. Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances are 

voluntary conservation agreements between the USFWS and one or more 

federal or private partners (e.g., the ranchers). In return for managing lands to 

benefit GRSG, landowners receive assurances against additional regulatory 

requirements should GRSG be listed under the ESA. Within Wyoming, the 

USFWS and Wyoming Governor’s Office in conjunction with the BLM, NRCS, 

Forest Service, and other agencies, have developed an umbrella Candidate 

Conservation Agreement with Assurances for range management activities. 

Enrolled landowners are expected to comply with grazing specific conservation 

measures including but not limited to: avoid (or rotationally utilize) known 

nesting and brood-rearing habitat as a location for activities that concentrate 

livestock such as stock tank placement branding and roundup; place salt or 

mineral supplements in sites minimizing impacts to GRSG habitat; and within 24 

months develop and implement a written grazing management plan to maintain 

or enhance the existing plant community as suitable GRSG habitat (USFWS et 

al. 2013).

Montana Statewide Efforts

The MFWP is tasked with implementing the range-wide WAFWA Sage-Grouse 

Strategy (Stiver et al. 2006) in Montana. 

In addition, the MFWP’s Montana Management Plan and Conservation Strategy 

for Sage-Grouse was initiated in 2005 to protect, maintain, and restore GRSG 

habitat. The plan ranks threats to the species across the state and provides an 

overall strategy for public and private cooperation in conservation actions. In 

2013, the governor established the Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation 

Advisory Council to provide recommendations on policies and actions for 

GRSG conservation and provide regulatory authority for conservation actions. 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-19

The council provided these recommendations in January 2014. The governor 

subsequently issued an executive order on September 9, 2014 (State of Montana 

2014), based on the council recommendations that provided the direction for 

future GRSG conservation in Montana.

Montana Executive Order. The Montana governor issued an executive order on 

September 9, 2014 (State of Montana 2014), based on the council 

recommendations that provided the direction for GRSG conservation in 

Montana. Stipulations for development in the executive order and Montana 

Management Plan and Conservation Strategy for Sage-Grouse include but are 

not limited to:

• A 0.6-mile NSO buffer around active leks in Core areas (0.25 mile 

in GHMA) for new activities;

• A minimum 0.6-mile avoidance zone for power lines and towers;

• A minimum 2.0 mile buffer from lek perimeter for main roads and a 

0.6 mile buffer for facility site access roads

• A 5 percent limit on anthropogenic surface disturbance.

• Limits on activity during nesting season in Core population areas

The approach of the Montana executive order and conservation strategy is 

similar to the Wyoming executive order. Montana’s plan will apply a disturbance 

cap in core habitat and will limit well density and apply timing limitations. The 

0.6-mile buffer would protect males in the vicinity of leks during the breeding 

season; the density limits and disturbance cap would protect GRSG during 

nesting, brood-rearing, and winter concentration activities. The timing 

restrictions would reduce the potential for displacement or disruption during 

the breeding season.

Powder River Basin Restoration Program

The Powder River Basin Restoration Program is a collaborative partnership to 

restore and enhance GRSG habitat on a landscape level in the Powder River 

Basin. The basin encompasses 13,493,840 acres in northeast Wyoming and 

southeast Montana. Surface ownership is comprised of approximately 70 

percent private lands, 14 percent BLM-administered lands (including 8 percent in 

Wyoming and 6 percent in Montana), 8 percent National Forest System lands, 

and 8 percent States of Wyoming and Montana lands. Subsurface mineral 

ownership is 50 to 60 percent federal (BLM 2015). 

The Powder River Basin Restoration Program is focusing on areas affected by 

the federal oil and gas development that has occurred over the past decade in 

the Powder River Basin in northeastern Wyoming. Its objectives are restoring 

or enhancing disturbed previously suitable habitat to suitable habitat for 

sagebrush obligate species, primarily GRSG. This includes multiple sites affected 

by coal bed natural gas abandonment reclamation efforts, wildfires, and noxious 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-20 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

and invasive plants. Priority will be given to those areas recognized as priority 

habitats (e.g., Core Population Areas and connectivity corridors). 

Habitat objectives are meeting the needs for nesting, brood-rearing, and late 

brood-rearing. The program would contribute to efforts focused on the 

management and control of mosquitoes carrying West Nile virus and would 

include funding, labor, treatment locations, and other needs as determined. 

Additionally, efforts would be coordinated to reduce fuels in and near GRSG 

habitat, in order to enhance sagebrush stands, support restoration efforts, and 

reduce the risk of high severity wildfire. Pine stands and juniper woodlands 

would be managed for structural diversity and to reduce fuels, especially near 

PHMA, human developments, and recreation areas.

Natural Resource Conservation Service Sage Grouse Initiative

The NRCS SGI is working with private landowners in 11 western states to 

improve habitat for GRSG (Manier et al. 2013). With approximately 31 percent 

of all sagebrush habitats across the range in private ownership (Stiver 2011, p. 

39), and over 65 percent in MZ I (Manier et al. 2013, p. 118), a unique 

opportunity exists for the NRCS to benefit GRSG and ensure the persistence of 

large and intact rangelands by implementing long term contracts and 

conservation easements. 

Participation in the SGI program is voluntary, but willing participants enter into 

binding contracts to ensure that conservation practices that enhance GRSG 

habitat are implemented. Participating landowners are bound by a contract 

(usually 3 to 5 years) 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 easements or rental payments 

for long-term conservation. 

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, meaning 

future funding is not guaranteed.

As of 2015, SGI has secured conservation easements on over 455,000 acres 

across the GRSG range (NRCS 2015) with the largest percentage of easements 

occurring in Wyoming (approximately 200,000 acres). In MZ 1, SGI has thus far 

secured conservation easements on 65,881 acres that maintain intact sagebrushgrassland habitat. SGI has also accomplished the following in MZ 1:

• Established grazing management programs on 1,370,000 acres to 

enhance GRSG habitat and sustainable ranching

• Removed conifers encroaching on 181 acres of GRSG habitat
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-21

• Seeded over 7,500 acres with native plants

• Marked over 350 miles of fences

Other Regional Efforts

The Forest Service is preparing a plan to manage nearly 96,000 acres of GRSG 

habitat in the Dakota Prairie National Grassland. The plan is not yet available for 

review but is likely to propose similar protections for GRSG on its lands as are 

included in the BLM Proposed RMPs or RMPAs/Final EISs.

A programmatic EIS by the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) and 

the USFWS for the entire upper Great Plains will focus future wind energy 

developments in specific corridors outside of GRSG core habitat (WAPA 2013). 

In accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, preparation of the programmatic EIS 

has involved consultation between cooperating entities and the USFWS and 

preparation of a programmatic Biological Assessment to ensure that the action 

will not jeopardize the continued existence of any federally-listed species, 

including the federal candidate GRSG. At the time of this RMPA specific 

conservation measures for protecting GRSG and its habitat under the 

programmatic EIS are not developed. 

In addition, tribes, counties, and local working groups are playing a critical role 

in promoting GRSG conservation at the local level. Individual conservation plans 

have been prepared by most local working groups to develop and implement 

strategies to improve or maintain GRSG habitat and reduce or mitigate threats 

on the local level. The proposed conservation actions and recommendations in 

these plans are voluntary actions for private landowners. Local working group 

projects have included monitoring, research, and mapping habitat areas, as well 

as public outreach efforts such as landowner education and collaboration with 

federal, state, and other local entities. These efforts provide a net conservation 

gain to GRSG through increased monitoring and public awareness.

Some local working group conservation plans recommend restricting resource 

uses as well. For example, the Bates Hole/Shirley Basin Conservation Plan (Bates 

Hole/Shirley Basin Sage-grouse Working Group 2007) recommends that areas 

within 3.4 miles of an occupied GRSG lek not be leased for oil and gas 

development unless mitigation plans have been developed, approved, and 

funded. In North and South Dakota, local working groups use each state’s 

respective conservation plan, as described under South and North Dakota

Statewide Efforts above. Local working group GRSG conservation plans in MZ I 

include the following:

• Bates Hole/Shirley Basin (Bates Hole/Shirley Basin Sage-grouse 

Conservation Plan (2007)

• Big Horn Basin (Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan for the Big Horn 

Basin, Wyoming (2007)
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-22 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

• Northeast Wyoming (Powder River Basin) (Northeast Wyoming 

Sage-grouse Conservation Plan (2014)

• Glasgow (A Summary of Conservation Activities of the Glasgow, 

MT Sage-Grouse Local Working Group (2011)

• Miles City/Forsyth (Miles City Sage-Grouse Local Working Group 

Action Plan 2011-2014)

• Central Montana Organized Conservation District (no local 

conservation plan)

• North Dakota (no local conservation plan)

• South Dakota (no local conservation plan)

5.3.5 Relevant Cumulative Actions

This CEA considers the incremental impact of the Lewistown Field Office 

Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS alternatives in combination with 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future federal and non-federal 

actions on all lands in MZ I. Where these actions occur within GRSG habitat, 

they would cumulatively add to the impacts of BLM-authorized activities set 

forth in the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final 

EIS. In addition to the conservation efforts described above, relevant reasonably 

foreseeable future actions occurring on federal, private, or mixed landownership

in MZ I are described in the South Dakota, Buffalo, Miles City, HiLine, Billings, 

and Wyoming GRSG Planning Area RMPs, and North Dakota RMPA.

The following list includes past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions in MZ I that when added to the Proposed Plan Amendment and 

alternatives for the LFO planning area could cumulatively affect GRSG (see 

Table 5-11 for more detail): 

• Powder River Basin oil and gas leases in Campbell, Johnson, and 

Sheridan Counties, Wyoming

• Surface coal mining and coal leasing in Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming

• Carter Master Leasing Plan for Oil and Gas, Carter County, 

Montana

• Increased oil and gas production surrounding the established fields 

in the southern Williston Basin

• Greater Crossbow Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

Project in Campbell and Converse Counties, Wyoming

• Converse County Oil and Gas Development, Converse County, 

Wyoming

• Nichols Ranch/Hank Unit Uranium In-situ Recovery Mining Project, 

Johnson and Campbell Counties, Wyoming
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-23

• Proposed uranium mining in Newcastle, Wyoming and in South 

Dakota

• Western Area Power Administration Upper Great Plains Wind 

Energy Programmatic Draft EIS

• Bentonite mining in northeast Wyoming and in Carter County, 

Montana 

• Keystone XL Pipeline, Montana and South Dakota

• Conversion of lands to agricultural and urban development

• Conifer removal projects in MZ I (and in Belt Mountains, MZ IV)

5.3.6 Threats to GRSG in Management Zone I

The COT report identifies the present and widespread threats facing GRSG in 

MZ I as energy development, infrastructure, grazing, conversion to agriculture, 

fire, spread of weeds, and recreation (USFWS 2013). These threats impact 

GRSG mainly by fragmenting and degrading their habitat. The loss of sagebrush 

steppe across the west approaches or exceeds 50 percent in some areas. It is a 

primary factor in long-term declines in GRSG abundance across their historical 

range (USFWS 2010). 

Habitat fragmentation reduces connectivity of populations and increases the 

likelihood of extirpation from random events, such as drought or outbreak of 

West Nile virus. Furthermore, climate change is likely to affect habitat 

availability to some degree, by decreasing summer flows and limiting growth of 

grasses and forbs, thereby limiting water and food supply (BLM 2012b). Sensitive 

species such as GRSG, which are already stressed by declining habitat, increased 

development, and other factors, could experience additional pressures as a 

result of climate change. 

Each COT report threat considered present and widespread in at least one 

population in MZ I is discussed below. For more detail on the nature and type 

of effects and the direct and indirect impacts on GRSG in the planning area, see 

Chapter 4 of the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed 

RMPA/Final EIS. The quantitative impact analysis focuses on impacts in MZ 1, 

with planning area acres provided for context.

Energy Development

The COT report states that energy development should be designed to ensure 

that it will not impinge on stable or increasing GRSG population trends. For 

mining, the COT report objective is to maintain stable to increasing GRSG 

populations and no net loss of GRSG habitats in areas affected by mining 

(USFWS 2013). In the energy development areas of MZ I, population trends are 

not stable or increasing; for this reason, objectives in the planning area are 

intended to reduce losses and sustain a viable GRSG population, albeit at a 

lower level than historically (Taylor et al. 2012).
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-24 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

There are approximately 1,004,400 acres of GRSG habitat in MZ I where energy 

and mineral development (including oil and gas, coal leasing, mineral materials, 

and locatable minerals) is presently occurring. There are 33,264,000 acres 

indirectly influenced by energy development (Manier et al. 2013, pp. 55-71). No 

geothermal energy development or nonenergy leasable mineral development is 

presently occurring in MZ I. Impacts from these activities would be similar to 

other types of mining and energy development. However, since these resources 

are not present in the MZ, restrictions related to the development of these 

resources have no impact on GRSG populations.

Oil and Gas

Nature and Type of Effects. Oil and gas development has emerged as a rangewide issue in conservation because areas being developed contain large GRSG 

populations (Connelly et al. 2004) and other sagebrush obligate species (Knick

et al. 2003). 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. Indirect disturbances result from noise, gaseous emissions, changes in 

water availability and quality, and human presence. These factors could 

cumulatively or individually lead to habitat fragmentation in the long term 

(Connelly et al. 2004; Holloran 2005). 

Oil and gas development results in direct loss of habitat from well pad and road 

construction as well as well as direct mortality from vehicle strikes and 

disturbance from noise. Oil and gas development also indirectly impacts GRSG 

through the species’ avoidance of infrastructure and disturbance from increased 

noise and vehicle traffic associated with development. This development can 

also impact GRSG survival or reproductive success. Other indirect effects 

include habitat quality changes, predator communities, and disease dynamics 

(Naugle et al. 2011).

Several studies from the Great Plains and Wyoming Basin have shown that 

breeding GRSG populations are affected at oil and gas well densities commonly 

permitted in Montana and Wyoming in the past (Naugle et al. 2011). Doherty et 

al. (2010) found that, although impacts were indiscernible at densities of less 

than one well per square mile, lek losses in parts of MZ I were two to five times 

greater in areas with development above this threshold. They also found that 

the abundance (number) of males per lek at the remaining leks declined by 

approximately 30 to 80 percent. These and other studies demonstrate that both 

direct and indirect impacts result from the impacts of energy development and 

geophysical exploration in GRSG habitat.

Several studies have quantified the distance from leks at which impacts of 

development become negligible. The studies also assessed the efficacy of BLM 

NSO stipulations for leasing and development within 0.25 mile of a lek 

(Holloran 2005; Walker et al. 2007a). Walker et al. (2007a) found that in the 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-25

Powder River Basin buffer sizes of 0.25, 0.5, 0.6, and 1.0 mile resulted in an 

estimated lek persistence (the ability of leks to remain on the landscape) of 

approximately 5, 10, 15, and 30 percent; conversely lek persistence in areas 

without oil and gas development averaged approximately 85 percent. 

Naugle et al. (2011) reported that impacts of energy development had been 

documented at distances greater than 3.5 miles from the lek in MZ I. Holloran 

(2005) found impacts on abundance at a distance between 3 and 4 miles in 

western Wyoming. However, Naugle et al. (2011) also stated that impacts on 

leks caused by energy development were most severe near the lek.

Naugle et al. (2011) also found that impacts from energy development often 

extirpate leks in gas fields. Doherty (2008) documented that lek losses increased 

and male abundance decreased as well density increased in the Powder River 

Basin. Lek extirpation in areas with 8 wells per section (40 to 100 wells total) 

within 2 miles of the lek was 5 times more likely to occur than in areas with no 

wells within 2 miles. Male attendance at the remaining leks in these areas 

declined approximately 20 to 60 percent (Doherty 2008).

Much oil and gas development previously occurred on private lands with 

minimal mitigation efforts, but restrictions are now in place to protect GRSG 

habitat under the Wyoming and Montana executive orders (though the Montana 

executive order still requires funding for implementation). Earlier research had 

demonstrated that 0.25-mile NSO lease stipulations were insufficient to 

conserve breeding GRSG populations in a typical landscape in portions of the 

planning area (Walker et al. 2007a), when nearly 80 percent of the area within 

approximately 2 miles of leks remained open to full-scale development.

Lyon and Anderson (2003) reported that oil and gas development influenced the 

rate of nest initiation of GRSG in excess of approximately 2 miles of 

construction activities. GRSG numbers on leks within approximately 1 mile of 

natural gas compressor stations in Campbell County, Wyoming, were 

consistently lower than numbers on leks unaffected by this noise disturbance 

(Braun et al. 2002). Holloran and Anderson (2005) reported that lek activity 

decreased downwind of drilling activities, suggesting that noise caused 

measurable impacts. 

In addition to activities directly associated with oil and gas development, road 

traffic also generates noise. Knick et al. (2003) indicated that there were no 

active GRSG leks within approximately 1 mile of Interstate 80 across southern 

Wyoming; only 9 leks were known to occur between approximately 1 and 2.5 

miles of Interstate 80. 

Conditions in the Planning Area and in MZ I. The Dakotas population in MZ I is 

heavily influenced by oil and gas development; oil and gas developments are 

scattered throughout the Yellowstone watershed (USFWS 2013, p. 63). Energy 

development is a widespread threat to GRSG in MZ I. The patchwork 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-26 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

landownership pattern means that many energy extraction facilities are near 

property boundaries and may affect GRSG and their habitat on adjacent lands. 

Nearly 16 percent of GRSG habitat in MZ I is within 1.8 miles of oil and gas 

wells, a distance at which ecological impacts are likely to occur (Knick et al. 

2011). Oil and natural gas development-related wells indirectly influence 60 

percent of PHMA and GHMA across MZ I, occurring to a distance of 12 miles 

from the development. Private surface lands account for 65 percent of wells in 

PHMA and 72 percent in GHMA in MZ I (Manier et al. 2013). Thus, 

conservation actions on private land are likely to have a greater potential to 

reduce the adverse impacts of oil and gas development on GRSG habitat than 

any other single land management entity. 

Although oil and gas activities have a disproportionately greater effect on private 

lands, regulatory mechanisms on both federal surface and split estate lands in 

MZ I are influential. Federal actions on split-estate lands with federal subsurface 

minerals will require mitigation for impacts on GRSG habitat occurring on 

private surface lands that would not be required on lands with both privately 

held surface and subsurface.

From 2001 to 2005, GRSG populations declined by 82 percent within the 

expansive coal bed natural gas fields (Walker et al. 2007a) in northeast 

Wyoming. Within the Lewistown planning area, energy development is less 

widespread than in Wyoming. 

Oil and gas development has emerged as a range-wide issue in conservation 

because areas being developed contain large GRSG populations (Connelly et al. 

2004) and other sagebrush obligate species (Knick et al. 2003). The Powder 

River Basin has had extensive development of coalbed natural gas in the last 10 

to 15 years, fragmenting GRSG habitat throughout that area. With a well life of 

approximately 12 years, many of the coal bed natural gas wells that were 

originally drilled are depleted and ready for abandonment. Native vegetation 

over most buried pipelines has reclaimed its predisturbance composition. Utility 

roads and overhead power lines continue to degrade thousands of acres of 

GRSG habitat on private, federal, and state lands resulting in avoidance of 

otherwise suitable habitat (BLM 2013b).

The intermingled land ownership pattern in MZ I means that many oil and gas 

facilities are near property boundaries and may have adverse effects on GRS and 

their habitat on adjacent lands. As a result, coordination of GRSG conservation 

efforts among federal, state and private entities is especially critical.

Though the BLM may restrict future leasing for oil and gas on Federal fluid 

mineral estate that it administers in GRSG habitat, existing leases remain valid 

unless they have already been developed, at which point they are valid for the 

life of the producing well. Any new development of wells on existing leases is 

subject to COAs to avoid other resource damage, including GRSG.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-27

Oil and gas drilling is less prevalent in LFO than in other parts of MZ I, such as 

that portion in Wyoming (e.g., the Powder River Basin, the Bowdoin Field, and 

the Williston Basin). See Chapter 3 for acres of existing BLM-administered 

surface minerals and federal subsurface mineral leases within the planning area. 

Since 1988, because of a protest resolution, the LFO has been deferring 

nominated oil and gas lease parcels that require a special lease stipulation to 

protect important wildlife values.

The Dakotas population in MZ I is heavily influenced by oil and gas 

development; oil and gas developments are scattered throughout the 

Yellowstone watershed (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); conversely, the northern Montana population has less 

energy development. Coal bed methane wells typically last 12 to 18 years, while 

oil and gas wells may last 20 to 100 years in production (Connelly et al. 2004). 

Most coal bed natural gas drilling in the Powder River Basin has concluded, and 

current and future oil and gas development is anticipated to impact GRSG less 

due to horizontal drilling technology.

Impact Analysis. No quantitative data are presented for fluid mineral leasing 

within LFO because there is an existing protest resolution decision affecting 

lands managed within the LFO. The protest resolution does not allow oil and 

gas leasing of nominated parcels that would require a special stipulation to 

protect important wildlife values, which includes PHMA and GHMA. 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.

Alternative A 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. Under Alternatives B, C, and D leased mineral estate 

drilling is limited in PHMA to valid existing rights or new exploration intended 

to provide information on resources located outside PHMA. For valid existing 

leasing rights, RDFs (see Appendix C and Appendix D) would be applied to 

the permits to drill as COAs to protect GRSG. 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. 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-28 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

In the event of future new leasing for fluid minerals, the Proposed Plan 

Amendment would apply NSO stipulations to all PHMA.

Despite deferment of BLM-administered lands for oil and gas leasing, the RDFs

in Appendices C and D, would help protect unfragmented habitats, minimize 

habitat loss and fragmentation, and maintain conditions that meet GRSG life 

history needs when applied to new drilling activities on parcels already leased. 

For example, remote telemetry (e.g., monitoring oil and gas operations) would 

be used to reduce vehicle traffic, disturbance areas would be kept to a 

minimum, and vegetation would be removed only when necessary. Given the 

extent of oil and gas resources present in MZ I, development pressure is likely 

to continue in areas inhabited by the Yellowstone Watershed population, and 

oil and gas development is expected to remain a threat to GRSG populations in 

MZ I because restrictions on other lands are less stringent.

Implementing any alternative under the Lewistown Field Office Greater SageGrouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS would not affect pending or future oil and gas 

development projects outside of the planning area. For example, the Converse 

County Oil and Gas Project proposes to drill approximately 5,000 oil and 

natural gas wells in an area encompassing 1.5 million acres (including GRSG core 

habitat) in MZ I. However, the NSO buffer and the disturbance caps under the 

Wyoming and Montana Executive Orders would reduce the threat to GRSG 

from oil and gas development on non-federal lands in those states in MZ I. 

The effect of the alternatives and other conservation actions in the MZ (most 

notably the Montana and Wyoming executive orders) could be synergistic, 

meaning that the effects of the actions together is greater than the sum of their 

individual effects. For example, applying buffers in PHMA and on state and 

private land would effectively conserve larger blocks of land than if these actions 

occurred individually. This would provide a landscape-scale net conservation 

benefit, especially in areas where little development has occurred to date.

Development pressure for fluid mineral resources in the Dakotas, Powder River 

Basin, and Yellowstone Watershed is likely to continue; however, future drilling 

technologies are expected to impact GRSG less than coal bed natural gas 

development has in the past decade. The application of major stipulations and 

closing areas to leasing would greatly reduce impacts to GRSG on federal 

mineral estate and the application of lek buffers and disturbance limitations 

would further reduce impacts on GRSG populations.

The Proposed Plan Amendment in the Lewistown Field Office Greater SageGrouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS would continue the current protest 

resolution deferring new leasing. Thus, under all alternatives the effects on 

GRSG from the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed 

RMPA/Final EIS would be the same. However, continuation of the deferral 

approach in conjunction with actions, including implementation of NSO 

stipulations, anthropogenic disturbance caps, and adaptive management in other 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-29

planning areas, under other BLM RMP proposed plans, and past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions in MZ I would provide a net conservation 

gain to GRSG. 

Coal

Nature and Type of Effects. Past and current coal extraction has been and 

continues to be a major mining activity in MZ I. Approximately 3 percent of 

BLM-administered PHMA in MZ I and 8 percent of GHMA is influenced by coal 

mining (Manier et al. 2013). Surface mining accounts for about 67 percent of 

production in the United States; large mines can cover many square miles. Coal 

mining and the use of coal to produce electricity has environmental impacts. 

These are soil erosion, dust, noise, water pollution, acid-mine drainage, and air 

emissions, in addition to impacts on wildlife in the area, and contributions to 

climate change.

Conditions in the Planning Area and in MZ I. The Powder River Basin in 

Wyoming and Montana contains some of the largest accumulations of low-sulfur 

sub-bituminous coal in the world. It is the nation’s largest coal-producing region, 

and coal from the region is shipped nationwide. Coal forecasts for the Powder 

River Basin through 2020 indicate total production is expected to grow at an 

annual rate of 2 to 3 percent. This is consistent with electric power demand. 

Interest and demand for new leasing is expected to continue through 2020, 

based on forecasting. The preliminary work for the 2030 forecast indicates a 

slower rate of increase in the Powder River Basin, 0.25 to 2 percent. This is 

based on reduced coal demand, new natural gas discoveries, and possible 

regulation of greenhouse gases. By 2030 the BLM expects Powder River Basin 

coal production to be between 500 and 700 million tons annually, though more 

recent projections indicate lower coal demand because of increased supply of 

natural gas.

Coal surface leases indirectly influence 3 percent of PHMA and 8 percent of 

GHMA across MZ I. Coal is estimated to impact habitat to a distance of 12 

miles from the direct impact area (Manier et al. 2013). Approximately 68 

percent of coal leases in PHMA and 82 percent in GHMA occur on private lands 

in MZ I but may contain federal mineral estate (Manier et al. 2013). Protective 

stipulations would be of particular benefit on privately owned surface and 

subsurface lands where the BLM’s protective regulatory mechanisms would not 

apply.

Impact Analysis. Major coal leasing and development areas lie outside the 

planning area. Areas proposed for coal exploration would be evaluated for their 

suitability for leasing through application of unsuitability criteria. With the 

emphasis of GRSG and their habitat, it is probable that GRSG habitat would be 

designated as unsuitable with or without exception. It is unlikely that existing 

mines, including adjacent areas proposed for mine expansion, would be 

designated as unsuitable without exception. Although coal companies have 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-30 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

repeatedly demonstrated that disturbed lands can be restored to a point that 

supports a diversity of vegetative species, including big sagebrush, there is little 

evidence in Montana that GRSG populations have reoccupied habitat disturbed 

by coal mining, at least in terms of lek establishment. Presently there is low coal 

potential in GRSG habitat in the planning area.

Coal development that requires state agency review or approval would be 

subject to the permitting process and stipulations for development in GRSG 

Core areas under the Wyoming and Montana executive orders, as well as BLM 

review under the Proposed Plan Amendment. There are no coal leases in WY 

Core Areas; however there are Core areas in the Miles City planning area with 

active and pending coal leases and mines. 

New coal lease applications on federal mineral estate would be subject to 43 

CFR, Part 3461.5(o)(1), Criterion 15. This criterion states that a lease may be 

issued if, after consultation with the state, the surface management agency 

determines that all or certain stipulated methods of coal mining would not have 

a significant long-term impact on a “resident species of fish, wildlife, and plants 

of high interest to the state” such as GRSG. Special conditions would be 

required, as identified during the leasing process, to protect GRSG habitat. The 

requirements of 43 CFR, Part 3461.5, Criterion 15, in combination with BLM 

planning efforts and state plans, and other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would help reduce the threat from coal extraction 

and provide a net conservation gain to GRSG in MZ I.

Mineral Materials

Nature and Type of Effects. Development of surface mines (for sand, gravel and 

other common mineral materials found in MZ I) may negatively impact GRSG 

numbers and disrupt the habitat and life-cycle of the species, similar to other 

types of mining activities (Braun 1998; Manier et al. 2013). 

Conditions in the Planning Area and in MZ I. Salable mineral materials disposal 

sites in PHMA and GHMA are widespread throughout MZ I. They are primarily 

located in northeast Wyoming, as well as in southeast Montana. There are 

65,000 acres of mining and mineral materials disposal sites (not including 

minerals mined as energy sources) on BLM-administered surface land in MZ I. 

There are 122,900 acres across all landownership types. Indirect effects are 

estimated to 1.5 miles out from the direct effects area (Manier et al. 2013). 

Mineral materials currently being developed for commercial purposes in the 

LFO planning area consist primarily of aggregate (sand and gravel). 

Across MZ I, PHMA and GHMA are most affected by mining and mineral 

materials disposal sites on private land surface. GRSG may be directly impacted, 

being in the path of development; however, indirect impacts on habitat affect a 

much wider population of birds. In total, 53 percent of PHMA and 80 percent of 

GHMA influenced by the indirect impact of mining and mineral materials 

disposal sites are on private land. This does not include minerals mined as 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-31

energy sources. Mining and mineral materials disposal sites on BLMadministered surface land, by comparison, indirectly affect 38 percent of PHMA 

and 11 percent of GHMA (Manier et al. 2013). 

Impact Analysis. Closures or restrictions on mineral material development in 

the planning area would reduce adverse effects on GRSG from mineral material 

development on BLM-administered surface and split-estate lands. However, 

these actions may shift development onto non-federal lands, with potentially 

greater impacts on GRSG because protective stipulations and permit 

requirements would not apply. Table 5-3 shows areas open and closed to 

mineral material disposal in GRSG habitat.

Table 5-3

Acres Open and Closed to Mineral Material Disposal in GRSG Habitat in MZ I

PHMA GHMA

MZ I Percent Within 

Planning Area MZ I Percent Within Planning Area

Open to Mineral Material Disposal

Alternative A 1,845,000 0 8,260,000 0

Alternative B 1,845,000 0 8,260,000 0

Alternative C 1,845,000 0 8,260,000 0

Alternative D 2,124,000 13 8,421,000 2

Proposed Plan Amendment 1,845,000 0 8,421,000 2

Closed to Mineral Material Disposal

Alternative A 3,586,000 0 700,000 <1

Alternative B 3,971,000 10 700,000 <1

Alternative C 3,865,000 7 977,000 17

Alternative D 3,586,000 0 700,000 <1

Proposed Plan Amendment 3,865,000 7 700,000 <1

Source: BLM 2015

This table displays the acres of PHMA and GHMA open and closed to mineral material disposal in MZ I; it also 

displays the percentage of those acres that are found within the planning area.

Acres of PHMA and GHMA open to mineral material disposal in MZ I would be 

less under the Proposed Plan Amendment than under Alternative D. It is 

unclear if this represents an increase compared to current management.

Alternative B or the Proposed Plan Amendment provides the most protection 

to GRSG from mineral material disposal, especially by closing habitat to mineral 

materials disposal in the planning area except for free use permits. Because the 

Proposed Plan Amendment closes both PHMA and GHMA, it would reduce 

impacts more than any other alternative and would provide the greatest 

conservation gain to GRSG.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-32 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Under the Wyoming and Montana Executive Orders, authorizations of new 

mineral material disposal sites that require state agency review or approval 

would be subject to the GRSG permitting process. They also would be subject 

to stipulations for development in GRSG Core areas. These stipulations would 

be of particular benefit on privately owned surface and subsurface lands, where 

BLM protective regulatory mechanisms do not apply.

Overall, the combination of BLM management actions for mineral materials 

development in the Proposed Plan Amendment for the Lewistown Field Office 

Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, the Wyoming and Montana 

state actions, and other planned restoration activities would preserve more 

habitat from disturbance than current management, reduce disturbance to birds, 

and in combination with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, provide the greatest net conservation gain to GRSG in MZ I.

Locatable Minerals

Locatable minerals include gold, silver, uranium, and bentonite. Activities 

associated with locatable mineral development, such as stockpiling topsoil and 

extracting and transporting material, would cause mortality and nest disruption. 

These actions also would reduce the functionality of the surrounding habitat 

with noise and light disturbance, resulting in lost and degraded GRSG habitat.

As with fluid mineral development, reclamation practices may help to reduce 

long-term impacts on GRSG and their habitat. Although disturbed areas have 

not been restored to near pre-disturbance conditions in the past, recent efforts 

have been directed toward restoring functional habitat. Future reclamation 

should be focused on restoring habitats capable of supporting viable GRSG 

populations. Even with effective restoration, restored areas may not support 

GRSG populations at the same level as prior to disturbance. 

Conditions in the Planning Area and in MZ I .The LFO planning area has been 

mined for gold, zinc, sapphires, and other locatable minerals. However, none of 

the areas currently identified having locatable mineral development potential in 

the planning area is within PHMA or GHMA. In other parts of MZ I most 

current and forecasted extraction activities are for bentonite, but uranium is 

also being actively mined in GRSG habitat. 

Impact Analysis. As shown in Table 5-4 quantitative data on the number of 

acres of GRSG habitat recommended for withdrawal in MZ I are limited. 

However, the data represent a relatively small influence, compared to the 

broader MZ.

The Proposed Plan Amendment has fewer acres open to locatable mineral entry 

than Alternative D. Under the Proposed Plan Amendment, acreage in SFAs 

would be recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. Under 

Alternative B, PHMA would be recommended for withdrawal from locatable 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-33

Table 5-4

Acres Open and Recommended for Withdrawal from Mineral Entry in 

GRSG Habitat in MZ I

PHMA GHMA

MZ I Percent Within 

Planning Area MZ I Percent Within Planning Area

Open to Mineral Entry

Alternative A 3,854,000 0 7,029,000 0

Alternative B 3,854,000 0 7,029,000 0

Alternative C 3,854,000 0 7,029,000 0

Alternative D 4,133,000 7 7,190,000 2

Proposed Plan Amendment 4,080,000 6 7,190,000 2

Recommended for Withdrawal from Locatable Mineral Entry

Alternative A 1,032,000 0 118,000 0

Alternative B 1,422,000 26 118,000 0

Alternative C 1,311,000 20 281,000 58

Alternative D 1,032,000 0 118,000 0

Proposed Plan Amendment 1,085,000 5 118,000 0%

Source: BLM 2015

This table displays the acres of PHMA and GHMA open to mineral entry and recommended for withdrawal from 

locatable mineral entry in MZ I; it also displays the percentage of those acres that are found within the planning 

area.

mineral entry, and, under Alternative C, both PHMA and GHMA would be 

recommended for withdrawal. Alternative D does not recommend withdrawal 

of any additional acres of GRSG habitat from locatable mineral development, 

and impacts from BLM management would be the same as Alternative A. 

Because Alternative B, C and the Proposed Plan Amendment would restrict 

future locatable mineral operations on GRSG habitat more than other 

alternatives, they would provide more protections to GRSG habitat from 

locatable mineral development. 

No locatable mineral development is anticipated in the next 20 years and areas 

with potential are outside GRSG habitat, so these changes would not impact 

GRSG in LFO.

In other parts of MZ I, the Montana and Wyoming state plans will count locatable 

mineral development against their disturbance caps, meaning future development 

on private lands may trigger adaptive management protections for GRSG. 

Under all alternatives, required design features outlined in Appendix C and

Appendix D would help minimize the impacts on GRSG from locatable mineral 

development on federal land. Clustering operations and facilities as closely as 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-34 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

possible and placing new infrastructure in already disturbed locations would 

reduce impacts on sagebrush habitats. 

The disturbance cap in the Proposed Plan Amendment would not block 

locatable mineral entry projects, but any locatable mineral entry would be 

considered as disturbance under the cap and could trigger adaptive management 

and associated benefits for GRSG. Overall, the measures in the Proposed Plan 

Amendment would help alleviate the threat, and in light of state plans, other 

BLM planning efforts, and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, provide a net conservation gain to GRSG throughout MZ I. 

Nonenergy Leasable Minerals

Nonenergy leasable minerals are materials such as sulfates, silicates, and trona 

(sodium carbonate). Impacts on GRSG are similar to those from other types of 

mining. 

Conditions in the Planning Area and in MZ I. Existing leases for nonenergy 

leasable minerals represent a relatively small threat spatially (Manier et al. 2013). 

Nonenergy leasable minerals occur in the planning area but not in commercially 

viable quantities. Therefore, implementing any of the alternatives would not 

reduce the threat in MZ I. 

Impact Analysis. Table 5-5 shows the results by alternative.

Table 5-5

Acres Open and Closed to Nonenergy Leasable Mineral Leasing in GRSG Habitat in MZ I

PHMA GHMA

MZ I Percent Within 

Planning Area MZ I Percent Within Planning Area

Open to Nonenergy Leasing

Alternative A 2,049,000 0 6,330,000 0

Alternative B 2,049,000 0 6,330,000 0

Alternative C 2,049,000 0 6,330,000 0

Alternative D 2,328,000 12 6,491,000

Proposed Plan Amendment 2,049,000 0 6,491,000 2

Closed to Nonenergy Leasing

Alternative A 2,285,000 0 670,000 <1

Alternative B 2,670,000 14 670,000 <1

Alternative C 2,564,000 11 830,000 20

Alternative D 2,285,000 0 670,000 <1

Proposed Plan Amendment 2,564,000 11 670,000 <1

Source: BLM 2015

This table displays the acres of PHMA and GHMA open and closed to nonenergy leasing in MZ I; it also displays 

the percentage of those acres that are found within the planning area.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-35

The Proposed Plan Amendment would reduce the acreage open to nonenergy 

leasable minerals relative to Alternative D. Alternative D would have the same 

acreage closed in PHMA and GHMA as Alternative A, while Alternatives B, C 

and the Proposed Plan Amendment would reduce the acreage of PHMA and 

GHMA open to nonenergy leasing, compared to current management 

(Alternative A). The highest closed acreage would be under Alternative C, 

which also closes GHMA. 

Precluding nonenergy leasable development in more acres of PHMA or GHMA 

would reduce habitat disturbance and fragmentation as well as direct 

disturbance to GRSG, if nonenergy leasable development were to occur in 

GRSG habitat in the future. The Proposed Plan Amendment would also apply a 

disturbance cap and lek buffers, in accordance with the USGS report, and 

mitigate for any damage in GRSG habitat. In combination with the disturbance 

cap applied under state plans and BLM actions in other RMP planning areas in 

MZ I, the Proposed Plan Amendment represents an improvement in GRSG 

habitat protections in MZ 1, and in combination with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would provide a net conservation gain to 

GRSG if nonenergy leasable mineral development occurs in GRSG habitat.

Infrastructure

The USFWS (2013) considers energy development and associated infrastructure 

the largest threats to GRSG in MZ I. The COT report objective is to avoid 

development of infrastructure in GRSG priority areas for conservation. 

However, in the Powder River Basin, considerable infrastructure has already 

been constructed in GRSG habitat, making it necessary to focus GRSG 

management on minimizing impacts of infrastructure.

Rights-of-Way

Nature and Type of Effects. As discussed in Chapter 4, power lines can directly 

affect GRSG by posing a collision and electrocution hazard. They also 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 and pipelines often extend for 

many miles. The ground disturbance associated with construction, as well as 

vehicle and human presence on maintenance roads, may introduce or spread

invasive weeds over large areas, degrading habitat. Impacts from roads may 

include direct habitat loss from road construction and direct mortality from 

collisions with vehicles. Roads may also facilitate predator movements, spread 

invasive plants, and increase human disturbance from noise and traffic (Forman 

and Alexander 1998). 

Conditions in the Planning Area and in MZ I. Infrastructure, such as ROWs and 

associated facilities and urbanization, is widespread throughout MZ I. In some 

locations, infrastructure development has affected GRSG habitat. Development 

of roads, fences, and utility corridors has also contributed to habitat loss and 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-36 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

fragmentation in portions of MZ I. The best available estimates suggest about 16 

percent of the MZ I is within approximately 4 miles of urban development 

(Knick et al. 2011). Impacts of infrastructure development in MZ I are primarily 

related to highways, roads, power lines, and communication towers, with nearly 

90 percent of MZ I within 4 miles of a road, 30 percent within 4 miles of a 

power line, and 4 percent within 4 miles of a communication tower (Knick et al. 

2011). In the planning area most ROWs on BLM-administered lands are 

associated with oil and gas development, electrical transmission, irrigation 

ditches, and communications. 

Although not representative of all infrastructure ROWs, transmission lines 

greater than 115 kilovolts indirectly influence 29 percent of PHMA and 46 

percent of GHMA across MZ I. Indirect effects are assumed to occur to a radius 

of 4 miles (Manier et al. 2013). Approximately 68 percent of transmission lines 

in PHMA and 73 percent in GHMA are on private lands across GRSG habitats in 

MZ I (Manier et al. 2013). Therefore, actions on private lands are likely to have 

greater potential to affect transmission line ROWs in GRSG habitat than any 

other land management entity. Designating ROW exclusion and avoidance areas 

in PHMA and GHMA on BLM-administered lands could reduce the threat on 

these lands; however, the scattered federal landownership encourages routing 

infrastructure around federal lands, often increasing its length and impact. ROW 

avoidance and exclusion areas on BLM-administered lands could increase this 

tendency.

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 

(e.g., film productions). In the planning area, ROW actions have increased from 

seven in 2006 to a high of 17 in 2009. In 2013, the LFO approved authorizations 

for fifteen actions for a total of over 35,000 acres of temporary surface 

disturbance, including approximately 50 acres of permanent disturbance from 

powerline and road ROWs. 

Impact Analysis. Table 5-6 lists the areas of ROW avoidance and exclusion in 

GRSG habitat by alternative.

Alternative A (current management) has the most acres open to ROWs in 

PHMA. The other alternatives all substantially reduce the number of open acres 

in PHMA, compared to Alternative A. In GHMA, Alternative D has the same 

open acreage as Alternative A, while the other alternatives represent a small 

reduction. For ROW exclusion, Alternative B excludes ROWs in PHMA while 

Alternative C excludes in PHMA and GHMA.

Alternative D and the Proposed Plan Amendment rely more on ROW 

avoidance than exclusion to protect GRSG habitat, with acreages comparable to 

those under current management. The avoidance approach preserves 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-37

Table 5-6

Acres of Rights-of-Way Designations in GRSG Habitat in MZ I

PHMA GHMA

MZ I Percent Within 

Planning Area MZ I Percent Within Planning Area

Open to Rights-of-Way

Alternative A 235,000 98 1,036,000 10

Alternative B 5,000 0 932,000 0

Alternative C 5,000 0 932,000 0

Alternative D 5,000 0 1,036,000 10

Proposed Plan Amendment 5,000 0 932,000 0

Right-of-Way Exclusion

Alternative A 119,000 0 148,000 0

Alternative B 119,000 0 148,000 0

Alternative C 231,000 48 260,000 43

Alternative D 119,000 0 148,000 0

Proposed Plan Amendment 119,000 0 148,000 0

Right-of-Way Avoidance

Alternative A 3,218,000 <1 2,258,000 <1

Alternative B 3,216,000 0 2,363,000 5

Alternative C 3,216,000 0 2,251,000 0

Alternative D 3,449,000 2,258,000 <1

Proposed Plan Amendment 3,449,000 7 2,363,000 5

Source: BLM 2015

This table displays the acres of PHMA and GHMA within rights-of-way designations in MZ I; it also displays the 

percentage of those acres that are found within the planning area.

management flexibility in situations where landownership is mixed. Flexibility is 

especially beneficial to GRSG leks and habitat in areas where rerouting ROWs 

across nonfederal land may result in more impacts on GRSG than direct routing 

across federal land. 

The numbers of ROW authorizations are anticipated to grow across the MZ. 

Increasing populations, continued energy development, and new communication 

sites drive the need for new ROWs on BLM-administered lands and those lands 

not under BLM administration. There would be fewer potential ROWs under 

the Proposed Plan Amendment because of the anthropogenic disturbance cap 

that would limit development over the long-term. This would provide the 

greatest net conservation gain to GRSG.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-38 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

New ROW authorizations that require state agency review or approval would 

be subject to the permitting process and development restrictions, including the 

disturbance cap, in GRSG Core Areas under the Proposed Plan Amendment, 

and also under the Wyoming and Montana executive orders, as discussed in 

Section 5.3.4. These stipulations would benefit GRSG in Core Areas by 

encouraging ROW development outside of Core Habitat Areas, enforcing lek 

buffers which restrict surface occupancy within 0.6 mile of occupied leks, 

prohibiting power lines greater than 115 kV outside of designated corridors, and 

locating new roads used to transport products or waste over 1.9 miles from 

occupied leks. These provisions would reduce disturbance to GRSG populations 

from human traffic, noise, and increased predation associated with tall 

structures. 

As with fluid mineral development, reclamation practices may hold greater 

promise for ameliorating long-term impacts on GRSG and their habitat. If 

overhead power lines were removed; and roads reclaimed to mimic predisturbance conditions, GRSG populations would likely remain. However, 

recent research indicates that restored habitats lack many of the features sought 

by GRSG in their habitat areas, and may not support GRSG for long periods 

following restoration activities. In order to conserve GRSG populations on the 

landscape, protection of existing habitat through minimizing development, would 

provide the best hope for GRSG persistence (Arkle et al., 2014).

The effect of the alternatives and other conservation actions in the MZ (most 

notably the Montana and Wyoming executive orders) could be synergistic. By 

implementing restrictions on infrastructure in PHMA and on state and private 

lands together, the cumulative beneficial effect on GRSG would be greater than 

the sum of their individual effects because protections would be applied more 

consistently across the landscape. This is especially important in areas of mixed 

land ownership patterns where complementary protections can benefit leks, 

early brood rearing habitat, or other important areas that do not follow 

geopolitical boundaries. 

In combination with these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions and other BLM proposed plans in MZ I, the Proposed Plan Amendment 

would provide the greatest net conservation gain to GRSG in MZ I. It would 

accomplish this by providing the flexibility to work in concert with policies on 

state and private lands to site ROWs in areas with the least impact on GRSG 

habitat, thereby preserving larger blocks of unfragmented habitat for GRSG

populations.

Renewable Energy

Nature and Type of Effects. Impacts on GRSG from renewable energy 

development, such as that for wind and solar power, are similar to those from 

nonrenewable energy development. Additional concerns associated with wind 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-39

energy developments are rotor blade noise, structure avoidance, and mortality 

caused by collisions with turbines (Connelly et al. 2004). 

Conditions in the Planning Area and in MZ I. Solar energy has very low 

potential, while wind energy development is a growing presence in MZ I, though 

currently no applications have been submitted in the planning area. Wind 

turbines currently indirectly influence 1 percent of PHMA and GHMA across 

MZ I (Manier et al. 2013), but the American Wind Energy Association ranks 

Montana fifth in the nation for wind-energy potential and the planning area has 

wind resources consistent with utility-scale production. Projects continue to be 

proposed all across Montana. The LFO planning area has three wind sites on 

private lands with a total of 42 turbines, none located in PHMA or GHMA.

Impact Analysis. Table 5-7 lists areas of wind energy ROW by alternative.

Table 5-7

Acres of Wind Energy Management Designations in GRSG Habitat in MZ I

PHMA GHMA

MZ I Percent Within 

Planning Area MZ I Percent Within Planning Area

Open to Wind Rights-of-Way

Alternative A 231,000 100 759,000 14

Alternative B 2,000 0 655,000 0

Alternative C 2,000 0 655,000 0

Alternative D 2,000 0 655,000 0

Proposed Plan Amendment 2,000 0 655,000 0

Wind Right-of-Way Exclusion

Alternative A 2,560,000 0 479,000 0

Alternative B 2,793,000 8 479,000 0

Alternative C 2,793,000 8 591,000 1

Alternative D 2,793,000 8 479,000 0

Proposed Plan Amendment 2,793,000 8 479,000 0

Wind Right-of-Way Avoidance

Alternative A 776,000 0 2,173,000 0

Alternative B 776,000 0 2,285,000 5

Alternative C 776,000 0 2,173,000 0

Alternative D 776,000 0 2,285,000 5

Proposed Plan Amendment 776,000 0 2,285,000 5

Source: BLM 2015

This table displays the acres of PHMA and GHMA within wind energy management designations in MZ I; it also 

displays the percentage of those acres that are found within the planning area.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-40 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

In the planning area Alternative A maintains by far the most acreage in PHMA 

open to wind energy development. Alternatives B, C D, and the Proposed Plan 

Amendment, in conjunction with other BLM RMP proposed plans, are relatively 

similar in terms of their acreage allocations; resulting impacts would likewise be 

similar. Alternative C would have the largest exclusion acreage, and may push 

development onto adjacent lands.

The Proposed Plan Amendment and other action alternatives would close 

PHMA to wind energy development and would avoid wind energy in GHMA. 

Lek buffers would apply in GHMA if development were allowed. Across the MZ, 

acres of ROW avoidance and exclusion in GHMA and PHMA would increase 

compared to current management, reducing impacts from wind development, 

including disturbance and habitat degradation. Protecting GRSG habitat areas 

would protect existing populations of GRSG.

Wind energy development is a growing presence in MZ I, but a programmatic 

EIS by the WAPA and the Department of Energy for the entire upper Great 

Plains will focus future wind developments in specific corridors outside of GRSG 

Core habitat (WAPA 2013).

Private lands account for 72 percent of wind turbines affecting GRSG in PHMA 

and 87 percent in GHMA in MZ I (Manier et al. 2013). Therefore, conservation 

actions on private land are likely to have a greater potential to reduce the 

effects of wind energy development than federal actions. Projects that require 

state agency review or approval would be subject to the Wyoming executive 

order permitting process. This would encourage wind energy development 

outside of Core habitat areas and reduce impacts on GRSG in these important 

areas in Wyoming. The WAPA Programmatic EIS will also steer wind 

development outside GRSG Core habitat.

Impacts would be minimized on BLM-administered land across all alternatives by 

adhering to the wildlife protection provisions of the Wind Energy Development 

Programmatic EIS (BLM 2005). Implementation of wind energy closure in PHMA 

in the RMPA Proposed Plan Amendment, in combination with the disturbance 

caps under the WY state plan, exclusion zones in other BLM planning areas, the 

protections in the WAPA EIS, and other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would provide a net conservation gain to GRSG in 

MZ I.

Grazing

Nature and Type of Effects. The remaining sagebrush habitats in MZ1 are mostly 

managed as grazing lands for domestic livestock. Domestic livestock function 

similarly to the native keystone species bison in the MZ through grazing and 

management actions related to grazing, by serving as the predominant large 

herbivore in the ecosystem. Grazing actions do not preclude wildlife and 

vegetation, but they do influence ecological pathways and species persistence 

(Bock et al. 1993).
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-41

In general, livestock can influence habitat by modifying plant biomass, plant 

height and cover, and plant species composition. Changes in plant composition 

could also change vegetative structure, affecting cover for nesting birds. Grazing 

could also alter fire regimes (Davies et al. 2010).

If not managed properly, cattle and sheep grazing can compact soil, enrich soil 

with nutrients, trample vegetation and nests, directly disturb GRSG, and 

negatively affect GRSG recruitment. Improper cattle and sheep grazing can also 

reduce invertebrate prey for GRSG or increase their exposure to predators 

(Beck and Mitchell 2000, pp. 998-1,000; Knick 2011; Coates 2007, pp. 28-33). 

Excessive grazing in riparian areas can destabilize streams and riverbanks, cause 

the loss of riparian shade, and increase sediment and nutrient loads in the 

aquatic ecosystem (George et al. 2011). Stock watering tanks can contribute to 

stream and aquifer dewatering and may concentrate livestock movement and 

congregation in sensitive areas (Vance and Stagliano 2007).

Even periodic overgrazing can damage range resources over the long term. 

Grazing often exacerbates drought effects when stocking levels are not quickly 

reduced to match the limited forage production. Excessive grazing can eliminate 

perennial grasses and lead to expansion of invasive species such as cheatgrass or 

Japanese brome (Reisner et al. 2013). The degree to which grazing affects 

habitat depends on several factors, such as the types of grasses being grazed, the 

amount of moisture in any given year, the number of animals grazing in an area, 

the time of grazing, and the grazing system used. 

However, grazing can be used to reduce fuel load and reduce the risk of wildfire 

(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7, 28-30). Under certain conditions, grazing can reduce 

the spread of invasive grasses, if applied early in the season before the grasses 

have dried (Strand and Launchbaugh 2013). Light to moderate grazing does not 

appear to affect perennial grasses, which are important to nest cover (Strand 

and Launchbaugh 2013). 

Much of the landscape in MZ I is adapted to withstand grazing disturbance, 

having been grazed by bison before the West was settled (Knick et al. 2011). 

Since the passage of the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act, range conditions on BLMadministered lands have generally improved due to improved grazing 

management practices, decreased livestock numbers, and decreased duration of 

grazing.

In addition, the BLM has applied Standards for Rangeland Health since 1997. The 

purpose of this practice is to enhance sustainable livestock grazing and wildlife 

habitat, while protecting watersheds and riparian ecosystems. 

Although livestock grazing is the most widespread land use across the sagebrush 

biome, it exerts a more limited influence on soils and vegetation than land uses 

that remove or fragment habitat (e.g., mineral extraction or infrastructure 

development). GRSG are able to co-exist with grazing animals when properly 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-42 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

managed. Thus, reducing AUMs or acres open to grazing would not necessarily 

restore high-quality GRSG habitat. 

Livestock grazing could reduce the suitability of breeding and brood-rearing 

habitat for GRSG populations (USFWS 2010). Reducing grass height in GRSG 

nesting and brood-rearing areas may negatively impact nesting success. Studies 

have showed such impacts when residual herbaceous cover was reduced below 

the approximately 7 inches needed for predator avoidance (Gregg et al. 1994, 

Doherty et al. 2014). However, grazing is only one component of grass height, 

which is also influenced by soil and weather conditions. For BLM-administered 

lands, Standards for Rangeland Health require the BLM to ensure that the 

environment contains all of the necessary components to support viable 

populations of sensitive, threatened, and endangered species in a given area 

relative to site potential. The BLM Washington Office IM 2009-018 requires that 

land health considerations, such as vegetation cover for GRSG, are primary 

considerations for prioritizing the processing of grazing authorizations. 

Improperly designed or located range improvements could result in livestock 

overusing important GRSG areas. For example, developing springs would 

generally change vegetative composition from a high diversity of grasses and 

forbs, important to broods, to one dominated by grasses; conversely, in areas 

where livestock use was not well managed, invasive forbs may rise in prevalence. 

Allowing spring developments along ephemeral streams and wetlands would 

decrease GRSG habitat. Springs, seeps, and wetland areas are vitally important 

to GRSG broods; therefore, allowing spring developments could reduce 

resources for GRSG.

Conditions in the Planning Area and in MZ I. Livestock grazing is the dominant 

agricultural use in the Great Plains. It is widespread on many land ownerships, 

including federal and private, across MZ I. Remaining sagebrush habitats in MZ I 

are mostly managed as grazing lands for domestic livestock. Much of the 

landscape in MZ I is adapted to withstand grazing disturbance, having been 

grazed by bison before the West was settled. The effects of grazing on 

sagebrush habitats in this management zone are much different than effects 

noted in the Great Basin since the landscape throughout MZ1 is adapted to 

withstand grazing disturbance (Knick et al. 2011). Literature suggests that 

moderate grazing is compatible with GRSG habitat (Strand and Launchbaugh 

2013); thus, closing acres to grazing may not itself benefit or harm GRSG, but 

the fences needed to separate BLM lands from other ownerships and close 

them to grazing would have direct impacts through increased mortality of 

GRSG. Possibly equally or more beneficial is restricting range improvements in 

GRSG habitat, limiting fencing, and effectively implementing range health 

standards on grazing allotments in GRSG habitat. 

The COT report objectives for livestock grazing are to manage grazing in a 

manner consistent with local ecological conditions. This management would 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-43

maintain or restore healthy sagebrush shrub and native perennial grass and forb 

communities and conserve essential habitat components for GRSG. Restoration 

to meet these standards and adequate monitoring would be required. The COT 

report also states that land managers should avoid or reduce the impact of 

range management structures on GRSG habitat. 

In the LFO planning area, the BLM manages livestock grazing, primarily for 

cattle, on 230,700 acres in PHMA and 106,500 acres in GHMA, on 314 

allotments in comprising nearly 70,000 AUMs in GRSG habitat (see Chapter 

3). 

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 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. 

Impact Analysis. Table 5-8 lists the acres of PHMA and GHMA available and 

unavailable for grazing in MZ I, by alternative.

Table 5-8

Acres Available and Unavailable to Livestock Grazing in GRSG Habitat in MZ I

PHMA GHMA

MZ I Percent Within 

Planning Area MZ I Percent Within Planning Area

Available to Livestock Grazing

Alternative A 3,485,000 4 3,399,000 3

Alternative B 3,485,000 4 3,399,000 3

Alternative C 3,342,000 0<1 3,301,000 <1

Alternative D 3,485,000 4 3,399,000 3

Proposed Plan Amendment 3,573,000 7 3,407,000 3

Unavailable to Livestock Grazing

Alternative A 3,000 0 8,000 0

Alternative B 3,000 0 8,000 0

Alternative C 236,000 99 119,000 94

Alternative D 3,000 0 8,000 0

Proposed Plan Amendment 3,000 0 8,000 0

Source: BLM 2015

This table displays the acres of PHMA and GHMA available and unavailable to livestock grazing in MZ I; it also 

displays the percentage of those acres that are found within the planning area.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-44 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Alternative A would implement land health assessments when completing 

grazing permit renewals to incorporate management changes when livestock 

grazing is a causal factor for not meeting standards on all lands. Under 

Alternatives B, and D and the Proposed Plan Amendment, 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 habitat objectives for LFO into grazing permit renewals. 

Using land health assessments, changes are made to permit conditions, including 

changes in condition, timing or season of grazing or reductions in grazing 

numbers, as needed to achieve land health standards. Management under 

Alternative C would remove livestock grazing from all allotments in PHMA and 

GHMA. 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 could 

require many 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.

The no-grazing areas on BLM-administered land would result in the most 

restrictive grazing conditions. This would benefit GRSG by maintaining nesting 

cover for protection and forage; however, closing acreage to grazing could 

result in fuels buildup or in increased fencing to exclude grazing animals, which 

could harm nesting GRSG by increasing the likelihood of predation and collision. 

In addition, it could increase indirect adverse effects on GRSG, including the 

potential conversion of adjacent private grazing lands to agriculture, if loss of 

federal grazing rights makes ranching less profitable. 

In addition, 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 construction of fences to 

enforce the closure of BLM-administered lands to grazing could have a 

substantial direct effect on GRSG survival. As literature suggests that moderate 

grazing is compatible with GRSG habitat (Strand and Launchbaugh 2013), closing 

acres to grazing may not benefit or harm GRSG. Possibly equally or more 

beneficial is restricting range improvements in GRSG habitat, limiting fencing, 

and effectively implementing range health standards on grazing allotments in 

GRSG habitat. 

The COT report objectives for livestock grazing are to manage grazing in a 

manner consistent with local ecological conditions. This management would 

maintain or restore healthy sagebrush shrub and native perennial grass and forb 

communities and conserve essential habitat components for GRSG. Restoration 

to meet these standards and adequate monitoring would be required. The COT 

report also states that land managers should avoid or reduce the impact of 

range management structures on GRSG habitat. The NRCS’s Sage-Grouse 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-45

Initiative is protecting privately held ranchlands for GRSG habitat using 

conservation easements. This program’s influence across the MZ is expected to 

grow, but is currently limited compared to the total number of acres of GRSG 

habitat. 

Although the acres closed to livestock grazing are similar under Alternatives A 

and the Proposed Plan Amendment, management and monitoring under the 

Proposed Plan Amendment would place greater emphasis on protective cover 

of vegetation and litter. The Proposed Plan Amendment also includes guidelines 

on placing salt or mineral supplements near leks, which would limit trampling 

damage to habitat, in accordance with the COT report objectives. In 

combination with NRCS actions under the Sage-Grouse Initiative, including 

fence marking and conservation easements, state efforts to maintain ranchland, 

and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, BLM 

management actions in the Proposed Plan Amendment would provide a net 

conservation gain to GRSG. 

Spread of Weeds

Nature and Type of Effects. Invasive weeds alter plant community structure and 

composition, productivity, nutrient cycling, and hydrology. Invasive weeds also 

may cause declines in native plant populations, including sagebrush habitat, 

through such factors as competitive exclusion and niche displacement. Invasive 

plants reduce and may eliminate vegetation that GRSG use for food and cover. 

Invasive weeds fragment existing GRSG habitat and reduce habitat quality by 

competitively excluding vegetation essential to GRSG. 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).

Roads and recreation can promote the spread of invasive weeds through 

vehicular traffic. Weed infestations can further exacerbate the fragmentation 

effects of roadways. Irrigation water has also supported the conversion of native 

plant communities to hayfields, pasture, and cropland, thus fragmenting 

sagebrush habitats. 

Conditions in the Planning Area and in MZ I. Human activity, such as surface 

disturbance, motorized transportation, and animal and human activity, increase 

the chance for establishment and spread of invasive plants via seeds carried by 

wind, humans, machinery, and animals. However, spread of invasive plants is less 

prevalent in MZ I and in the planning area due to its cooler, wetter climate. 

Drier, hotter summers promote the spread of cheatgrass and other invasives 

which establish more slowly in MZ I. 

Although cheatgrass does occur, past fire history and research has repeatedly 

demonstrated a healthy northern mixed-grass prairie plant community is 

resilient to cheatgrass expansion. Haferkamp (2001) studying annual bromes, 

including cheatgrass in eastern Montana, concluded there would be no 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-46 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

ecological shift of northern mixed-grass prairies toward annual grass dominance. 

Instead, he concluded the amount and abundance of annual bromes occurring 

on Northern Great Plains rangeland is cyclic, depending on seedbank, 

temperature, amount and distribution of precipitation. Expansion of annual 

bromes in mixed–grass prairie communities is buffered by two long-lived 

perennial grasses (western wheatgrass and blue grama), where grazing 

management maintains healthy native mixed-grass prairie vegetation (Haferkamp 

2001). Vermiere et al. (2011) studied effects of fire on perennial and annual 

grasses (including cheatgrass) and found increased production of western 

wheatgrass and decreased annual grass production following summer fire in the 

northern mixed-grass prairie. Climate Change research also suggests there 

would not be a cheatgrass invasion into the Northern Great Plains. Modeling 

illustrates the median precipitation change scenario (used to identify the most 

likely future climate change) depicts no increase in cheatgrass climatic habitat 

within the planning area (Bradley 2009).

The BLM currently manages weed infestations through integrated weed 

management: biological, chemical, mechanical, manual, and educational methods. 

It is guided by the 1991 and 2007 RODs for Vegetation Treatment on BLM 

Lands in Thirteen Western States (BLM 1991) and by the 2007 Programmatic 

Environmental Report (BLM 2007). Weeds are managed in cooperation with 

county governments in a landscape-level approach across management 

jurisdictions.

From 2002 to 2012, 17,437 acres of vegetation treatments were recorded in 

the planning area, including prescribed fire, weed control and mechanical 

treatments such as thinning, mastication, twist-spiking, and restoration of nonnative fields. Future projects would continue these activities, including conifer 

removal activates to protect GRSG habitat.

Impact Analysis. Invasive species on BLM-administered lands would be 

controlled under all alternatives. 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 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.

The COT report objective for invasive species is to maintain and restore 

healthy native sagebrush plant communities. Under all alternatives, integrated 

vegetation management would be used to control, suppress, and eradicate 

noxious and invasive species to help restore native plant communities. Under 

Alternatives B, C, D, and the Proposed Plan Amendment, vegetation 

management and restoration would prioritize sagebrush re-establishment and 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-47

weed control as part of habitat management. Apart from the grazing reductions 

in Alternative C, methods, approaches, and resources for weed control would 

be similar under all alternatives. 

The planning area is much different than the Great Basin, where most annual 

grass research and problems occurs. Although cheatgrass and other introduced 

brome occur in this region, they are typically not dominant and do not currently 

appear to pose a risk of large-scale invasion as long as management of habitat 

areas is maintained. Short-term, surface disturbing activities, overgrazing and 

drought can increase annual grasses. Proper management and typical 

precipitation patterns (wetter May and June, with nearly an inch of rain monthly 

through the fall) allows desirable native plants to remain, reestablish, and/or 

thrive in the presence of annual grasses. 

Climate change is expected to increase temperatures in the area and annual 

precipitation is expected to increase during winter and spring, decrease slightly 

in summer and remain relatively unchanged in fall. Future conditions for annual 

grasses in the planning area are expected to be similar to existing conditions 

given the anticipated temperature and precipitation changes. 

Projects subject to the general stipulations outlined in the Wyoming and 

Montana executive orders are required to control noxious and invasive weed 

species and to use native seed mixes during reclamation processes. These 

stipulations would benefit GRSG Core habitat areas by limiting the spread or 

establishment of invasive species, particularly on lands that lack BLM protective 

regulatory mechanisms. 

These stipulations, in combination with other state and county noxious weed 

regulations, and other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions

would provide a net conservation gain to GRSG in MZ I under all of the RMPA 

alternatives.

Conversion to Agriculture

Nature and Type of Effects. Converting sagebrush habitat to agricultural use, 

commonly referred to as sodbusting, causes direct loss of habitat available for 

GRSG. 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 likely to exacerbate the effects of other naturally occurring and 

anthropogenic disturbances and could directly and indirectly increase the 

likelihood of certain disturbances on the landscape.

Conversion of native habitats to cropland has eliminated or fragmented 

sagebrush on private lands in areas with deep fertile soils or irrigation potential. 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-48 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Sagebrush remaining in these areas has been limited to the agricultural edge or 

to relatively unproductive environments. 

Biofuel production and high prices for small grains has increased the conversion 

to cropland of native grasslands or lands formerly enrolled in the Conservation 

Reserve Program. Converting native grasslands to agricultural lands not only 

resulted in a direct loss of habitats for native wildlife, it began a process of 

habitat fragmentation. Habitat loss is exacerbated when fragmentation reduces 

the size or isolates remaining habitat patches below the size thresholds 

necessary to support a species or when it blocks the movement of animals 

between habitat patches. GRSG have large spatial requirements and eventually 

disappear from landscapes that no longer contain large enough patches of 

habitat.

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities allowed under Management Common 

to All Alternatives would contribute to impacts on wildlife habitat and likely 

result in some loss of habitat. The loss of sagebrush steppe across the western 

states approaches or even exceeds 50 percent in some areas, and is considered 

to be a primary factor in long-term declines in GRSG abundance across their 

historical range (USFWS 2010). Although sagebrush habitat losses in Montana 

may not have been as high as losses in other states, it has been significant 

enough in portions of the state to influence population trends (Walker et al. 

2007). The best available information for Montana suggests breeding populations 

have declined by as much as 30 percent (USFWS 2010). It is predicted that this 

trend of sagebrush loss would continue under stressors such as urbanization 

and habitat conversion and result in habitat losses (although not to the same 

level as the past 50 years).

Conditions in the Planning Area and in MZ I. Across the Great Plains nearly 60 

percent of native habitats have been lost to agricultural conversion (Samson et 

al. 2004) and conversion of sagebrush habitats is the most pervasive and 

extensive change to the sagebrush ecosystems in MZ I. Cropland currently 

covers nearly 19 percent of MZ I and influences approximately 50 to 80 percent 

of sagebrush in MZ I (Knick et al. 2011).

Regional assessments estimate that 7.2 percent of PHMA and GHMA in MZ I 

are directly affected by agricultural development, while over 99 percent of 

PHMA and GHMA in MZ I are within approximately 4 miles of agricultural land 

(Manier et al. 2013). Much of the direct habitat loss from conversion to 

agriculture has occurred in the northwestern and northeastern portions of MZ 

I, in Montana and the Dakotas (Knick et al. 2011).

According to the COT report, the Yellowstone watershed population in MZI 

faces a widespread threat of habitat loss due to agricultural conversion, and 

within the LFO planning area, this may be the most substantial threat to GRSG 

habitat. Habitat loss decreases the connectivity between seasonal habitats, 

increasing population isolation and fragmentation. Fragmentation then increases 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-49

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.

Much of the direct habitat loss from conversion to agriculture has occurred in 

the far northwestern and northeastern portions of MZ I (Knick et al. 2011). 

Conversion to cropland has eliminated or fragmented sagebrush on private 

lands in areas with deep fertile soils or irrigation potential, and sagebrush 

remaining in these areas has been limited to agricultural edge or relatively 

unproductive environments. 

An estimated 7.2 percent of priority habitat (PHMA) in MZ I has been 

influenced by agriculture (Manier et al. 2013). Conversion to agriculture is 

especially a concern in areas like LFO 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 also increase crop yields, encouraging lands not previously used for 

agriculture to be converted for that purpose (NRC 2010).

Impact Analysis. The BLM does not convert public lands to agriculture; lands 

retained under BLM management would not be converted to agriculture. As 

such, the only direct authority the agency has over conversion to agriculture is 

through retaining or disposing of lands in the realty program. Disposing of lands 

could increase the likelihood they would be converted to agriculture, depending 

on their location and new management authority. 

Table 5-9 shows acreages identified for retention in MZ I by alternative.

The table shows the same acreage would be identified for retention in 

Alternative D and the Proposed Plan Amendment. No alternative in LFO would 

dispose of land with important wildlife values.

Thus, BLM land tenure adjustments would not result in GRSG habitat in the 

planning area being converted to agriculture. Under all alternatives, land tenure 

adjustments require site-specific NEPA analysis and land sales must meet the 

disposal criteria under applicable law. BLM land tenure adjustments are not 

anticipated to be a significant contributing element to the threat of agriculture 

conversion. 

Lands identified for disposal in MZ I are typically small isolated parcels that are 

difficult to manage and do not represent suitable GRSG habitat. Parcels 

determined to have GRSG habitat value would not likely meet the disposal 

criteria, unless disposal were seen to benefit GRSG.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-50 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 5-9

Acres Identified for Retention and Disposal in GRSG Habitat in MZ I

PHMA GHMA

MZ I Percent Within 

Planning Area MZ I Percent Within Planning Area

Acres Identified for Retention

Alternative A 3,339,000 0 3,167,000 0

Alternative B 3,339,000 0 3,167,000 0

Alternative C 3,339,000 0 3,167,000 0

Alternative D 3,572,000 7 3,279,000 3

Proposed Plan Amendment 3,572,000 7 3,279,000 3

Acres Identified for Disposal

Alternative A 0 0 165,000 0

Alternative B 0 0 165,000 0

Alternative C 0 0 165,000 0

Alternative D 0 0 165,000 0

Proposed Plan Amendment 0 0 165,000 0

Source: BLM 2015

This table displays the acres of PHMA and GHMA identified for retention and disposal in MZ I; it also 

displays the percentage of those acres that are found within the planning area.

Under Alternative C, BLM would exclude grazing from GRSG habitat areas. This 

action would have the indirect effect of increasing grazing pressure on adjacent 

non-federal lands, and may also lead to conversion of adjacent private grazing 

lands to agriculture or other land uses, if the loss of federal grazing rights made 

ranching less profitable. This is especially a concern in areas such as Lewistown, 

with a mosaic of ownership boundaries, where GRSG populations rely on a mix 

of habitats susceptible to fragmentation and loss if private rangeland habitats are 

not sustained in concert with BLM-administered lands.

Studies of agricultural conversion risk on grasslands have shown a high 

probability of grassland plots being converted to cropland under current 

economic and climatic conditions (Rashford et al. 2013). The recent federal 

Farm Bill tried to discourage converting prairie to cropland by denying crop 

insurance for such conversions. Nevertheless, if crop prices remain high, the 

economic incentive to convert parcels to cropland in GRSG habitat areas would

continue and would potentially increase. Once converted to cropland, acreage is 

permanently lost as habitat for GRSG. Fragmentation of habitat from piecemeal 

conversions of ranchland to tilled cropland can increase disturbance over a large 

area and cause adjacent areas to become unusable or poor-quality GRSG 

habitat.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-51

The BLM has no management authority over private land conversions, but 

management actions on BLM lands may influence the potential for conversion 

on adjacent private lands (see grazing section above). The loss of habitat on 

private lands may reduce the effectiveness of conservation actions on adjacent 

BLM-administered lands because the effects of conversion extend onto adjacent 

lands and this effect increases as a greater percentage of a landscape is 

converted from sagebrush habitats to other land uses. Current levels of tillage 

result in localized impacts that alone, are unlikely to greatly impact a GRSG 

population, but acting in combination with other stressors, could result in 

localized extirpations (Taylor et al. 2010).

As a result, cumulative impacts vary relatively little across alternatives, and BLM 

management may have little impact on alleviating this threat. Restrictions on 

grazing on federal land could increase agriculture pressure on adjacent private 

lands. If the loss of federal grazing leases makes ranching economically unviable, 

the potential conversion of private grazing lands to agriculture would increase. 

However, the Proposed Plan Amendment does not substantially increase 

acreage unavailable to grazing.

Conversion to agriculture is a major concern in the eastern GRSG range in MZ 

I, the Dakotas, and Montana. In these areas agricultural conversion is profitable, 

and patchwork ownership boundaries increase the likelihood of habitat 

fragmentation. While BLM management may preserve habitat on federal lands, if 

interspersed private lands are tilled, the entire landscape may be lost as GRSG 

habitat regardless of BLM conservation actions. 

In the future, temperature increases resulting from climate change may increase 

crop yields, encouraging lands not previously used for agriculture to be 

converted. Thus, the most protective grazing management the BLM can 

implement for GRSG habitat is to work to minimize habitat fragmentation and 

improve quality, by maintaining Rangeland Health Standards on current 

allotments and encouraging ranchers to maintain herds and adopt conservation 

enhancements.

The COT report objectives for converting land to agriculture are to avoid 

further loss of sagebrush habitat for agricultural activities (both plant and animal 

production) and to prioritize restoration. In areas where taking agricultural 

lands out of production has benefited GRSG, the programs supporting these 

actions should be targeted and continued (USFWS 2013). In accordance with 

this objective, the NRCS’s SGI program focuses on maintaining ranchland that 

provides habitat for GRSG. As of 2014, SGI has secured conservation easements 

on 65,881 acres within MZ 1 and marked or removed 350 miles of fence (NRCS 

2015). 

This voluntary program provides private landowners with monetary incentives 

to protect GRSG habitat, often through altered grazing systems designed to 

increase grass height and improve nest success. Another more permanent 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-52 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

incentive that is used less often includes conservation easements. As a result, 

private land containing GRSG habitat is protected from conversion to 

agriculture or other development for the life of the conservation agreement. 

The conservation easements and other conservation incentives, such as 

restoration of water features and fence marking, can enhance the ability of lands 

with mixed ownerships to support GRSG. These efforts, in conjunction with 

BLM management and other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions in 

MZ I, would provide a net conservation gain to GRSG in MZ I.

Fire

Nature and Type of Effects. Sagebrush killed by wildfire often requires many 

years to recover, especially after large fires. Contiguous old-growth sagebrush 

sites are at high fire risk. Before recovering, these sites are of limited use to 

GRSG, except along the edges and in unburned islands. 

Because of its widespread impact on habitat, fire has been identified as a primary 

factor associated with GRSG population declines, particularly in the Great Basin. 

Depending on the species of sagebrush and the size of a burn, a return to a full 

pre-burn community cover can take from 25 to 120 years (Baker 2011). In 

addition, fires can reduce invertebrate food sources and may facilitate the 

spread of invasive weeds. However, cheatgrass establishment after fires in MZ 1 

is not currently a concern because resistance to widespread conversion to 

cheatgrass after fire is generally high throughout MZ 1.

BLM management to prevent or control wildfires can also affect GRSG and 

habitat. Increased human activity and noise associated with fire suppression in 

areas occupied by GRSG could affect nesting, breeding, and foraging behavior. 

Important habitats could be altered because of the use of heavy equipment, 

hand tools, and noise. 

In addition, suppression may initially result in higher rates of conifer 

encroachment in some areas. In the initial stages of encroachment, fuel loadings 

remain consistent with the sagebrush understory. As conifer encroachment 

advances, fire return intervals are altered by decreasing understory abundance. 

The depleted understory causes the stands to become resistant to low intensity 

wildfires; over years, the accumulating conifer loads contribute to larger-scale 

wildfires and confound control efforts due to extreme fire behavior.

Conditions in the Planning Area and in MZ I. Fire risk is generally low across 

MZ I compared to the Great Basin, with 17 percent of PHMA and GHMA 

having high risk for fire; however, isolated areas, especially in central Montana, 

South Dakota, the border between Montana and Wyoming, and eastern 

Wyoming are identified as having high fire risk (Manier et al. 2013). 

There have been 324 wildfires documented on all lands within the LFO between 

2002 and 2012. Wildfires have been widely distributed in terms of frequency 

and severity. An increasing trend of wildland fire recurrence and an increased 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-53

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.

Impact Analysis. Management actions in the LFO RMPA that emphasize wildfire 

suppression in GRSG habitat would benefit the species by limiting habitat loss in 

the event of wildfire. Alternative D would continue the use of prescribed fire 

along with current management (Alternative A). Alternative B and C would 

restrict the use of prescribed fire in GRSG habitat, while the Proposed Plan 

Amendment would allow its use if it provided a benefit to GRSG. 

Recognition of the importance of sagebrush habitat during interagency wildfire 

response would benefit GRSG in the event of an unplanned fire. The Wyoming 

and Montana executive orders emphasize fire suppression in Core population 

areas, while recognizing other suppression priorities may take precedent. This 

would benefit GRSG during wildfire planning and response, particularly on lands 

not administered by the BLM. 

The Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations “Red Book” 

includes a BMP for GRSG habitat conservation for wildlife and fuels management 

(BLM 2013a). This document is a supplemental policy or guidance for the BLM, 

the Forest Service, and the USFWS. This BMP would benefit the GRSG during 

interagency wildland fire operations by using spatial habitat data and predictive 

services to prioritize and preposition firefighting resources in critical habitat 

areas. The Proposed Plan Amendment would adhere to the COT report 

objective to retain and restore healthy native sagebrush plant communities 

within the range of GRSG. The coordination of federal, state, and local fire 

prevention actions and changes in fire management, in addition to other past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable actions in MZ I, would provide a net 

conservation gain to GRSG.

Recreation

Nature and Type of Effects. Recreation, such as camping, bicycling, wildlife 

viewing, horseback riding, fishing, and hunting, can be dispersed; concentrated, 

such OHV use and developed campsites; and permitted, such as via BLM Special 

Recreation Permit. The BLM also manages SRMAs where recreation is a primary 

resource management consideration. 

Recreation on federally administered lands that use the extensive network of 

double-track and single-track routes have an impact on sagebrush and GRSG. 

Ecological impacts of roads and motorized trails are mortality due to collisions; 

behavior modifications due to noise, activity, and habitat loss; alteration of 

physical environment; nutrient leaching; erosion; invasive plants spread; 

increased use; and alteration by humans due to accessibility (Knick et al. 2011). 

Recreation activities can degrade GRSG habitat through direct impacts on 

vegetation and soils, introduction or spread of invasive species, and habitat 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-54 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

fragmentation. This occurs in areas of concentrated use, trailheads, staging 

areas, and routes and trails. 

Motorized activities, including OHV use, are expected to have a larger footprint 

on the landscape. They are anticipated to have the greatest level of impact due 

to noise levels, compared to nonmotorized uses, such as hiking or equestrian 

use. Cross-country motorized travel would increase the potential for soil 

compaction, perennial grasses and forbs loss, and reduce sagebrush canopy 

cover. Losses in sagebrush canopy could be the result of repeated, high 

frequency, cross-country OHV use over long periods. In addition, the chances 

of wildfire are increased during the summer, when fire dangers are high and 

recreation is at its highest. 

Dispersed uses expand the human footprint. Closing areas to recreation and 

reclaiming unused, minimally used, or redundant roads in and around sagebrush 

habitats during seasonal use by GRSG may reduce the footprint and presumably 

impacts on wildlife. Restricting access to important habitat areas during seasonal 

use (lekking, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering) may decrease the impacts 

associated with humans. However, access restriction will not eliminate other 

impacts, such as invasive plant spread, predator movements, cover loss, and 

erosion (Manier et al. 2013).

Conditions in the Planning Area and in MZ I. Historically low in the Great Plains, 

human population densities have increased 666 percent since 1920 (Knick et al. 

2011). With expanding population comes greater human impacts (Leu et al. 

2008), with many people moving to the Great Plains region because of access to 

public lands (Hansen et al. 2005). 

Relatively few developed recreation sites are located in the planning area. The 

scattered distribution of BLM-administered land limits the extent of public 

recreation opportunities throughout the planning area. Big game hunting, fishing, 

dispersed camping, hiking, horseback riding, and target-shooting occur within 

the area. Recreation-based visitor use in the planning area is expected to 

continue at current levels or increase on BLM-administered and non-BLMadministered lands. 

The COT report objectives for recreation are to maintain healthy native 

sagebrush communities, based on local ecological conditions, and to manage 

direct and indirect human disturbance (including noise) to avoid interruption of 

normal GRSG behavior (USFWS 2013). Limits on road use under the action 

alternatives and limits on OHVs would help meet these objectives. 

Cross-country motorized travel is not allowed on BLM-administered or 

National Forest lands in the planning area (BLM 2003), but in the absence of 

regional travel planning, this policy has not been rigorously enforced. 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.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-55

In the LFO planning area, travel management planning is underway to determine 

specific routes available for closure.

Impact Analysis. Table 5-10 shows Acres of Travel Management Designations 

in GRSG Habitat in MZ I.

Table 5-10

Acres of Travel Management Designations in GRSG Habitat in MZ I

PHMA GHMA

MZ I Percent Within 

Planning Area MZ I Percent Within Planning Area

Open

Alternative A 0 0 0 0

Alternative B 0 0 0 0

Alternative C 0 0 0 0

Alternative D 0 0 0 0

Proposed Plan Amendment 0 0 0 0

Limited

Alternative A 3,563,000 7 3,394,000 3

Alternative B 3,563,000 7 3,394,000 3

Alternative C 3,563,000 7 3,394,000 3

Alternative D 3,563,000 7 3,394,000 3

Proposed Plan Amendment 3,563,000 7 3,394,000 3

Closed

Alternative A 5,000 0 40,000 0

Alternative B 5,000 0 40,000 0

Alternative C 5,000 0 40,000 0

Alternative D 5,000 0 40,000 0

Proposed Plan Amendment 5,000 0 40,000 0

Source: BLM 2015

This table displays the acres of PHMA and GHMA within travel management designations of open, limited and 

closed in MZ I; it also displays the percentage of those acres that are found within the planning area.

Table 5-10, acres in MZ I indicates that under the LFO alternatives, acreage 

limited to existing routes would be the same under all alternatives. As a result 

of travel management planning, impacts on GRSG from motorized vehicle use 

would likely be greatest under Alternative A, and reduced under the action 

alternatives. Lek buffers applied under the Proposed Plan Amendment, and the 

anthropogenic disturbance cap would provide additional long-term protection 

for GRSG on BLM-administered land, and a disturbance cap would also apply 

across Wyoming and Montana, per the state plans. These caps would limit 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-56 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

future route development in GRSG habitat, helping reduce future impacts on 

GRSG on state and private lands.

Implementation of the Proposed Plan Amendment, in concert with travel 

management planning on BLM-administered lands within MZ I, the disturbance 

caps applied under state plans, and other past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would help reduce the threats from recreation and 

travel on GRSG habitats and would provide a net conservation gain to GRSG in 

MZ I.

5.3.7 Conclusions

In addition to BLM management in the LFO planning area and other RMP 

planning areas in MZ I—North Dakota, South Dakota, Buffalo, Miles City, 

HiLine, and parts of Billings and WY—GRSG in MZ I would also be impacted by 

management and conservation at state, regional, tribal and local levels. This 

analysis takes into account each alternative in the LFO RMPA in conjunction 

with state and private initiatives, as well as past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions at the federal, state, and local levels. The analysis 

assumes that the Proposed Plans would be implemented in the other BLM RMP 

planning areas in MZ I.

Some of the most important past and present actions benefitting GRSG on 

private land in MZ I are the conservation easements coordinated by the NRCS 

SGI with private ranchers. SGI has so far preserved hundreds of thousands of 

acres of GRSG habitat in Wyoming and tens of thousands of acres in Montana. 

SGI has also worked with landowners to improve grazing regimens, increase 

fence marking, seeding of native vegetation, and conifer removal to improve 

GRSG habitat quality. Future coordination of private landowners with SGI is 

expected to provide further benefits to GRSG habitat. MFWP also makes 

agreements with ranchers to maintain sagebrush on private property. Ranchers 

are also beginning to use Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances 

with the USFWS. Under these instruments, the ranchers voluntarily agree to 

manage lands to reduce threats to GRSG in exchange for a guarantee that they 

would not be subject to additional regulations should the species become listed. 

While ranchers have used these agreements across GRSG range, thus far the 

agreements have been applied to only a small number of ranches in Wyoming 

and Montana. This coordination with private landowners enhances conservation 

in addition to what BLM management can accomplish on federal lands. 

As discussed in Section 5.1.4, both Wyoming and Montana have adopted 

regulatory statewide plans to promote GRSG conservation. Wyoming’s plan 

implements a Core Population Area Strategy with well density limitations, timing 

restrictions and a uniform 5 percent disturbance cap across all landownership 

types. These measures would improve GRSG population levels if effectively 

enforced (Copeland et al. 2013). The limitations on timing and density of energy 

development along with the disturbance cap, lek buffers and BLM management 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-57

on lands with federal mineral estate, would act in concert to promote GRSG 

conservation and reduce the impacts from energy development. Montana’s plan, 

published in September 2014, promotes a statewide conservation strategy on 

private and state lands. It also calls for a 5 percent disturbance cap for GRSG 

habitat, limits well density, and imposes timing restrictions, similar to the 

approach in Wyoming. This combined management has the potential to act 

synergistically in enhancing protection for GRSG across state boundaries and on 

adjacent BLM-administered lands. In Montana, a five percent limit on 

anthropogenic disturbance is applied within the Density and Disturbance 

Calculation Tool examination area (based upon occupied leks within any given 

Core population area). North Dakota and South Dakota have non-regulatory 

plans in place to assist with GRSG conservation. These plans would not regulate 

activities permitted by the state, but these states contain smaller populations of 

GRSG on the edge of the range reducing the overall impact on GRSG in MZ 1 

of not having state regulatory plans in the Dakotas. 

Habitat restoration is also important for sustaining GRSG populations. For 

example, the Powder River Basin GRSG population has declined due to 

widespread energy development. The Powder River Basin Restoration Program 

envisions large-scale habitat restoration; as drill sites go out of production, they 

would be reclaimed and restored to pre-disturbance conditions. While not all 

restored habitat is successfully re-occupied by GRSG, the Powder River Basin 

Restoration Program anticipates that, as energy development ceases and 

locations are restored to habitat, GRSG in nearby habitats may recolonize 

restored areas successively. GRSG are not anticipated to return to the area in 

pre-disturbance numbers. However, restoration in areas next to Core habitat 

and extant populations and connectivity habitat would expand the available 

breeding and wintering habitat for GRSG and provide a net conservation gain to 

the species. It is not possible to accurately predict the impact of other local 

conservation plans in portions of MZ I that are voluntary in nature.

The COT report states that the Yellowstone Watershed population is at 

potential risk of extirpation from development of the vast energy resources in 

the region. Energy development acts in conjunction with other threats in MZ I, 

notably conversion to agriculture (tillage) and West Nile virus. West Nile virus 

heavily impacts GRSG and is particularly dangerous in populations already 

stressed by habitat fragmentation and loss (Taylor et al. 2010; USFWS 2013). 

The viability analysis for GRSG in the Miles City field office found that declines 

in populations when faced with combinations of these stressors were more 

rapid and less recoverable (Taylor et al. 2010). The population viability analysis 

for Powder River Basin reached similar conclusions (Taylor et al. 2012). 

However the viability analyses also noted habitat restoration opportunities, 

including the use of properly managed grazing as a tool to maintain viable GRSG 

habitat.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-58 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Because a majority of the GRSG habitats within MZ I are privately owned, 

current options for habitat conservation—for example, conservation easements 

and farm bill programs for private lands such as those directed by the NRCS 

Sage Grouse Initiative—are a viable option for effective conservation. Cover and 

productivity of native rangelands are essential for effective conservation of 

GRSG in this region. Naturally limited sagebrush cover coupled with historic 

agricultural uses and current energy production infrastructure make natural and 

induced habitat limitations a fundamental, limiting factor for local GRSG 

populations in this region (Manier et al. 2013).

As described in this analysis, the threat from energy development can be 

managed by coordinated action from BLM RMP amendments and revisions, and 

state actions, including disturbance caps to limit loss of GRSG habitat. BLM 

restrictions on energy development and associated infrastructure in GRSG 

habitat, and permit requirements for development of federal mineral estate, 

would help reduce loss and disturbance of GRSG populations. For lands that are 

already leased, BLM can apply COAs as provisions of drilling permit issuance or 

renewal to minimize impacts on GRSG habitat

The threat to GRSG in MZ I from conversion of private ranchlands to 

agriculture is particularly challenging. As described above, these conversions are 

attractive to ranchers as crop prices increase and climate conditions support 

more crops. Once tilled, GRSG habitat is not only lost on the tilled land, but 

surrounding habitat areas become fragmented and less hospitable to birds. 

Neither BLM management nor the state government can restrict tillage on 

private lands; it can only be influenced indirectly by promoting sustainable 

grazing and voluntary efforts for conservation, such as NRCS SGI program’s 

conservation easements.

Alternative A: Current Management

Under Alternative A, current management would continue on BLMadministered lands. There would be no PHMA or GHMA established but 

management in important wildlife habitat would continue to protect GRSG. 

Additional ROW authorizations may not directly increase disturbance but could 

increase the activity or indirect effects on non-BLM-administered lands. Within 

MZ I as a whole, oil and gas development and associated infrastructure including 

ROWs 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). In LFO, existing restrictions on 

leasing fluid minerals in important wildlife habitat would continue to protect 

GRSG. Additional ROW authorizations may not directly increase disturbance 

but could increase the activity or indirect effects on non-BLM-administered 

lands. Within MZI as a whole, 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).
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-59

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.

In the rest of MZ I, other BLM RMP planning efforts would implement their 

Proposed Plans to improve protection of GRSG and their habitat. In addition 

GRSG conservation strategies would be implemented on state and private lands, 

including disturbance caps in Montana and Wyoming to reduce projects in 

GRSG habitat to a sustainable level. As a result, the lack of protections under 

the LFO RMPA Alternative A would be offset to an extent by more protective 

management elsewhere in MZ I. In the planning area, though, continuation of 

current management would do little to reduce the threats from mining, and 

infrastructure on GRSG wintering and breeding grounds. Current management 

provides a limited number and extent of regulatory mechanisms to avoid 

continued degradation of GRSG habitat in MZ I, but it would not meet the COT 

report objectives for conservation of GRSG.

Alternative B

Alternative B emphasizes protecting natural resources. Under Alternative B, 

PHMA would be exclusion and GHMA would be avoidance areas, 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. 

These actions would benefit GRSG conservation on BLM-administered lands. 

Planned vegetation management, weed control, and restoration projects would 

also benefit BLM-administered lands in the planning area. 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. Implementing 

protective measures on BLM-administered lands within the planning area would 

help preserve GRSG habitat, but risks pushing development onto adjacent lands 

with less restrictive management. 

Several aspects of BLM management under Alternative B would benefit GRSG 

conservation at a landscape level, in conjunction with NRCS and state initiatives 

on private land. These include increasing lek buffers, imposing winter timing 

limitations and winter habitat restrictions, and protection of brood-rearing 

habitat. GRSG in MZ I would benefit most in states where nonfederal lands have 

similarly restrictive measures such as in Core areas in Wyoming and Montana. 

North and South Dakota do not have similar orders protecting GRSG on 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-60 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

nonfederal lands; thus, controls on BLM-administered land may not reduce 

overall impacts on GRSG. 

Alternative B would meet the objectives laid out in the COT report for fire, 

invasive plants, range management, recreation, energy development, mining and 

infrastructure. Alternative B would minimize agricultural conversion by retaining 

lands providing GRSG habitat. It may result in more indirect impacts from 

potential conversions of private land providing GRSG habitat. However, this loss 

may be limited by the NRCS SGI program, which is helping landowners obtain 

conservation easements for ranchland providing GRSG habitat. 

Alternative C

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 PHMA and GHMA as ROW exclusion areas, potentially 

pushing future transmission line construction onto non-BLM-administered land. 

Under Alternative C, the BLM would establish an ACEC on PHMA 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 PHMA and 

GHMA. 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 the 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 could 

require hundreds of miles of additional fencing, which would increase predation 

and collision risk, and contribute to fragmentation. It may also increase grazing 

pressure on adjacent private lands. Disturbance on lands adjacent to BLMadministered lands may indirectly impact GRSG populations on BLMadministered lands. 

An additional indirect impact from excluding livestock grazing from BLMadministered 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 

non-BLM-administered lands, increasing impacts on GRSG over the long term. 

Alternative C’s management approach for GRSG in the planning area has more 

GRSG protections than current management (Alternative A). BLM actions in 

conjunction with NRCS and state plans would help to achieve COT report 

objectives for energy development, mining, recreation, and infrastructure. COT 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-61

objectives for range management, fire, invasive plants and conversion to 

agriculture might not be met within the planning area because of limitations on 

BLM’s management tools. This could put GRSG populations in the Yellowstone 

Watershed at risk of further decline.

Alternative D

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 PHMA. 

Fires would be suppressed on sagebrush land, but prescribed burns may still be 

used. These provisions would protect GRSG on BLM-administered lands more 

than current management. The provisions would also maintain flexibility for land 

managers in areas 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. 

BLM actions would be in conjunction with NRCS and state initiatives on private 

land. These include increasing lek buffers, imposing winter timing limitations and 

winter habitat restrictions, and protection of brood-rearing habitat. GRSG in 

MZ I would benefit most in states where nonfederal lands have restrictive 

measures such as in Core areas in Wyoming and Montana. In states lacking 

disturbance limits on nonfederal land, conservation gains may be reduced.

Alternative D’s management approach for GRSG is more protective than 

current management (Alternative A), but not as protective as Alternative B, C 

or the Proposed Plan Amendment. COT objectives for energy development, 

infrastructure, mining, range management, fire and invasive plants would likely 

be met in the planning area and in MZ I. 

Proposed Plan Amendment 

The Proposed Plan Amendment emphasizes sustainable development with 

moderate constraints on resource uses to protect GRSG and other natural 

resources. GRSG in SFA would receive the most protection. Priority habitat 

outside SFAs would also be protected by ROW avoidance and protective 

stipulations. BLM restrictions on ROWs and renewable energy in GRSG habitat 

would help reduce loss and disturbance of GRSG populations. The Proposed 

Plan Amendment includes numerous measures to allow development while 

reducing the likelihood for impacts on GRSG, such as requirements for 

anthropogenic disturbance criteria, a 3 percent disturbance cap, lek buffers, 

mitigation, and RDFs and BMPs. 

Under the Proposed Plan Amendment, the BLM would improve GRSG habitat 

protection over current management. The Proposed Plan Amendment would 

increase protective buffers around leks and increase constraints on resource 

uses in GRSG priority habitat. It would impose a three percent disturbance cap 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-62 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

and use adaptive management, monitoring and mitigation to improve the 

effectiveness of GRSG protection over time. These provisions would protect 

GRSG more than current management and would complement protections on 

other lands. The Proposed Plan Amendment would maintain flexibility for land 

managers in areas with mixed public and private ownership. In such a case, strict 

restrictions on development on federal lands could result in more widespread 

development on private lands, without reducing overall impacts on sagebrush 

habitat. However, the population in the planning area is not stable or increasing 

due to prior disturbances, and it would be difficult for new management policies 

to offset these existing impacts over the 10-year analysis period. 

The Proposed Plan Amendment would minimize agricultural conversion by 

retaining lands providing GRSG habitat and by working in conjunction with 

NRCS efforts to retain private ranchland providing GRSG habitat. However, 

converting private lands to agriculture would remain a risk to GRSG in MZ I 

under all alternatives. 

In conjunction with state and regional planning efforts, implementation of 

disturbance caps, conservation easements on private lands, and implementation 

of the Proposed Plans for other BLM field offices in MZ I, and other past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the Proposed Plan 

Amendment would best meet the objectives laid out in the COT report for 

energy, mining, fire, invasive plants, range management, recreation, and 

infrastructure. 

Specifically, the following measures which would be implemented under the 

Proposed Plan, or are considered reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

help meet the COT report objectives:

• Managing ROW exclusion and avoidance areas would help meet the 

COT report objective for infrastructure by limiting ROW 

development within PHMA. These actions would also help to meet 

the COT objectives for non-native, invasive plant species by 

reducing disturbances that promote the spread of weeds.

• Designating oil and gas stipulations would limit development in 

PHMA and GHMA, except where pre-existing valid rights apply. In 

these areas COAs would limit disturbance.

• Implementation of state conservation plans and/or state executive 

orders would help meet COT report objectives on non-BLM and 

non-National Forest System lands. Applying a 5 percent disturbance 

limit (under the Wyoming and Montana GRSG plans/executive 

orders) would reduce impacts contributing to population declines 

and range erosion associated with threats including energy, mining, 

and infrastructure.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-63

• Removal of encroaching trees near occupied leks and important 

habitats (e.g., nesting, wintering, and brood-rearing) would reduce 

conifer incursion and help to maintain healthy native sagebrush plant 

communities. 

• Continued implementation of the SGZI would help meet the COT 

objective for agriculture conversion, by securing conservation 

easements on private lands. Fence marking, implementing prescribed 

grazing systems, and vegetation seeding would help meet the COT 

objectives for livestock grazing and invasive plant species. 

Summary

Overall, GRSG populations across MZ I face pressures from energy 

development, conversion to agriculture, and such stressors as disease, drought, 

and fire. These threats are magnified under the stress of habitat fragmentation 

and the isolation of small populations in the Dakotas, on the eastern edge of the 

species’ range. 

While implementation of the action alternatives would reduce threats faced by 

GRSG, 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. The isolation of 

smaller populations makes them particularly vulnerable to disease and other 

stressors. The Yellowstone watershed population also faces habitat loss 

pressure from energy and infrastructure development, and fragmentation risk 

due to the low percentage of land in public management.

GRSG populations respond to a variety of stressors acting in concert. If BLM 

effectively restricted energy development infrastructure, but adjacent lands 

were disturbed through tillage, poor grazing practices, or other surfacedisturbing activities, the effectiveness of BLM actions would be limited and 

decreases in GRSG populations in the planning area would be expected. Private 

lands being converted to cropland is a particularly worrisome threat in this 

region, because of the economic incentive of high crop prices and the 

patchwork pattern of landownership between federal and private lands. 

Widespread habitat fragmentation and degradation have already occurred in MZ 

I, GRSG would depend on a combination of Federal conservation actions, such 

as the removal of crop insurance protections for converted lands, and the 

NRCS SGI, state development restrictions and disturbance limits and private 

landowner actions to maintain viable habitat in PHMA and GHMA for the 

Yellowstone Watershed population. Alternatives B, D and the Proposed Plan 

Amendment would best promote these goals in the planning area. These 

alternatives would be most likely to stabilize GRSG populations throughout 

MZ I.

Reasonably foreseeable management efforts for control of energy development, 

mining, infrastructure, grazing, conversion to agriculture, fire, spread of weeds, 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-64 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

and recreation are projected to increase through increased coordination of 

federal, state, and local actions and the implementation of other BLM and Forest 

Service RMPs or amendments in MZ I. When the impacts of the Lewistown 

Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS are added to these 

actions, this would result in a net conservation gain to GRSG habitats and 

populations in MZ I. 

Though small fringe populations may continue to decline across MZ I, 

implementing Alternative B, D or the Proposed Plan Amendment, in 

combination with the Proposed Plans for other field offices, development 

restrictions in the Wyoming and Montana state plans, increased land 

protections via the NRSC SGI, local and regional habitat restoration efforts, in 

conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

would conserve the region-wide population of GRSG in MZ I.

5.3.8 MZ-Wide Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Summary Table

Table 5-11 includes a selection of some of the larger projects from the 

reasonably foreseeable future actions tables in the RMPAs/LUPAs for MZ I. The 

full tables can be found in each EIS within the MZ.

Table 5-11

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions in Management Zone I Likely to Impact GRSG 

Habitat

MZ Planning 

Area

GRSG 

Population(s) 

Affected

Project 

Name

Project 

Location

Project Description, 

Estimated Footprint

Project 

Status

Energy and Mining

1 Buffalo Powder River 

Basin, Wyoming 

Basin

Greater 

Crossbow 

Oil and Gas 

Exploration 

and 

Development 

Project

Campbell 

and 

Converse 

Counties, 

Wyoming

Proposed development of 1,500 

new oil and gas wells over 

110,000 acres of split estate 

mixed surface ownership lands. 

There are no BLM surface lands 

within the proposed development 

area; however, approximately 

62 percent of the mineral estate 

is managed by the BLM.1

Proposed 

I Wyoming 

Greater 

SageGrouse

Powder River 

Basin, Wyoming 

Basin

Converse 

County Oil 

and Gas 

Converse 

County, 

Wyoming

Proposed development of up to 

5,000 new oil and gas wells in 

northern Converse County, 

Wyoming. The proposed 

development area encompasses 

roughly 1.5 million acres of split 

estate mixed surface ownership 

lands, and includes all or parts of 

three different GRSG Core 

Areas.2

Proposed
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-65

Table 5-11

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions in Management Zone I Likely to Impact GRSG 

Habitat

MZ Planning 

Area

GRSG 

Population(s) 

Affected

Project 

Name

Project 

Location

Project Description, 

Estimated Footprint

Project 

Status

1 Buffalo Powder River 

Basin

Buffalo Oil 

and Gas 

Leases

Campbell, 

Johnson, 

Sheridan 

Counties, 

Wyoming

As of 2008, federal oil and gas 

leases covered approximately 

2,533,975 acres in the Buffalo 

planning area.3

Ongoing

I Miles City Dakotas Carter 

Master 

Leasing Plan 

(MLP)

Carter 

County, 

Montana

Proposed development of up to 

119 oil and gas wells and 

associated infrastructure. 71 

percent of oil and gas estate in 

MLP Area is comprised of federal 

mineral estate.4

Proposed

I Miles City Northern 

Montana, 

Yellowstone 

Watershed

Big Dry RMP 

Area

13 

counties, 

northeast 

Montana

Surface coal leasing in the Fort 

Union Coal Region. 1,674,500 

acres of high and moderate 

development potential (847,379 

federal acres) in the RMP area.5

Ongoing 

I Miles City Dakotas, 

Yellowstone 

Watershed, 

Powder River 

Basin 

Surface coal 

leasing 

Southeast 

Montana

Surface coal leasing in the 

Powder River Resource area. 

Lease proposals pending with the 

BLM comprise 2,242 acres and 

include the following mines: 

Spring Creek (1,772 acres), 

Rosebud (160) acres, Decker 

(310 acres).3,6,7,8

Ongoing 

and 

proposed

1 Buffalo Powder River 

Basin

Powder River 

Basin Coal 

Mines

Campbell 

County, 

Wyoming

13 operating mines in planning 

area, and two proposed mines; all 

are surface coal mines, covering 

162,336 federal acres in the 

Buffalo planning area6

Ongoing 

and 

proposed

I Miles City Dakotas Pending 

Bentonite 

expansion 

Carter 

County, 

Montana

Increase in permitted area by 

2,050 acres, of which, 1,649 acres 

would be federal (BLMadministered) and 401 acres 

would represent private 

ownership5

Proposed

I Buffalo Powder River 

Basin

Black Hills 

Bentonite 

(Mayoworth 

Area Mine 

and Peterson 

Draw/Willow 

Creek-Posey 

Creek/Tisdale

-Wall Creek 

Areas Mine)

Johnson 

County, 

Wyoming

Currently, there are 2 authorized 

active open-pit bentonite mines, 

1 mine pending authorization, and 

47 active bentonite mining claims 

in the Buffalo planning area on 

federal lands (both federal 

surface/federal minerals and split 

estate)8

Ongoing 

and 

proposed
5. Cumulative Impacts (Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-66 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 5-11

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions in Management Zone I Likely to Impact GRSG 

Habitat

MZ Planning 

Area

GRSG 

Population(s) 

Affected

Project 

Name

Project 

Location

Project Description, 

Estimated Footprint

Project 

Status

I Buffalo Powder River 

Basin

Nichols 

Ranch/Hank 

Unit Uranium 

in-situ 

Recovery 

Mining 

Project

Johnson 

County, 

and 

Campbell

County, 

Wyoming

Pending authorization for a 

proposed 2,250-acre in-situ 

uranium recover mine, which 

includes 303 acres of BLMadministered surface lands. Seven 

occupied leks occur within 2 

miles of the Hank Unit.9

Proposed

1 HiLine, 

Lewistown, 

Billings,

Miles City, 

North 

Dakota, 

South 

Dakota

Northern 

Montana, 

Yellowstone 

Watershed, Belt 

Mountains, 

Powder River 

Basin, Dakotas

WAPA 

Upper Great 

Plains Wind 

Energy 

Programmatic 

EIS

Montana, 

North and 

South 

Dakota, 

other 

Great 

Plains 

states

Programmatic EIS will identify 

environmental impacts, mitigation 

strategies, and review procedures 

for future wind-energy proposals 

in the upper great plains region10

Proposed

Rights-of-Way

1 HiLine, 

Miles City, 

South 

Dakota

Northern 

Montana, 

Yellowstone 

Watershed, 

Dakotas

Keystone XL 

Pipeline

Montana, 

South 

Dakota, 

other 

states

285-mile ROW in Montana and 

South Dakota, of which 45 miles 

may occur on BLM-administered 

lands11

Proposed

1 Miles City Yellowstone 

Watershed 

Tongue River 

Railroad 

Project

Colstrip to 

Decker, 

Montana

Construction and operation of a 

42-mile railroad between Miles 

City and Colstrip, Montana12

Proposed

1. Greater Crossbow Oil and Gas EIS: 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA.Par.24843.File.dat/hot_sheet.pdf

2. Convers County Oil and Gas Project: 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/cfo/Converse_County_Oil_and_Gas.html

3. Buffalo Oil and Gas Leases: http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/rmps/buffalo/docs.html

4. Carter Master Leasing Plan – Miles City RFD. Minerals Appendix of DEIS. P. MIN-164-165: 

http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/miles_city_field_office/rmp/draft_rmp.html

5. Miles City RFD, Minerals Appendix of DEIS. P. MIN-165-173: 

http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/miles_city_field_office/rmp/draft_rmp.html

6. Powder River RMP Area – Miles City RFD, Minerals Appendix of DEIS. P. MIN-173-188, and Powder River Resource Area RMP 

(BLM 1984) (http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/prog/planning/powder_river.html)

7. Spring Creek, Rosebud, Decker Mines – Miles City RFD, Minerals Appendix of DEIS. P. MIN-192

8. Buffalo Revised Final Mineral Report: 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/rmps/buffalo/docs.Par.90169.File.dat/RevisedFinalMineralReport_P

art1.pdf. 

9. Nichols Ranch/Hank Unit Uranium in-situ Recovery Mining Project: 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/bfo/nichols-ranch.html

10. Upper Great Plains Wind Energy PEIS: http://plainswindeis.anl.gov/documents/dpeis/index.cfm. 

11. Keystone XL Pipeline: http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/finalseis/index.htm

12. Tongue River Railroad EIS: http://www.tonguerivereis.com
5. Cumulative Impacts (Lands and Realty)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-67

5.4 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. Between 2008 

and 2012, the BLM issued ROW authorizations that resulted in an average of 10 

ROW actions per year. Past authorizations were primarily for linear features, 

such as roads, power lines, and telecommunication lines. In 2013, the BLM 

processed three road ROW applications in the planning area; two in Fergus 

County and one in Petroleum County (see Table 5-1). BLM also processed 

two power lines (one in Choteau County and one in Petroleum County) and 

two telecommunication lines (both in Fergus County). The BLM has also issued 

three temporary use permits in 2013 for filming. 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.

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 PHMA and the portion of Judith River Canyon area in GHMA

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, D, and the Proposed Plan Amendment, 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 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Lands and Realty)

5-68 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

would, however, impact future ROW development. Alternative C would result 

in the greatest restriction on ROW development by designating PHMA and 

GHMA as a ROW exclusion area. Alternative B would prohibit ROW 

development in PHMA, while Alternative D would designate PHMA as ROW 

avoidance area. The Proposed Plan Amendment would avoid major ROWs in 

GRSG habitat; minor ROWs would continue to be allowed in GHMA. 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 future ROW infrastructure 

to support new wind energy ROW development in the planning area would be 

the least under Alternative C, which would exclude all ROW development, 

including wind energy ROWs in GRSG habitat. The Proposed Plan Amendment, 

which would exclude wind energy development in PHMA, would decrease 

future demand for associated ROWs to support that development. Overall, 

Alternatives B, C, D, and the Proposed Plan Amendment would eliminate or 

discourage wind energy ROWs in GRSG habitat and promote future 

development in areas with good wind resource potential outside GRSG habitat. 

New ROW development would be more likely in GHMA or in areas outside of 

GRSG habitat with a cumulative decrease in demand for ROWs through the 

planning area, particularly for Alternative C and the Proposed Plan Amendment.

5.5 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.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-69

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 remove or 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 suppressing 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 

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).
5. Cumulative Impacts (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

5-70 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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 PHMA or GHMA

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.

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 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-71

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, PHMA and GHMA 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 PHMA under Alternatives B and C, and avoided in Alternative D

and the Proposed Plan Amendment. 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 PHMA 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 PHMA, and PHMA and GHMA 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 PHMA and GHMA, 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.

Alternative D and the Proposed Plan Amendment are intended to preserve 

management flexibility while protecting GRSG habitat. Both 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, while the Proposed Plan Amendment 

would also establish ROW avoidance areas but not ROW exclusion areas, more 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

5-72 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

ROW avoidance in GHMA would be proposed. The Proposed Plan Amendment

would also designate wind and solar 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.

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 PHMA and GHMA, 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.

In addition to establishing protective land use allocations, the Proposed Plan 

Amendment would implement a suite of management tools such as disturbance 

limits, GRSG habitat objectives, mitigation strategy, lek buffer-distances, and 

adaptive management throughout the range. These overlapping and reinforcing 

conservation measures would work in concert to improve GRSG habitat 

condition and would contribute to the overall improvement of vegetation 

conditions.

5.6 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 has 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 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-73

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 

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. 

Also 1,300 acres of conifer removal was approved in 2014, with additional acres

planned annually. 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 10 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 all alternatives and the Proposed Plan Amendment would 

place more restrictions on land uses that may introduce new sources of ignition 

and increase the risk of human-caused 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 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

5-74 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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.

5.7 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 PH and 

GH, or PHMA and GHMA. Existing fluid mineral leases within GRSG habitat 

that expire can be renominated for leasing but would be deferred as described 

above. 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, new oil and gas leasing will not 

be addressed in this RMPA/EIS.

5.8 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 4.8, Solid 

Leasable Minerals, for the direct and indirect impacts.

5.9 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 4.9, 

for the direct and indirect impacts.

5.10 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 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Solid Minerals (Salable Minerals))

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-75

to affect salable minerals are development of salable minerals on mineral estate 

that is not owned by the federal government. This development must be 

considered in combination with development on federal mineral estate to assess 

the cumulative impacts of this RMPA/EIS. The management actions proposed 

under this RMPA/EIS would cumulatively impact salable mineral development 

through closures and surface use restrictions that ultimately would decrease the 

amount of salable mineral development in the planning area during the planning 

period. 

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 federal mineral estate available for 

disposition of salable minerals is reduced, demand for salable minerals would 

increase in other areas. Salable minerals may have to be extracted from 

locations further removed from construction projects to avoid restricted 

federal mineral estate. This effect would be strongest under Alternative C 

because 42 percent of the federal mineral estate in the planning area (5 percent 

of the total planning area regardless of mineral ownership) would be closed to 

the disposition of salable minerals. Management under Alternative B and the 

Proposed Plan Amendment would close 34 percent of the federal mineral estate

in the planning area (4 percent of the total planning area regardless of mineral 

ownership). However, exceptions under the Proposed Plan Amendment would 

allow for some development to occur within closed areas. Under Alternatives A

and D, less than one percent of the federal mineral estate in the planning area 

(less than one percent of the total planning area regardless of mineral 

ownership) would remain closed to the disposition of salable minerals, making 

these alternatives 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 in the planning area. ROWs 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

or avoidance areas under Alternative A, providing the most opportunity for 

ROW development and, therefore, greatest demand for salable minerals. Under 

Alternatives B and C and the Proposed Plan Amendment, the BLM would 

manage 345,560 acres (5 percent of the total planning area regardless of surface 

ownership) as ROW exclusion or avoidance area. Under Alternative C, this 

acreage would be entirely exclusion area, while Alternative B and the Proposed 

Plan Amendment would have more avoidance area. Under Alternative D, 

233,219 acres (3 percent of the total planning area regardless of surface 

ownership) would be managed as ROW avoidance area.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management)

5-76 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

5.11 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, D, and the 

Proposed Plan Amendment, 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 PHMA 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.

5.12 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 hunting. These include mineral development; 

numerous land use authorizations, including 11 in 2013; 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 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Recreation)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-77

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 processed three road ROW applications in the 

planning area; two in Fergus County and one in Petroleum County (see Table 

5-1). BLM also processed two power lines (one in Choteau County and one in 

Petroleum County) and two telecommunication lines (both in Fergus 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, D, and the Proposed Plan Amendment

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 Alternative C would result in the least 

amount of cumulative impacts on recreation due to proposed management 

prescriptions that include the identification of PHMA 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 PHMA and GHMA. The 

requirement for recreation facilities under the Proposed Plan Amendment to 

achieve net conservation gain to GRSG habitat could result in modifications of 

future projects or in those projects being located outside of PHMA. Where net 

conservation gain could not be achieved, there could be a reduction in the 

number of recreation facilities in PHMA. 

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan Amendment, 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 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Recreation)

5-78 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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.

5.13 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 

contribution to cumulative effects on livestock grazing would be seen under

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 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Range Management)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-79

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.

5.14 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 PHMA.

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 

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

under Alternatives A, B, and D, the Proposed Plan Amendment, 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.

Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan Amendment, climate change 

would 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, 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern)

5-80 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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).

5.15 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, C

and the Proposed Plan Amendment would close many areas of BLMadministered lands to ROW developments, which would reduce the demand for 

salable materials. Air emissions associated with development on BLMadministered 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, less than 3,000 acres would be closed to salable 

mineral development, and emissions associated with material excavation and 

processing sites could contribute air pollutants, particularly particulates, 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.

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 5.6, 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 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Air Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-81

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.

5.16 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

and the Proposed Plan Amendment would close many acres of BLMadministered lands to ROW developments, which would reduce the demand for 

salable materials. GHG emissions associated with development on BLMadministered 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, less than 3,000 acres 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 climate change occurs on a larger scale than the planning area, this 

activity in conjunction with similar emission-generating projects in the 

cumulative analysis area would contribute to global climate change but 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 2012d); 

fires also remove vegetation that acts as a carbon sink. As described under 

Section 5.15, Air Resources, 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 5.6, 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 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Climate)

5-82 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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).

5.17 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 

wildland fires that have occurred in the planning area 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 

fuels reduction through prescribed fires, chemical and mechanical treatments, 

and seeding. Between 2002 and 2012 the LFO prescribed vegetation treatments 

on 17,437 acres, is proposing crested wheatgrass restoration, clubmoss, and 

mechanical treatments on approximately 1,000 acres and prescribed fire and 

maintenance burning on 129,000 acres, and has approved approximately 1,000 

acres of conifer removal. These treatments may be implemented within the 

foreseeable future and could cumulatively benefit soil resources.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Soil Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-83

Range management involves constructing infrastructure in order to support 

livestock grazing. Between 2002 and 2012, there were 26 miles of stockwater 

pipelines, 42 watering sites, 8 cattleguards, and 58 fences in the planning area. 

Proposed rangeland improvement projects include additional fencing, 

stockwater pipeline, and 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 10 ROW actions 

occurs each year in the planning area. The development allowed under future 

authorizations would result in surface-disturbance, which would generally 

contribute to soil 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 and the Proposed Plan Amendment would include limitations on surface 

disturbing activities, such as ROW development and mineral development;
5. Cumulative Impacts (Soil Resources)

5-84 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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 In addition to establishing protective land use 

allocations, the Proposed Plan Amendment would implement a suite of 

management tools such as disturbance limits, GRSG habitat objectives, 

mitigation strategy, adaptive management, and lek buffer-distances throughout 

the range. These overlapping and reinforcing conservation measures would 

work in concert to improve GRSG habitat condition and would contribute to 

the overall protection of soil resources.

5.18 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. Between 2002 and 

2012, there were 324 wildland fires associated with drought in the planning 

area. 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, is proposing crested wheatgrass restoration, clubmoss, and 

mechanical treatments on approximately 1,000 acres and prescribed fire and 

maintenance burning on 129,000 acres, and has approved approximately 1,000 

acres of conifer removal. These actions 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 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Water Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-85

fecal coliforms in waterways. Livestock grazing is associated with range 

management, which involves constructing infrastructure in order to support 

livestock grazing. Between 2002 and 2012, there were 26 miles of stockwater 

pipelines, 42 watering sites, 8 cattleguards, and 58 fences constructed in the 

planning area on BLM-administered land. Proposed rangeland improvement 

projects include additional fencing, stockwater pipeline, and stockwatering sites,

which could cumulatively impact waters through compaction and erosion of 

soils during construction and result in runoff into waterways. Additionally, 

increasing the number of stockwatering sites correspondingly increases the risk 

of mosquito breeding habitat being created, which increases the risk of 

spreading West Nile virus. However, stockwatering sites and other water 

developments can benefit GRSG and other wildlife by increasing the availability 

of water resources and providing for alternative water resources. Also, 

increased water resource sites can better disperse cattle across the landscape, 

and stockwatering sites can reduce the use of riparian areas by livestock.

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 

associated with oil and gas activity on existing leases could occur on a minimum 

of 55,880 acres of BLM-administered lands and 33,881 acres of BLMadministered sub-surface lands. The amount of disturbance is unknown. 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)

5-86 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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 10 ROW 

actions occurs each year in the planning area. The development under future 

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 and 

the Proposed Plan Amendment would include limitations on surface-disturbing 

activities, such as ROW development, grazing, and mineral development, 

reducing the potential for long-term cumulative impacts on water 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 water resources on nonBLM-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 could contribute to the overall

degradation of water resources. In addition to establishing protective land use 

allocations, the Proposed Plan Amendment would implement a suite of 

management tools such as disturbance limits, GRSG habitat objectives, 

mitigation strategy, adaptive management, and lek buffer-distances throughout 

the range. These overlapping and reinforcing conservation measures would 

work in concert to improve GRSG habitat condition and would contribute to 

the overall protection of water resources.

5.19 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 black-tailed prairie dog, breeding populations of mountain plover, 

chestnut-collared longspur, and Brewer’s sparrow. See Section 5.3 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, noxious weeds, wildland fires, spread of forest insects 

and disease, drought, and climate change.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-87

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 4.19. These indicators include 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 would provide the fewest considerations 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

5-88 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

of ecological impacts in management decisions. Management under Alternative 

D and the Proposed Plan Amendment 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 (345,560 acres). Additionally, Alternative C 

would remove 69,408 AUMs on BLM-administered lands and would result in the 

least cumulative impacts among the draft alternatives and Proposed Plan 

Amendment. 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.

In addition to establishing protective land use allocations, the Proposed Plan 

Amendment would implement a suite of management tools such as disturbance 

limits, GRSG habitat objectives, mitigation strategy, adaptive management, and 

lek buffer-distances throughout the range. These overlapping and reinforcing 

conservation measures would work in concert to improve GRSG habitat 

condition and would contribute to the overall protection of special status 

species and their habitat.

5.20 FISH AND WILDLIFE

As discussed in Section 3.21, 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 3.21

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 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Fish and Wildlife)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-89

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.

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 PHMA (974,775 acres) and GHMA (902,694 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. 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Fish and Wildlife)

5-90 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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 4.20, Fish and Wildlife. These indicators include 

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 and the Proposed Plan Amendment 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 (337,165 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 draft alternatives

and Proposed Plan Amendment. The impacts on wildlife habitat on BLMadministered 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.

In addition to establishing protective land use allocations, the Proposed Plan 

Amendment would implement a suite of management tools such as disturbance 

limits, GRSG habitat objectives, mitigation strategy, adaptive management, and 

lek buffer-distances throughout the range. These overlapping and reinforcing 

conservation measures would work in concert to improve GRSG habitat 

condition and would contribute to the overall protection of fish and wildlife, and 

their habitat.

5.21 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.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Renewable Energy)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 5-91

As stated in Section 4.21, 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

and the Proposed Plan Amendment, development of wind energy resources on 

BLM-administered lands are still unlikely due to the fact that 70 percent or 

more of “Good” or better wind potential land 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.

Alternative C and the Proposed Plan Amendment would result in the greatest 

long-term reduction in future wind energy development opportunities in the 

planning area.

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.

5.22 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 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Social and Economic Conditions)

5-92 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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 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 alternatives 

and Proposed Plan Amendment 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 

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.

5.23 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Actions in the alternatives and Proposed Plan Amendment are not anticipated 

to have a disproportionate impact on those in low-income or minority 

populations. As a result, the alternatives and Proposed Plan Amendment would 

not contribute to cumulative impacts for environmental justice.
Chapter 6

Consultation and Coordination

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 6-1 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

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

6.1 Changes Between the Draft EIS and Final EIS........................................................................ 6-1

6.2 Consultation and Coordination ................................................................................................ 6-2

6.3 Cooperating Agencies ................................................................................................................. 6-3

6.4 Coordination and Consistency.................................................................................................. 6-4

6.5 Public Involvement........................................................................................................................ 6-4

6.5.1 Scoping Process.............................................................................................................. 6-5

6.5.2 Public Comment Period on the Draft RMPA and EIS........................................... 6-6

6.5.3 Summary of Comments Received on the Draft RMPA/EIS ................................. 6-7

6.5.4 Future Public Involvement......................................................................................... 6-15

6.6 Distribution of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS ..................................................................... 6-15

6.7 List of Preparers.......................................................................................................................... 6-17

TABLES Page 

6-1 Cooperating Agencies ................................................................................................................................ 6-3

6-2 Number of Unique Submissions and Comments by Commenter Affiliation .............................. 6-10

6-3 Summary of Comments Received on Draft RMPA/EIS by Category ............................................ 6-11

6-4 Overview of Comments by Category .................................................................................................. 6-12
This page intentionally left blank.
June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final 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 CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT EIS AND FINAL EIS

• A summary of the public comment period and public comments on 

the Draft RMPA/EIS was added in Section 6.5.2, Public Comment 

Period on the Draft RMPA and EIS, and Section 6.5.3, Summary of 

Comments Received on the Draft RMPA/EIS.

• Future opportunity for public involvement was added in Section 

6.5.4, Future Public Involvement.

• A summary of the distribution of the Proposed RMPA/EIS was 

added in Section 6.6, Distribution of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS.
6. Consultation and Coordination (Consultation and Coordination)

6-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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 6.5.1, Scoping Process), 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 offered formal Government-to-Government consultation with tribes 

that are identified as having interests in the RMPA planning area. Letters were 

mailed to the tribes listed below in December 2011, with follow-up letters 

mailed in September 2012. The follow-up 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. 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-togovernment consultation between September 24 and October 9, 2012 during 

which time no comments were received, and no requests for formal 

government-to-government consultation requested by any of the tribes. 

Government-to-government 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 the Montana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 

occurred along with SHPO’s review of the Draft EIS. The SHPO raised no 

concerns.
6. Consultation and Coordination (Consultation and Coordination)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 6-3

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 proposed 

actions under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan Amendment would have 

No Effect on any Threatened or Endangered species in the planning area.

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.

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).

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 CSGD

Crooked Creek CSGD

Grass Range CSGD

Flatwillow CSGD












6. Consultation and Coordination (Cooperating Agencies)

6-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 6-1

Cooperating Agencies

Agencies and Tribes Invited to be Cooperators Agencies that Signed 

MOUs

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







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 6.5.1). These agencies have been 

engaged throughout the planning process, including during alternatives 

development.

6.4 COORDINATION AND CONSISTENCY

The BLM’s planning regulations (43 CFR, Part 1610) require that its RMPs be 

consistent with officially approved or adopted resource-related plans of other 

federal, state, local, and tribal governments, to the extent that those plans are 

consistent with federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands. Plans 

formulated by federal, state, local, and tribal governments that relate to 

management of lands and resources have been reviewed and considered as the 

RMPA/EIS has been developed. These plans can be found in Chapter 1, 

Section 1.8, Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs.

6.5 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 BLM-
6. Consultation and Coordination (Public Involvement)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 6-5

administered lands. These procedures can be found in the BLM’s Land Use 

Planning Handbook (H-1601-1; BLM 2005a). Public involvement for the 

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 6.5.1. The public outreach and collaboration phases (2 

and 3) are ongoing throughout the RMPA/EIS process. Phase 4 of the process 

has been completed and is described in Section 6.5.2, Public Comment Period 

on the Draft RMPA and EIS.

6.5.1 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 
6. Consultation and Coordination (Public Involvement)

6-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

of intent. The dates and locations of scoping open houses were also announced 

on the Rocky Mountain website.

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.

6.5.2 Public Comment Period on the Draft RMPA and EIS

A notice of availability announcing the release of the Draft RMPA and EIS was 

published in the Federal Register on November 8, 2013 (78 Federal Register 

67186-67187), initiating a 90-day public comment period. During the 90-day 

public comment period, the public was provided the opportunity to review and 

comment on the Draft RMPA and EIS.

Notification

The BLM issued a news release on November 8, 2013, announcing the release 

of the Draft RMPA and EIS, which provided the dates and times of the public 

commenting open houses. An article regarding the release of the Draft RMPA

and EIS was published in the Lewistown News Argus on November 13, 2013.
6. Consultation and Coordination (Public Involvement)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 6-7

Public Open Houses

During the public comment period, the BLM hosted an open house in 

Lewistown, Montana on December 10 and in Winnett, Montana on December 

18. The public open houses provided opportunities for the public to ask 

questions and submit comments. BLM managers, resource specialists, and other 

representatives of the BLM were present during these open houses to discuss 

and answer questions.

6.5.3 Summary of Comments Received on the Draft RMPA/EIS

Process and Methodology

Comments on the Draft RMPA/EIS covered a wide spectrum of thoughts, 

opinions, ideas, and concerns. The BLM recognizes that commenters invested 

considerable time and effort to submit comments on the Draft RMPA/EIS, and 

developed a comment analysis methodology to ensure that all comments were 

considered as directed by NEPA regulations.

According to NEPA, the BLM is required to identify and formally respond to all 

substantive public comments. The BLM developed a systematic process for 

responding to comments to ensure all substantive comments were tracked and 

considered. Upon receipt, each comment letter was assigned an identification 

number and logged into CommentWorks, a Web-based database that allowed 

the BLM to organize, categorize, and respond to comments. Substantive 

comments from each letter were coded to appropriate categories based on 

content of the comment, retaining the link to the commenter. The categories 

generally follow the sections presented in the Draft RMPA/EIS, though some 

relate to the planning process or editorial concerns.

Comments similar to each other were grouped under a topic heading, and the 

BLM drafted a statement summarizing the ideas contained in the comments. The 

responses were crafted to respond to the comments; a response indicates 

whether or not the commenters’ points resulted in a change in the document. 

As a result of public comments, changes were made to the Draft RMPA/EIS and 

reflect consideration given to public comments. A summary of major changes 

between the Draft RMPA/EIS and the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS can be found in 

Section 1.9, Changes from Draft RMPA to the Proposed RMPA, in Chapter 1, 

Introduction.

Although each comment letter was diligently considered, the comment analysis 

process involved determining whether a comment was substantive or 

nonsubstantive in nature. In performing this analysis, the BLM relied on the 

CEQ’s regulations to determine what constituted a substantive comment.

A substantive comment does one or more of the following:

• Questions, with a reasonable basis, the accuracy of the information 

and/or analysis in the EIS
6. Consultation and Coordination (Public Involvement)

6-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

• Questions, with a reasonable basis, the adequacy of the information 

and/or analysis in the EIS

• Presents reasonable alternatives other than those presented in the 

Draft EIS that meet the purpose and need of the proposed action 

and address significant issues

• Questions, with a reasonable basis, the merits of an alternative or 

alternatives

• Causes changes in or revisions to the proposed action

• Questions, with a reasonable basis, the adequacy of the planning 

process itself

Additionally, BLM’s NEPA handbook identifies the following types of substantive 

comments:

• Comments on the Adequacy of the Analysis: Comments that 

express a professional disagreement with the conclusions of the 

analysis or assert that the analysis is inadequate are substantive in 

nature but may or may not lead to changes in the Final EIS. 

Interpretations of analyses should be based on professional 

expertise. Where there is disagreement within a professional 

discipline, a careful review of the various interpretations is 

warranted. In some cases, public comments may necessitate a 

reevaluation of analytical conclusions. If, after reevaluation, the 

manager responsible for preparing the EIS (the Authorized Officer) 

does not think that a change is warranted, the response should 

provide the rationale for that conclusion.

• Comments That Identify New Impacts, Alternatives, or Mitigation 

Measures: Public comments on a Draft EIS that identify impacts, 

alternatives, or mitigation measures that were not addressed in the 

draft are substantive. This type of comment requires the Authorized 

Officer to determine whether it warrants further consideration. If it 

does, the Authorized Officer must determine whether the new 

impacts, new alternatives, or new mitigation measures should be 

analyzed in the Final EIS, a supplement to the Draft EIS, or a 

completely revised and recirculated Draft EIS.

• Disagreements with Significance Determinations: Comments that 

directly or indirectly question, with a reasonable basis, 

determinations regarding the significance or severity of impacts are

substantive. A reevaluation of these determinations may be 

warranted and may lead to changes in the Final EIS. If, after 

reevaluation, the Authorized Officer does not think that a change is 

warranted, the response should provide the rationale for that 

conclusion.
6. Consultation and Coordination (Public Involvement)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 6-9

Some submissions received contained substantive comments but were out of 

the scope of this project. These included comments on subjects not related to 

this effort, other GRSG efforts, or BLM laws, rules, regulations, or policy. These 

comments were reviewed and sent along to the appropriate party as needed, 

but are not included in the comment response for this effort.

Comments that failed to meet the above description were considered 

nonsubstantive. Many comments received throughout the process expressed 

personal opinions or preferences, had little relevance to the adequacy or 

accuracy of the Draft RMPA/EIS, or represented commentary regarding 

resource management without any real connection to the document being 

reviewed. These comments did not provide specific information to assist the 

planning team in making a change to the Preferred Alternative, did not suggest 

other alternatives, did not take issue with methods used in the Draft RMPA/EIS, 

and are not addressed further in this document. Examples of some of these 

comments include the following:

• The best of the alternatives is Alternative D (or A, B, or C).

• The BLM has yet to show land stewardship at or above the level 

currently demonstrated by the private sector.

• Your plan does not reflect balanced land management.

• Stop giving away land to the mineral companies.

• More land should be protected as wilderness.

• I want the EIS to reflect the following for this area: no grazing, no 

drilling, no mining, and no OHVs.

• Do not add any more road closures to what is now in existence.

• People need access and the roads provide revenue for local 

communities.

• More areas should be made available for multiple uses (drilling, 

OHVs, ROWs, etc.) without severe restrictions.

Opinions, feelings, and preferences for one element or one alternative over 

another, and comments of a personal and/or philosophical nature were all read, 

analyzed, and considered, but because such comments are not substantive in 

nature, the BLM did not respond to them. It is also important to note that, 

while all comments were reviewed and considered, comments were not 

counted as “votes.” The NEPA public comment period is neither considered an 

election nor does it result in a representative sampling of the population. 

Therefore, public comments are not appropriate to be used as a democratic 

decision-making tool or as a scientific sampling mechanism.

Comments citing editorial changes to the document were reviewed and 

incorporated where needed. 
6. Consultation and Coordination (Public Involvement)

6-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Summary of Written Comments Received

The comment period closed on February 6, 2014. All written comments sent

before 12:00 AM on February 7, 2014, were accepted as official comments. 

These included those sent by US mail postmarked on February 6, 2014, and 

email messages and facsimiles sent on February 6, 2014, regardless of when they 

were received. Some comments were duplicated with an email message and a 

letter submitted via US mail. Identical comments from the same party were 

considered only once.

A total of 40 unique comment letters, forms, and emails were received during 

the 90-day public comment period. These documents resulted in 257 

substantive comments. Out of the 40 comment letters, 17 were submitted by 

private individuals (43 percent); 12 by wildlife or environmental protection 

groups (30 percent); 5 by associations (including trade and industry groups, 13 

percent); 2 by both federal government agencies and local government agencies 

(5 percent each); and 1 by both businesses and state government agencies (3 

percent). The BLM parsed 257 substantive comments from the 40 submissions. 

Wildlife or environmental protection groups submitted 117 of these comments 

(46 percent), 66 were submitted by associations (26 percent), 41 were 

submitted by federal government agencies (16 percent), 18 were submitted by 

private individuals (7 percent), 11 were submitted by state government agencies 

(4 percent), and 4 substantive comments were submitted by local government 

agencies (2 percent, see Table 6-2).

Table 6-2

Number of Unique Submissions and Comments by Commenter Affiliation

Affiliation Number of 

Submissions

Number of 

Comments

Government agencies

Federal Government 2 41

State Government 1 11

Local Government 2 4

Association (includes trade and industry groups) 5 66

Businesses 1 0

Wildlife or environmental protection groups 12 117

Private individuals 17 18

Total 40 257

In addition to the unique submissions discussed above, 5,580 form letters were 

submitted during the public comment period. Form letters are exact or very 

close copies of a letter that are submitted by different individuals; individuals 

may add additional language to the letter, but this usually does not substantially 

change the content of the letter. Often, form letters are created by an 

organization and sent to their members, who in turn submit this letter to the 

planning effort. For the LFO RMPA/EIS, 2,927 form letters submitted were from 

WildEarth Guardians, 2,650 form letters were from Defenders of Wildlife, and 3 
6. Consultation and Coordination (Public Involvement)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 6-11

form letters were from the Montana Wilderness Association. A master copy of 

each form letter was included in the comment analysis process. All of the form 

letters were reviewed for additional substantive content; these were included in 

the comment analysis process when present.

A review of the 257 substantive comments received revealed a high level of 

interest about the management of GRSG (73 comments, 28 percent), livestock 

grazing (37 comments, 14 percent), and compliance with NEPA and FLPMA 

(NEPA: 23 comments, 9 percent; and FLPMA: 9 comments, 4 percent). Topics 

that received moderate interest were lands and realty (15 comments, 6 

percent), leasable minerals (12 comments, 5 percent), lands with wilderness 

characteristics (8 comments, 3 percent), travel management (7 comments, 3 

percent), and other laws (6 comments, 2 percent). The topics with the least 

amount of interest were fire and fuels and water resources (5 comments, 2 

percent each); the disturbance cap (4 comments, 2 percent); climate change, 

invasive weeds, locatable minerals, noise, salable minerals, socioeconomics, and 

sagebrush vegetation (3 comments, 1 percent each); ACECs, recreation, and soil 

resources (2 comments, 1 percent each); and cultural resources and fish and 

wildlife (1 comment, less than 1 percent each). In addition to these topics, 

substantive comments were collected that were considered out of scope of this 

planning effort (13 comments, 5 percent) and suggested editorial changes (10 

comments, 4 percent). These comments were reviewed and considered but not 

included in the formal comment responses effort. See Table 6-3.

Table 6-3

Summary of Comments Received on Draft 

RMPA/EIS by Category

Category Number of 

Comments

GRSG 73

Livestock grazing 37

NEPA 23

Lands and realty 15

Leasable minerals 12

FLPMA 9

LWC 8

Travel management 7

Other laws 6

Fire and fuels 5

Water resources 5

Disturbance cap 4

Climate change 3

Invasive weeds 3

Locatable minerals 3

Noise 3

Saleable minerals 3

Socioeconomics 3
6. Consultation and Coordination (Public Involvement)

6-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 6-3

Summary of Comments Received on Draft 

RMPA/EIS by Category

Category Number of 

Comments

Vegetation - sagebrush 3

ACECs 2

Recreation 2

Soil resources 2

Cultural resources 1

Fish and wildlife 1

Predation 1

Out of scope 13

Edits 10

Total 257

The comments received on the Draft RMPA/EIS were similar to the issues 

raised during public scoping. In many cases, comments expressed a desire for 

very specific implementation-level (project-level) details to be included in the 

RMPA. As described in Chapters 1 and 2, the RMPA/EIS provides general 

guidance and identifies allowable uses and allocations but is not meant to 

address all details about individual projects. A separate environmental review 

will be conducted for specific projects at the implementation level to address 

these details. Some comments spanned several topical areas and included a 

discussion about a resource use or activity and listed concerns about the 

resources that would be impacted by the use, or conversely, the impact that 

restrictions would have on resource uses or activities. 

All substantive comments, detailed summaries, and responses organized by 

resource, resource use, or EIS planning regulation can be found in Appendix 

O. An overview of these summaries and responses can be found below in 

Table 6-4. Comments related to editorial changes, out of scope topics, and 

non-substantive comments were not included in the comment response effort.

Table 6-4

Overview of Comments by Category

Category Overview

GRSG Commenters asserted that the NTT report was inconsistent with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act and is biased against oil and gas 

development, found the DEIS to not be fully consistent with the COT 

report, noted that the COT report should not be considered best available 

science, suggested modifications to GRSG alternatives, suggested new or 

additional literature for the BLM to consider in the FEIS, noted 

inaccuracies in the DEIS or requested additional information be included, 

suggested improvements to the impacts analysis for GRSG, wanted 

additional impacts to be included in the cumulative impacts section, and 

provided recommendations to strengthen or clarify mitigation measures.
6. Consultation and Coordination (Public Involvement)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 6-13

Table 6-4

Overview of Comments by Category

Category Overview

Livestock grazing Commenters stated that the DEIS is contrary to the Taylor Grazing Act, 

suggested that more evidence is needed on whether livestock grazing is 

beneficial or detrimental to GRSG, requested that the plan include 

allotment-level data and analyses, wanted a more detailed impact analysis 

on grazing as a surface-disturbing activity and setting guidelines when 

grazing is average across pastures, and made suggestions on improving 

monitoring guidelines and standards. 

NEPA Commenters claimed there is no consistency between GRSG sub-region 

plans, that the BLM should work with local cooperating agencies for field 

office objectives, that the purpose and need was overly narrow, and that 

the DEIS failed to identify reasonably foreseeable future actions for 

renewable energy in the cumulative effects analysis. Commenters also 

suggested additional alternatives, wanted to know what information was 

not available for analysis, and wanted additional mitigation measures 

included in the FEIS, including triggers and measures of success.

Lands and realty Commenters suggested additional management actions related to ROW 

avoidance and exclusion areas, wanted the FEIS to reference the USFWS 

2012 Land-based Wind Energy Guidelines, wanted the BLM to provide 

rationale on ROW avoidance and exclusion areas, noted the BLM failed to 

include wind farm development on non-BLM-administered lands, and 

wanted more information on how continued road and transmission line 

development would impact GRSG habitat.

Leasable minerals Commenters requested additional alternatives or clarification to the 

existing alternatives on RDFs, BMPs, well pad density, and valid existing 

rights. They also requested that mitigation for prospecting permits for 

nonenergy mineral development be described or defined. 

FLPMA Commenters wanted to see better inventories of public lands, resources, 

and values. Commenters also noted that the RMP/EIS is not consistent 

with local and state plans and policies.

LWC Commenters wanted the BLM to add additional protections to LWCs and 

noted that the BLM failed to provide updated LWC inventories and the 

current ones are out of date.

Travel management Commenters suggested modifications to the travel management 

alternatives, requested that ranching being included as an authorized offroad use, and wanted a timeframe for travel management planning and 

mitigation to be included in the preferred alternative.

Other laws Commenters wanted to know why the 2011 GRSG IMs did not go through 

the NEPA process and claimed that the RMP does not conform to the 

Administrative Procedure Act and the USFWS Policy for Evaluating 

Conservation Efforts policy standard.
6. Consultation and Coordination (Public Involvement)

6-14 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 6-4

Overview of Comments by Category

Category Overview

Fire and fuels Commenters suggested modifications to the alternatives related to fuels 

treatments, wanted to see grazing listed as a primary tool of wildfire 

prevention, and requested that mitigation and monitoring for post-fire 

management be included in the document.

Water resources Commenters wanted to see measureable benchmarks for riparian areas, 

clarification on how PFC ratings would be used, a discussion of benefits to 

water developments in the cumulative impacts section, and additional 

information on compliance with MT water quality standards.

Disturbance cap Commenters questioned why there was no disturbance cap percentage 

included in the preferred alternative.

Climate change Commenters requested that additional factors be taken into consideration 

for climate change, such as a change in temperature and precipitation, and 

the impact of livestock grazing on climate resilience.

Invasive weeds Commenters wanted to see a timeline for completing invasive weed 

objectives and questioned how the BLM would address the spread of 

certain invasive weeds in grazing areas. 

Locatable minerals Commenters suggested additional measures to protect GRSG near 

locatable mineral sites and other changes that should be made to the 

preferred alternative.

Noise Commenters disagreed with the ambient noise levels used in the 

document, requested clarification on how noise measurements would be 

carried out, and found large exceptions to noise level limits to be 

unacceptable.

Saleable minerals Commenters requested clarification on the alternatives on RDFs, pit 

restoration, and avoiding key wildlife areas.

Socioeconomics Commenters noted that more comprehensive impacts analysis should be 

conducted to include wind energy, natural resources protection, and nonmarket values.

Vegetation -

sagebrush

Commenters wanted to see a more specialized plan on how conifer 

encroachment would be handled and recommended additional methods to 

conduct conifer treatments.

ACECs Commenter suggested additional alternatives that could be included in the 

plan and also claimed that additional ACECs would remove valuable 

grazing lands.

Recreation Commenters wanted clarification on the impacts analysis for recreation, as 

well as how BLM OHV regulations would be incorporated into the plan.

Soil resources Commenters were concerned that the impact of livestock grazing on soils 

was not adequately addressed.

Cultural resources Commenters were concerned that the impact of livestock grazing on 

cultural resources was not adequately addressed.
6. Consultation and Coordination (Public Involvement)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 6-15

Table 6-4

Overview of Comments by Category

Category Overview

Fish and wildlife Commenters wanted a specific section to be changed to become less 

general and to include additional scientific literature.

Predation Commenters requested that a discussion on predation be included in the 

RMP/EIS.

6.5.4 Future Public Involvement

Public participation efforts will be ongoing throughout the remainder of the 

process of revising the RMPA and developing the EIS. The Proposed RMPA and 

Final EIS considered all substantive comments received during the 90-day public 

comment period for the Draft RMPA/EIS. Members of the public with standing 

will have the opportunity to protest the content of the Proposed RMPA/Final 

EIS during the specified 30-day protest period. The Record of Decision will be 

issued by the BLM following the Governor’s Consistency Review and protest 

resolution.

Distribution and Availability of the Proposed RMPA and Final EIS

A Notice of Availability will be published in the Federal Register to notify the 

public of the availability of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. The Notice of

Availability will also outline protest procedures during the 30-calendar day

protest period. The Proposed RMPA/Final EIS will be available for downloading 

from the RMP website at http://blm.gov/f9kd. The Proposed RMPA/Final EIS will 

also be available for review at the LFO, Forest Service Offices in Stanford, 

Montana and White Sulphur Springs, Montana, the BLM Missouri Breaks 

Interpretive Center in Ft. Benton, Montana, and the NRCS office in Winnett, 

Montana. Press releases will be issued to notify the public of the Proposed 

RMPA/Final EIS availability

6.6 DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROPOSED RMPA/FINAL EIS

The Proposed RMPA/Final EIS has been sent to all parties expressing continued 

interest in the RMPA. Copies of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS are also available 

for public review at the LFO, BLM Montana State Office in Billings, Forest 

Service Offices in Stanford, Montana and White Sulphur Springs, Montana, the 

BLM Missouri Breaks Interpretive Center in Ft. Benton, Montana, and the NRCS

office in Winnett, Montana. The Proposed RMPA/Final EIS is also available 

electronically from the RMP website at http://blm.gov/f9kd.

Hard copies of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS have been distributed to the 

following organizations, agencies, and individuals who requested them, or as 

required by regulation and policy.

Federal Government Agencies

• EPA
6. Consultation and Coordination (Distribution of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS)

6-16 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

• Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest

• USFWS

• USFWS, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge

• US Air Force

• Central Montana Resource Advisory Council

• NRCS

State Government Agencies

• MFWP

• Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

• Governor Steve Bullock

Local Governments

• Chouteau County

• Fergus County

• Judith Basin County

• Meagher County

• Petroleum County

Tribal Governments and Committees

• 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 Reservation

• Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian 

Reservation 

• Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho

• Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation of Idaho

Congressionals

• Senator Jon Tester

• Senator Steve Daines

• Representative Ryan Zinke
6. Consultation and Coordination (Distribution of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 6-17

Nongovernmental Organizations and Businesses

• Petroleum County Conservation District

• Indian Butte CSGD

• Chain Buttes CSGD

• Winnett CSGD

• Crooked Creek CSGD

• Williams Coulee CSGD

• Grass Range CSGD

• Flatwillow CSGD

• Mark Good, Montana Wilderness Association

• Diane LaGrange, Bjork, Lindley, Little PC

• John Hammon

• Sherry Hornia

• Beth Kampschror, Friends of the Upper Missouri River Breaks 

National Monument

• Eric Molvar, Wild Earth Guardians

6.7 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 6.5.2, 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
6. Consultation and Coordination (List of Preparers)

6-18 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Name Role/Responsibility

Renee Johnson Renewable Energy

Jessica Montag Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

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

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

Forest Service TEAMS Planning Enterprise Unit

Jennifer Dobb Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Henry Eichman Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
Chapter 7

References

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 7-1

CHAPTER 7

REFERENCES

References and personal communication for Chapters 1-6 (not including Section 5.3, Greater SageGrouse) of the Lewiston Field Office Proposed RMPA/Final EIS are listed in Section 7.1. References 

and personal communication for the Greater Sage-Grouse cumulative effects analysis (Section 5.3 in 

Chapter 5) are listed in Section 7.2.

7.1 CHAPTERS 1-6 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.

Arno, S. F., J. Scott, and M. Hartwell. 1995. Age-class structure of old growth ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir 

stands and its relationship to fire history. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, Research Paper 481, Ogden, Utah.

Baker, W. L. 2011. “Pre-Euro-American and recent fire in sagebrush ecosystems.” In: S. T. Knick and J. 

W. Connelly (editors), Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species. 

University of California Press, Berkeley. Pp. 185-202.
7. References

7-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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.

Baruch-Mordo, S., J.S. Evans, J.P. Severson, D.E. Naugle, J.D. Maestas, J.M. Kiesaecker, M.J. Falkowski, 

C.A. Hagan, and K.P. Reese. 2013. Saving sage-grouse from the trees: a proactive solution to 

reducing a key threat to a candidate species. Biological Conservation 167:233D241.BC Air 

Quality. 2013. How Forest Fires Affect Air Quality. Internet website: 

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.

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.

Berkeley, L., J. Smith, and M. Szczypinski. 2013. Evaluating Sage-Grouse and Habitat Responses to SageGrouse Friendly Livestock Grazing Strategies: 3-yr Preliminary Findings.

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.
7. References

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 7-3

_____. 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.

_____. 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.

_____. 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.
7. References

7-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

_____. 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.

_____. 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.

_____. 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.
7. References

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 7-5

Box, T. W. 1990. Rangelands, p. 101-120. In: R.N. Sampson, and W. Hair (eds.) Natural Resources for 

the 21st Century. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Bradley, B.A. 2010. Assessing ecosystem threats from global and regional 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. Pp. 23-74 in D. D. Briske, editor. Conservation benefits of 

rangeland resources: assessment, recommendations, and knowledge gaps. USDA National 

Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Internet website: 

http://www.bls.gov/lau/#tables. Unemployment Rates for States. Internet website: 

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. Pp. 1-4. 

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1997. Environmental Justice, Guidance Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC. December 10, 1997. Internet website: 

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/ej.pdf.

Chambers, Jeanne C.; Pyke, David A.; Maestas, Jeremy D.; Pellant, Mike; Boyd, Chad S.; Campbell, Steven 

B.; Espinosa, Shawn; Havlina, Douglas W.; Mayer, Kenneth E.; Wuenschel, Amarina. 2014. Using 

resistance and resilience concepts to reduce impacts of invasive annual grasses and altered fire 

regimes on the sagebrush ecosystem and greater sage-grouse: A strategic multi-scale approach. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. Fort Collins, Colorado: US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Choteau County. 2004. Choteau County Growth Policy.

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. 

USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report. INT-263.
7. References

7-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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. USDA Forest 

Service, General Technical Report. INT-RP-492.

Coates, P. S. 2007. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) nest predation and incubation 

behavior. Idaho State University, Boise, Idaho.

Coates, P. S. and D. J. Delehanty. 2010. Nest predation of greater sage-grouse in relation to 

microhabitat factors and predators. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:240-248.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Diffendorfer, J. E., Roger Compton, Louisa Kramer, Zach Ancona, and Donna Norton. 2014. Onshore 

industrial wind turbine locations for the United States through July, 2013: US Geological Survey 

Data Series 817. Internet website: http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds817. Accessed on May 5, 2014.

Dinkins, J. B., M. R. Conover, C. P. Kirol, and J. L Beck. 2012. Greater-Sage Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasinaus) Select Nest Sites and Brood Sites Away from Avian Predators. The Auk. 

129(4):600-610, 2012.

DNRC (Department of Natural Resources and Conservation of the State of Montana). 2013. Annual 

Review 2013. Volume 57. Board of Oil and Gas Conservation.
7. References

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 7-7

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.

Doherty, K. E., D. E. Naugle, and B. L. Walker. 2010. Greater Sage-Grouse Nesting Habitat: The Importance 

of Managing at Multiple Scales. The Journal of Wildlife Management 74 (7):1544-1553. 2010.

Doherty, K. E., D. E. Naugle, J. D. Tack, B. L. Walker, J. M. Graham and J. L. Beck. 2014. Linking 

conservation actions to demography: grass height explains variation in greater sage-grouse nest survival.

Wildlife Biology 20 (6):320-326.

Ellis, K. L. 1985. Effects of a new transmission line on distribution and aerial predation of breeding male 

sage grouse. 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 website: 

http://www.epa.gov/eogapti1/course422/ap7a.html. Accessed on January 21, 2013.

_____. 2011a. Level III Ecoregions of the Continental United States. Revised December 2011.

_____. 2011b. Climate Change, Basic Information. Internet website: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html. Accessed on October 18, 2011.

_____. 2012a. Glossary of Climate Change Terms. Internet website: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html. Accessed on January 20, 2013.

_____. 2012b. Visibility, Basic Information. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/visibility/what.html. 

Accessed on January 21, 2013.

_____. 2012c. Ground Level Ozone, Basic Information. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/

ozonepollution/basic.html. Accessed on January 21, 2013.

_____. 2012d. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sink: 1990-2010. Chapter 3, Land Use, 

Land-Use Change, and Forestry. April 15, 2012. Internet website: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html. Accessed on February 

1, 2013.

_____. 2013. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. Reducing Fluorinated Gas Emissions. Internet website: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html. Accessed on May 31, 2013.
7. References

7-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

_____. 2014a. AirData-Monitor Value Reports. Last updated October 8, 2014. Internet website: 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata. Accessed on January 23, 2015.

_____. 2014b. Air Quality Index Report. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_aqi.html. 

Accessed on January 23, 2015.

Fergus County. 2011. Fergus County Land Use Policy. Internet website: http://www.co.fergus.mt.us/

images/pdf/LUP19922007DraftJanuary2011.pdf.

FHA (US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration). 2011. Noise Effect on 

Wildlife. Internet website: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/noise_effect_on_wildlife/

effects/wild01.cfm#content. Accessed on 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 (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 1990. The Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo) 

National Historic Trail: comprehensive plan. Missoula, Montana.

_____. 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.

_____. 2007. Northern Rockies Lynx Planning Area, Occupied and Unoccupied Lynx habitat map. 

February 21, 2007.

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 and Engle, D. M. 2001. Restoring Heterogeneity on Rangelands: Ecosystem Management 

Based on Evolutionary Grazing Patterns. BioScience. Vol. 51, No. 8. August 2001.

Garton, E. O., J. W. Connelly, J. S. Horne, C. A. Hagen, A. Moser, and M. Schroder. 2011. Greater sagegrouse 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.

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. 2011. Predation on greater sage-grouse. Pp. 95-100 in S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (eds.), 

Greater Sage-grouse: ecology and conservation on a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in 

Avian Biology, vol. 38, University of California Press, Berkeley.
7. References

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 7-9

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. and D. L. Bunnell. 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.

Holloran, M. J. and S. H. Anderson. 2005. Spatial Distribution of Greater Sage-Grouse Nests in 

Relatively Contiguous Sagebrush Habitats. The Condor 107(4): 742-755. Internet website: 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4096476.

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, New York: Cambridge 

University Press. 996 p. Internet website: 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.

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., University Idaho. Moscow.

Knapp, A. K., J. M. Blair, J. M. Briggs, S. L, Collins, D. C. Hartnett, L. C. Johnson et al. 1999. The 

keystone role of bison in North American Tallgrass Prairie. BioScience, 49, 39–50.

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.
7. References

7-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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. 

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.

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.

Lane, V. R. 2005. Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Nesting and Brood-Rearing Sagebrush Habitat 

Characteristics in Montana and Wyoming. Master’s thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman.

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,, 

et al. 2013. Summary of Science, Activities, Programs and Policies that Influence the Rangewide 

Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). US Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2013-1098, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Manier, D. J., Bowen, Z. H., Brooks, M. L., Casazza, M. L., Coates, P. S., Deibert, P. A., Hanser, S. E., and 

D. H. Johnson. 2014. Conservation buffer distance estimates for Greater Sage-Grouse—A 

review: US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014–1239. Internet website: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141239.

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.

MCFWS (Montana Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy). 2005. Montana Fish, 

Wildlife & Parks, 1420 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, Montana 59620.

MFWP (Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks). 2004. Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage 

Grouse in Montana: Environmental Assessment (revised).
7. References

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 7-11

____. 2005. Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage Grouse in Montana–Final. 

Prepared by: Montana Sage Grouse Work Group. February 1, 2005.

____. 2011. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 2011 Harvest and Hunting Estimates 

Reports, 2004-2011. Hard copy and internet sources. Internet website: 

http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/planahunt/harvestReports.html.

_____. 2014a. Montana Hunting Regulations: 2014 Upland Game Birds. Internet website: 

http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/regulations/.

_____. 2014b. Personal email correspondence from MFWP to Matt Comer with BLM LFO. November 

13, 2014.

Milchunas, D. G., O. E. Sala, and W. K. Lauenroth. 1988. A generalized model of the effects of grazing by 

large herbivores on grassland community structure. Am. Nat., 132, 87–106.

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.

Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation. 2012. Online Oil and Gas Information System. Internet 

website: 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. 2013. Montana Noxious Weed List. Effective December 2013. 

Internet website: http://agr.mt.gov/agr/Programs/Weeds/PDF/2013WeedList.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. University of Idaho Forest, Wildlife, and Range Policy Analysis Group Report.

MTDEQ (Montana Department of Environmental Quality). 2007. Montana Greenhouse Gas Inventory 

and Reference Case Projections 1990-2020. Center for Climate Strategies, September 2007. 

Internet website: http://www.mtclimatechange.us/ewebeditpro/items/O127F14011.PDF. 

Accessed on December 16th, 2012. p. v, Table ES-1.

_____. 2011. Internet website: http://deq.mt.gov/AirQuality/Planning/AirNonattainment.mcpx. Accessed 

on September 5, 2012.

MTNHP (Montana Natural Heritage Program). 2014a. Montana Plant Species of Concern Report. 

Internet web site: http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/?AorP=p. Accessed on November 13, 

2014.
7. References

7-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

_____. 2014b. Montana Natural Heritage Tracker. Internet website: 

http://mtnhp.org/Tracker/NHTMap.aspx. Accessed on November 13, 2014.

NADP/NTN (National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network). 2011 to 2013. 

Annual and Seasonal Summary for Sites MT07 and MT98. Internet website: 

http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/sites/siteinfo.asp?net=NTN&id=MT07. Accessed on January 23, 2015.

_____. 2014. Trend Plots for Sites MT07 and MT98. Internet website: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/sites/

sitemap.asp?state=mt. Accessed on January 30, 2013.

NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service). 2012. Internet website: 

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. Pp. 489-504 in S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly, editors. Greater SageGrouse: ecology of a landscape species and its habitats. Cooper Ornithological Union, University 

of California Press, Berkeley.

NCSL (National Conference of State Legislatures). 2008. North Dakota- Assessing the Costs of Climate 

Change. Climate Change and the Economy. Internet website: 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 website: 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 website:

ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NSSC/Soil_Taxonomy/tax.pdf. Accessed on January 16, 2013.

_____. 2011. Introduction to NRCS’ New Sage-Grouse Initiative: Wildlife Conservation through 

Sustainable Ranching. Department of Agriculture, Washington DC.

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 

website: http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/windmaps/resource_potential.asp. Accessed on

January 11, 2013.

_____. 2012a. “Classes of Wind Power Density at 10m and 50m” Table from Internet website: 

http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/tables/1-1T.html. Accessed on December 2012.

_____. 2012b. “Fuel from the Sky: Solar Power’s Potential for Western Energy Supply” Article from 

Internet website: http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/32160.pdf. Accessed on December 2012.

NTT (National Technical Team). 2011. National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures/Planning 

Strategy. December 21, 2011.
7. References

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 7-13

Parks Canada. 2002. Grasslands National Park of Canada: Management Plan. Parks Canada, Western 

Canada Service Centre. Winnipeg, Manitoba.

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.

Prichard, D., F. Berg, S. Leonard, M. Manning, W. Hagenbuck, R. Krapf, C. Noble, et al. 1999. Riparian 

Area Management A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science 

for Lentic Areas (TR 1737-16). Prepared for the United States Department of the Interior and the 

United States Department of Agriculture. BLM, National Applied Resource Sciences Center. 

Denver, Colorado.

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 website: 

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.

Sant, E. D., G. E. Simonds, R. D. Ramsey and R. T. Larsen. 2014. Assessment of sagebrush cover using 

remote sensing at multiple spatial and temporal scales. Ecological Indicators 43: 297-305.

Schroeder et al. 1999. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). The Birds of North America 

Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Internet website: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/425/articles/introduction. Accessed on February 22, 

2011.

Schroeder, M. A., C. L. Aldridge, A. D. Apa, J. R. Bohne, C. E. Braun, S. D. Bunnell, J. W. Connelly, et al. 

2004. Distribution of sage-grouse in North America. Condor 106:363-376.

Schroeder, M. A. and R. K. Baydack. 2001. Predation and the management of prairie grouse. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 29:24-32.

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. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-289.

Shlisky, A., J. Waugh, P. Gonzalez, M. Gonzalez, M. Manta, H. Santoso, E. Alvarado, et al. 2007. “Fire, 

ecosystems and people: Threats and strategies for global biodiversity conservation.” The Nature 

Conservancy Global Fire Initiative Technical Report 2007-2.
7. References

7-14 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Smith, R. 2013. Conserving Montana’s sagebrush highway: long distance migration in sage-grouse. 

Master’s Thesis. University of Montana, Missoula. 47pp.

State Department (US Department of State). 2010. Fifth US climate action report. Washington, DC: 

Global Publishing Services. Internet website: 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.

Stevens, B. S., D. Naugle, B. Dennis, J. W. Connelly, T. Griffiths, and K. P. Reese. 2013. Mapping sagegrouse fence collision risk: Spatially explicit models to target conservation implementation. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:409-415.

Stevens, B. S., J. W. Connelly, and K. P. Reese. 2012. Multi-scale assessment of Greater sage-grouse 

fence collision as a function of site and broad scale factors. Journal of Wildlife Management 

76:1370-1380.

Stiver, S. J., A. D. Apa, J. R. Bohne, S. D. Bunnell, P. A. Deibert, S. C. Gardner, M. A. Hilliard, et al. 2006. 

Greater Sage-Grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies. Unpublished report. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, and D. E. Naugle. 2010. Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework. US Bureau of 

Land Management, Idaho State Office, Boise.

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.

Taylor, R. L., B. L. Walker, D. E. Naugle, and L. S. Mills. 2012. Managing multiple vital rates to maximize 

greater sage-grouse population growth. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:336-347.

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, Montana.

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.

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.
7. References

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 7-15

USDA, NRCS Montana. 2014. Ecological Site Descriptions. Internet website: 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/mt/technical/landuse/pasture/?cid=nrcs144p2_05

7024. Accessed on January 28, 2014.

US Department of Commerce. 2000 and 2010. 2000 and 2010 Census historic data. Internet website: 

http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/nd190090.txt.

_____. 2005. Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of 

Commerce.

_____. 2012a. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Office, Washington, DC.

_____. 2012b. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, Washington, DC. 

Table CA30.

_____. 2014. Model-based Small Area Income & Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) for School Districts, 

Counties, and States. Internet website: http://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe/.

US Energy Information Administration. 2013. US States, Rankings: Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2010. 

Internet website: http://www.eia.gov/beta/state/rankings/?sid=US#/series/98. Accessed on 

February 15, 2013.

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered: Notice of 12-month petition findings. 75 

Federal Register 13910. March 23, 2010.

_____. 2013. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. February 2013.

_____. 2015. Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species Montana Counties. Ecological 

Services Montana Field Office (January 2015). Internet website: 

http://www.fws.gov/montanafieldoffice/Endangered_Species/Listed_Species.html. Accessed on 

March 26, 2015.

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 website: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/

habitat/fire/undesire.htm. Accessed on January 29, 2013.

_____. 2010. GAP Land Cover Data Set, version 2.

Vavra, M. 2005. Livestock grazing and wildlife: developing compatibilities. Rangeland Ecology and 

Management 58:128-134.
7. References

7-16 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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-Grouse: ecology 

of a landscape species and its habitat. Cooper Ornithological Union, University of California 

Press, Berkeley.

Wallestad, R. O. 1975. Life history and habitat requirements of sage grouse in central Montana. Montana 

Department of Fish and Game, Technical Bulletin, Helena.

Wallestad, R. and D. Pyrah. 1974. Movement and nesting of sage grouse hens in central Montana. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 38:630-633.

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 

website: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/spi/divplot1map.html. Accessed on September 6, 2012.

_____. 2013. Climate of Montana. Internet website: 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.

Woodward, J. K. 2006. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in central Montana., 

Montana State University, Bozeman.
7. References

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 7-17

7.2 GREATER SAGE-GROUSE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS REFERENCES (SECTION 

5.3 IN CHAPTER 5)

Apa, T., J. Bohne, T. Christiansen, J. Herbert, B. James, R. Northrup, D. Olsen, A. Robinson, P. Schnurr, 

T. O. Smith, and B. Walker. 2008. Using the Best Available Science to Coordinate Conservation 

Actions that Benefit Sage-Grouse Across States Affected by Oil and Gas Development in 

Management Zones I-II (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and 

Wyoming).

Arkle R. S., D. S. Pilliod, S. E. Hanser, M. L. Brooks, J. C. Chamgers, J. B. Grace, K. C. Knutson, D. A. 

Pyke, J. L. Welty, T. A. Wirth. 2014. “Quantifying restoration effectiveness using multi-scale 

habitat models: implications for sage-grouse in the Great Basin.” Ecosphere 5 (3): pp. 1-32.

Baker, W. L. 2011. Pre- Euro-American and recent fire in sagebrush ecosystems, in Knick, S. T. and J. W. 

Connelly, eds., Greater sage-grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species: Berkeley, 

California, University of California Press, p. 185–202.

Bates Hole/Shirley Basin Sage-grouse Working Group. 2007. Bates Hole/Shirley Basin Sage-grouse 

Conservation Plan.

Beck, J. L., and D. L. Mitchell. 2000. “Influences of livestock grazing on sage grouse habitat.” Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 28:993-1002.

Beyer, A. C., M. A. Foster, and H. S. Denson. 2010. Upland game bird surveys, inventory and 

management: July 1, 2006–June 30, 2010. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks PittmanRobertson Report. 

Big Horn Basin Sage-Grouse Working Group. 2007. Sage-grouse Conservation Plan for the Big Horn 

Basin, Wyoming. Internet website: http://greatbasin.wr.usgs.gov/LWG/

LWGdetail.asp?State=WY&LWG=56.

BLM (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 1991. Record of Decision 

Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western 

States. BLM, Wyoming State Office. Cheyenne.

_____. 2003. OHV Laws and Regulations. Montana/Dakotas. Internet website: 

http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/prog/recreation/ohv.html. Accessed on March 31, 2015.

_____. 2005. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on 

BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States. FES 05-11. Washington, DC. June 2005.

_____. 2007. Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States 

Programmatic Environmental Report. June 2007, FES 07-21. Reno, Nevada and Washington, DC. 

Internet website: www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/veg_eis.html. 

_____. 2012a. Q & A for the Buffalo Field Office Viability Analysis for Conservation of Sage-Grouse 

Populations. Internet website: www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Wildlife/sage-grouse.html. 

Accessed on September 14, 2014.
7. References

7-18 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

_____. 2012b. Northwestern Plains Rapid Ecological Assessment. Final Memorandum. Internet website: 

www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/Landscape_Approach/reas/nwplains.html.

_____. 2013a. Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations. Washington, DC.

_____. 2013b. Powder River Basin Restoration Program fact sheet. Internet website: 

www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Buffalo/PRBrestoration.html. Accessed on January 21, 2014.

_____. 2015. Geographic Information Systems Data. National Operations Center, Denver, Colorado.

Bock, C. E., J. H. Bock, and H. M. Smith. 1993. “Proposal for a system of federal livestock exclosures on 

public rangelands in the western United States.” Conservation Biology 7:731-733.

Bradley, Bethany A. 2009. "Regional analysis of the impacts of climate change on cheatgrass invasion 

shows potential risk and opportunity." Global Change Biology 15.1: 196-208.

Braun, C. E., T. Britt, and R. O. Wallestad. 1977. “Guidelines for maintenance for sage grouse habitats.” 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 5(3):99-106.

Braun, C. E., O. O. Oedekoven, and C. L. Aldridge. 2002. “Oil and gas developments in western North 

America: Effects on sagebrush steppe avifauna with particular emphasis on sage-grouse.” 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 67: 337.

Braun, C.E. 1998. Sage Grouse declines in western North America: what are the problems? Proceedings 

of the Western Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies 78: 139-156.

Christiansen, T. 2013. Wyoming Sage-Grouse Population Trend Data – 1995-2013. Unpublished data. 

Wyoming Game and Fish. August 24, 2013.

Coates, P. S. 2007. “Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) nest predation and incubation 

behavior.” Doctoral dissertation, Idaho State University, Pocatello.

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(4):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.

Copeland, H. E., A. Pocewicz, D. E. Naugle, T. Griffiths, D. Keinath, J. Evans, J. Platt. 2013. “Measuring 

the effectiveness of conservation: A novel framework to quantify the benefits of sage-grouse 

conservation policy and easements in Wyoming. PLoS ONE 8(6): e67261. 

Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0067261. 

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Considering Cumulative Impacts under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. January 1997.
7. References

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 7-19

Davies K. W., C. S. Boyd, J. L. Beck, J. D. Bates, T. J. Svejcar, M. A. Gregg. 2010. “Saving the sagebrush 

sea: An ecosystem conservation plan for big sagebrush plant communities.” Biological 

Conservation 144:2573-2584.

Doherty, K. E., D. E. Naugle, B. L. Walker, and J. M. Graham. 2008. Greater Sage-Grouse Winter 

Habitat Selection and Energy Development. University of Montana.

Doherty, K. E., Tack, J. S. Evans, and D. E. Naugle. 2010. Mapping Breeding Densities of Greater SageGrouse: A Tool for Range-Wide Conservation Planning. Prepared for the Bureau of Land 

Management, CLM Completion Report: Interagency Agreement #L10PG00911. September 24, 

2010. 

Doherty, K. E., J. L. Beck, and D. E. Naugle. 2011. “Comparing ecological site descriptions to habitat 

characteristics influencing greater sage-grouse nest site occurrence and success.” Rangeland 

Ecology & Management 64:344-351.

Doherty, K.E., D.E. Naugle, J.D. Tack, B.L. Walker, J.M. Graham and J.L. Beck. 2014. Linking conservation 

actions to demography: grass height explains variation in greater sage-grouse nest survival open 

access. Wildlife Biology 20(6):320-325.

Fischer, R. A., K. P. Reese, and J. W. Connelly. 1996. Influence of vegetal moisture content and nest fate 

on timing of female sage grouse migration. The Condor, Vol. 98:868-872.

Forman, R. T. T., and L .E. Alexander 1998. “Roads and their major ecological effects.” Annual Review of 

Ecology and Systematics. 29:207–31.

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. 293-381. In: S. T. Knick and 

J. W. Connelly (eds.), Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats. 

Cooper Ornithological Union, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Garton, E.O., A. G. Wells , J.A. Baumgardt and J.W. Connelly. 2015. Greater Sage-Grouse Population 

Dynamics and Probability of Persistence. Final Report to Pew Charitable Trusts. March 18.

George, M. R., R. D. Jackson, C. S. Boyd, K. W. Tate. 2011. “A scientific assessment of the effectiveness 

of riparian management practices. In: D. D. Briske (ed.), Conservation Benefits of Rangeland 

Practices: Assessment, Recommendations, and Knowledge Gaps. Washington, DC: USDANRCS. Pp. 213-252.

Gillen, R. L., W. C. Krueger, and R. F. Miller. 1984. “Cattle distribution on mountain rangeland in 

northeastern Oregon.” Journal of Range Management 37:549-553.

Glasgow, Montana Sage-grouse Local Working Group. 2011. A Summary of Conservation Activities of 

the Glasgow, Montana Sage-grouse Local Working Group. Internet website:

http://greatbasin.wr.usgs.gov/LWG/LWGdetail.asp?State=MT&LWG=26.

Gregg, M. A., J. A. Crawford, M. S. Drut, and A. K. DeLong. 1994. “Vegetation cover and predation of 

sage grouse nests in Oregon.” Journal of Wildlife Management 58(1):162-166.
7. References

7-20 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Advisory Council. 2014. Montana’s Greater Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Conservation Strategy.

Haferkamp, Marshall R. 2001. Annual Bromes - Good or Bad? A Question and answer on the impact 

annual bromes have on rangelands. Rangelands 23: 32-35.

Hansen, A. J., R. L. Knight, J. M. Marzluff, S. Powell, K. Brown, P. H. Gude, K. Jones. 2005. Effects of 

Exurban Development on Biodiversity: Patterns, Mechanisms, and Research Needs. Ecological 

Applications, 15 (6): 1893-1905.

Holloran, M. J. 2005. “Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) population response to natural 

gas field development in western Wyoming.” Thesis. University of Wyoming Department of 

Zoology and Physiology, Laramie.

Holloran, M. J., and S. H. Anderson. 2005. “Greater sage-grouse populations response to natural gas 

development in western Wyoming: Are regional populations affected by relatively localized 

disturbances?” In: Wildlife Management Institute (ed.), Transactions from the 70th North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference (March 16-19, 2005, Arlington, Virginia). 

Wildlife Management Institute.

Johnson, D. J., 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 population, 

1997-2007.” Pp. 407-450. In: S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (eds.), Studies in Avian Biology. 

Cooper Ornithological Union, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Knick, S. T. 2011. “Historical development, principal federal legislation and current management of 

sagebrush habitats: Implications for conservation.” Pp. 13-32. In: S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly 

(eds.), Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats. Cooper 

Ornithological Union, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Knick, S. T., and S. E. Hanser. 2011. “Connecting pattern and process in greater sage- grouse 

populations and sagebrush landscapes.” Pp. 383-406. In: S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (eds.), 

Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats. Cooper Ornithological 

Union, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Knick, S. T., D. S. Dobkin, J. T. Rotenberry, M. A. Schroeder, W. M. Vander Haegen, and C. van Riper. 

2003. “Teetering on the edge or too late? Conservation issues for avifauna of sagebrush 

habitats.” The Condor 105(4):611-634.

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.” In: S. T. Knick and J. W. 

Connelly (eds.), Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and its 

Habitats. Studies in Avian Biology Vol. 38:203-251. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Leu, M., and M. M. Rowland. 2005. Assessment of Threats to Sagebrush Habitats and Associated Species 

of Concern in the Wyoming Basins. Version 1.1. Unpublished report on file at USGS Biological 

Resources Discipline, Snake River Field Station. June 2005.
7. References

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 7-21

Leu, M., S.E. Hanser, and S.T. Knick. 2008. The human footprint in the West: a large-scale analysis of 

anthropogenic impacts. Ecological Applications 18:1119-1139.

Leu, M., and S. E. Hanser. 2011. “Influences of the human footprint on sagebrush landscape patterns.” 

Pp. 253-271. In: S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (eds.), Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology of a 

Landscape Species and Its Habitats. Cooper Ornithological Union, University of California Press, 

Berkeley.

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.

Manier, D. J., D. J. A. Wood, Z. H. Bowen, R. M. Donovan, M. J. Holloran, L. M. Juliusson, K. S. Mayne, et 

al. 2013. Summary of Science, Activities, Programs and Policies that Influence the Range-Wide 

Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). US Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2013-1098, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Martin, N. S. 1970. “Sagebrush control related to habitat and sage grouse occurrence.” Journal of 

Wildlife Management 34(2):313-320.

MFWP. Helena. Greater Sage-grouse Distribution (GIS). August 10, 2010. Internet website: 

fwp.mt.gov/gis/gisData/metadata/distributionSageGrouse.htm. 

Miles City Sage-Grouse Local Working Group. 2014. Miles City Sage-Grouse Local Working Group 

Action Plan 2011-2014. http://greatbasin.wr.usgs.gov/LWG/LWGdetail.asp?State=MT&LWG=27.

Montana Sage Grouse Working Group 2005. Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage 

Grouse in Montana-Final. Revised February 1, 2005. 

Moynahan, B. J., M. S. Lindberg, J. J. Rotella, and J. W. Thomas. 2004. “Factors affecting nest survival of 

greater sage-grouse in north-central Montana.” Journal of Wildlife Management 71(6):1773-

1783.

Muscha, J. M.. and A. L. Hild. 2006. “Biological soil crusts in grazed and ungrazed Wyoming sagebrush 

steppe.” Journal of Arid Environments 64:195-207.

Naugle, D. E., C. L. Aldridge, B. L. Walker, T. E. Cornish, B. J. Moynahan, M. J. Holloran, K. Brown, et al. 

2004. “West Nile virus: Pending crisis of greater sage-grouse.” Ecology Letters 7:704-713.

Naugle, D. E., K. E. Doherty, B. L. Walker, J. Holloran, and H. E. Copeland. 2010. “Energy development 

and greater sage-grouse.” In: S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (eds.), Greater Sage-Grouse: 

Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and its Habitats. Studies in Avian Biology Vol. 

38:489–502. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Naugle, D. E., K. E. Doherty, B. L. Walker, M. J. Holloran, and H. E. Copeland. 2011. “Energy 

development and greater sage-grouse.” Pp. 489-504. In: S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (eds.), 

Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats. Cooper Ornithological 

Union, University of California Press, Berkeley.
7. References

7-22 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Nelle, P. J., K. P. Reese, and J. W. Connelly. 2000. “Long-term effects of fire on sage grouse habitat.” 

Journal of Range Management 53(6):586-591.

Northeast Wyoming Sage-Grouse Working Group. 2014. Northeast Wyoming Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Plan Addendum. February 25, 2014. http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/wildlife1000817.aspx’.

NRCS. 2015. Outcomes in Conservation: Sage Grouse Initiative. February 2015. 

http://www.sagegrouseinitiative.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ 

NRCS_SGI_Report.pdOedekoven, O. O. 2001. 2001 Sage Grouse Job Completion Report 

Sheridan Region. Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

Orabona, A., C. Rudd, M. Grenier, Z. Walker, S. Patla, and B. Oakleaf. 2012. Atlas of Birds, Mammals, 

Amphibians, and Reptiles in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department Nongame 

Program, Lander.

Pyle, W. J., and J. A. Crawford. 1996. “Availability of foods of sage grouse chicks following prescribed 

fire in sagebrush-bitterbrush.” Journal of Range Management 49(4):320-324.

Rashford, B. S., A. M. Schrag, J. Walker. 2013. Targeting Grassland Conservation: An Estimate of LandUse Conversion Risk in the Northern Great Plains. Internet website: 

www.plainsandprairiepotholeslcc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/12/FinalGrantTechnicalReport_small.pdf. 

Reisner, M. D., J. B. Grace, D. A. Pyke, and P. S. Doescher. 2013. “Conditions favoring Bromus tectorum

dominance of endangered sagebrush steppe ecosystems.” Journal of Applied Ecology 50:1039-

1049.

Robinson, A. C. 2014. Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Greater Sage-Grouse in North 

Dakota. North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Bismarck, North Dakota.

Samson, F. B., K. L. Knopf, and W. R. Ostlie. 2004. “Great Plains ecosystems: Past, present, and future.” 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(1):6-15.

Schroeder, M. A., J. R. Young, and C. E. Braun. 1999. “Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus).” P. 28. In: 

A. W. Poole and F. Gill (eds.), The Birds of North America 425 Ithaca, New York.

South Dakota Wildlife Division. 2014. Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Sage Grouse Management 

Plan 2014-2018.

State of Montana. 2014. Executive Order (No. 10-2014) Creating the Montana Sage Grouse Oversight 

Team and the Montana Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Program. Office of the Governor. 

September 9. Internet website: governor.mt.gov/Portals/16/docs/2014EOs/

EO_10_2014_SageGrouse.pdf. 

_____. 2012. Montana Field Guide. Internet website: fieldguide.mt.gov/default.aspx. Accessed on 

December 11, 2012.
7. References

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 7-23

Stevens, B. S., K. P. Reese, and J. W. Connelly. 2011. “Survival and detectability bias of avian fence 

collision surveys in sagebrush steppe.” Journal of Wildlife Management 75(2):437-449.

Stiver, S. J. 2011. “The legal status of greater sage-grouse: Organizational structure of planning efforts.” 

Pp. 33-49. In: S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (eds.) Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology of a Landscape 

Species and Its Habitats. Cooper Ornithological Union, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Stiver, S. J., A. D. Apa, J. R. Bohne, S. D. Bunnell, P. A. Diebert, S. C. Gardner, M. A. Hilliard, et al. 2006. 

Greater Sage-Grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy. Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies. 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.

Swenson, J. E., C. A. Simmons, and C. D. Eustace. 1987. “Decrease of sage grouse Centrocerus 

urophasianus after ploughing of sagebrush steppe.” Biological Conservation 41:125-132.

Taylor, R.L., D.E. Naugle, and L.S. Mills. 2010. Viability Analyses for Conservation of Sage-Grouse 

Populations. Miles City Field Office, Montana. Final Report.

Taylor, R. L., D. E. Naugle, and L. S. Mills. 2012. Viability Analyses for Conservation of Sage-Grouse 

Populations: Buffalo Field Office, Wyoming. Final Report. University of Montana, Missoula. 

February 27, 2012.

Thiele, D. 2005. Annual Sage-Grouse Completion Report for 2004. Northeast Wyoming Local Working 

Group Area. Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

USFWS. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List 

the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered. P. 107. In: 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior (ed.), FWS R6-ES-2010-0018. Federal 

Register, Washington, DC.

USFWS. 2013. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. February 2013.

Vance, L. K., and D. Stagliano. 2007. Watershed Assessment of Portions of the Lower Musselshell and 

Fort Peck Reservoir Sub-Basins. Report to the Bureau of Land Management, Billings, Montana. 

Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena.

Vermeire, L.T., Crowder, J.L., Wester, D.B. 2011. Plant Community and Soil Environment Response to 

Summer Fire in the Northern Great Plains. Rangeland Ecology and Management 64:37-46.

Walker, B. L., and D. E. Naugle. 2011. “West Nile virus ecology in sagebrush habitat and impacts on 

greater sage-grouse populations.” In: S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (eds.), Greater SageGrouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and its Habitats. Studies in Avian 

Biology Vol. 38:127-144. University of California Press, Berkeley.
7. References

7-24 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Walker, B. L., D. E. Naugle, and K. E. Doherty. 2007a. “Greater sage-grouse population response to 

energy development and habitat loss.” Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2644-2654.

_____. 2007b. “West Nile virus and greater sage-grouse: Estimating infection rate in a wild bird 

population.” Avian Diseases 51:691-696.

Western Area Power Administration. 2013. Upper Great Plains Wind Energy programmatic 

Environmental impact Statement (Draft). DOE/EIS-0408. March 2013.

Wisdom, M. J., C. W. Meinke, S. T. Knick, and M. A. Schroeder. 2011. “Factors associated with 

extirpation of sage-grouse.” Pp. 451-474. In: S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (eds.), Greater SageGrouse: Ecology of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats. Cooper Ornithological Union, 

University of California Press, Berkeley.

Wyoming Sage-Grouse Working Group (WSGWG). 2003. Wyoming Greater Sage-grouse 

Conservation Plan. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Wyoming Executive Order No. 2011-5. 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection: Casper, 

Wyoming, Governor’s Office, State of Wyoming. June 2, 2011.
Glossary

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final 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 (NRCS), 

Forest Service, US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

and Fish and Wildlife Service in 2011. This memorandum of understanding 

(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 
Glossary

Glossary-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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.

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. Motorized wheeled cross-country travel for lessees 

and permittees is limited to the administration of a federal lease or 

permit. Persons or corporations having such a permit or lease could perform 

administrative functions on public lands within the scope of the permit or lease; 

however, this would not preclude modifying permits or leases to limit 

motorized wheeled cross-country travel during further site-specific analysis to 

meet resource management objectives or standards and guidelines. (Off-Highway 

Vehicle Record of Decision and Proposed Plan Amendment for Montana, North 

Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota, June 2003).

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.
Glossary

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS Glossary-3

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.

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, 

Part 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.
Glossary

Glossary-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Attainment area. A geographic area in which levels of a criteria air pollutant 

meet the health-based 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. An area identified through resource management 

planning to be avoided but may be available for right-of-way location with special 

stipulations.

Baseline. The pre-existing condition of a defined area and/or resource that can 

be quantified by appropriate metrics. During environmental reviews, the 

baseline is considered the affected environment that exists at the time of the 

reviews initiation and is used to compare predictions of the effects of the 

proposed action or a reasonable range of alternatives.

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.

Biologically Significant Unit (BSU). A BSU for the Lewistown Field Office 

Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan Amendment is the summary 
Glossary

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS Glossary-5

of all the Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) within a Greater SageGrouse population as delineated in the Conservation Objectives Team report.

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, Part 2801.5. For examples for locatable minerals see 

43 CFR, Part 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, Part 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 and Northern Pacific). 

On land status maps this alternating ownership is either delineated by color 

coding or alphabetic code resulting in a “checkerboard” visual pattern. 

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.
Glossary

Glossary-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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, and desertification).

Closed area. Closed area means an area where off-road vehicle (aka OHV) 

use is prohibited. Use of off-road vehicles in closed areas may be allowed for 

certain reasons; however, such use shall be made only with the approval of the 

authorized officer. (43 CFR, Part 8340.0-5 (h)

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.

Communication site. Sites that include broadcast types of uses (e.g., 

television, AM/FM radio, cable television, and broadcast translator) and nonbroadcast uses (e.g., commercial or private mobile radio service, cellular 

telephone, microwave, local exchange network, and passive reflector).

Comprehensive trails and travel management. The proactive 

interdisciplinary planning; on-the-ground management and administration of 

travel networks (both motorized and non-motorized) 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 

suppression, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, introduction and establishment 
Glossary

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS Glossary-7

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 Sage-Grouse 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 

Administration-Fisheries to be federal candidates under the Endangered Species 

Act.

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, and 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, Part 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.
Glossary

Glossary-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Criteria pollutant. The US Environmental Protection Agency 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.

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). 

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 
Glossary

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS Glossary-9

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 gasbearing 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 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, and birthing), 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.
Glossary

Glossary-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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 Species Act in the US, “endangered” is the 

more-protected of the two categories. Designation as endangered (or 

threatened) is determined by US Fish and Wildlife Service 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, US Fish and Wildlife Service,

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.
Glossary

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS Glossary-11

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 identified through resource management planning that 

is not available for right-of-way location under any conditions.

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, all-terrain vehicles, motorized dirt bikes, etc.), mechanized uses 

(mountain bikes, wheelbarrows, 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 
Glossary

Glossary-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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 and prescribed fire). 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 fireextinguishing 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.

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. 
Glossary

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS Glossary-13

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.

Grant. Any authorization or instrument (e.g., easement, lease, license, or 

permit) BLM issues under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act (43 USC 1761 et. seq.), and those authorizations and instruments BLM and 

its predecessors issued for like purposes before October 21, 1976 under the

existing statutory authority. It does not include authorizations issued under the 

Mineral Leasing Act (43 USC 185).

Grazing preference. Grazing preference or preference means a superior or 

priority position against others for the purpose of receiving a grazing permit or 

lease. This priority is attached to base property owned or controlled by the 

permittee or lessee. (43 CFR, Part 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.

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, Part 4180.2. 
Glossary

Glossary-14 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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.

High voltage transmission lines. 100 kilovolt [kV] and over.

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, 

Part 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

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS Glossary-15

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 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act; an assimilation of land use plan level 

decisions developed through the planning process outlined in 43 CFR, Part

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, Part

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.

Large pipelines. 24 inches in width and over.

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).
Glossary

Glossary-16 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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, 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, Part 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 
Glossary

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS Glossary-17

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.

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.

Limited area: Means an area restricted at certain times, in certain areas, 

and/or to certain vehicular use. These restrictions may be of any type, but can 

generally be accommodated within the following type of categories: Numbers of 

vehicles; types of vehicles; time or season of vehicle use; permitted or licensed 

use only; use on existing roads and trails; use on designated roads and trails; and 

other restrictions. (43 CFR, Part 8340.0-5 (g)

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.
Glossary

Glossary-18 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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 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 
Glossary

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS Glossary-19

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 (Federal Land Policy and Management Act) 

(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.

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 
Glossary

Glossary-20 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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.

Net Conservation Gain. The intent of the Lewistown Field Office Greater 

Sage-Grouse Proposed Plan Amendment is to provide a net conservation gain 

to Greater Sage-Grouse. To do so, in undertaking BLM management actions, 

and, consistent with valid existing rights and applicable law, in authorizing third 

party actions that result in habitat loss and degradation within priority habitat 

(core population areas and core population connectivity corridors), the BLM 

will require and ensure mitigation that provides a net conservation gain to the 

species including accounting for any uncertainty associated with the 

effectiveness of such mitigation. This will be achieved by avoiding, minimizing, 

and compensating for impacts by applying beneficial mitigation actions.

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, and 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 surfacedisturbing 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.
Glossary

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS Glossary-21

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.

Occupancy. Occupancy means full- or part-time residence on public lands. It 

also means activities that involve residence; the construction, presence, or 

maintenance of temporary or permanent structures that may be used for such 

purposes; or the use of a watchman or caretaker for the purpose of monitoring 

activities. Residence or structures include, but are not limited to, barriers to 

access, fences, tents, motor homes, trailers, cabins, houses, buildings, and 

storage of equipment or supplies (43 CFR, Part 3715.0-5).

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; 

and (5) any combat or combat support vehicle when used for national defense

emergencies (43 CFR, Part 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, Part

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 Environmental Protection Agency 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).
Glossary

Glossary-22 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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 animal unit months (43 CFR, Part 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, Part 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, Part

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, Part

3809.401(b).

Planning area. The geographical area for which sage-grouse management plan

amendments are developed and maintained. The LFO Greater Sage-Grouse

RMPA/EIS planning area boundary defines the area assessed in this RMPA. The 

planning area encompasses 1,207,994 acres in Choteau, Fergus, Judith Basin, 

Meagher, and Petroleum Counties in central Montana. The BLM administers 

593,995 acres (about 4.9 percent) of the planning area and 1,509,263 acres of 

federal mineral estate (including BLM-administered lands).

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.
Glossary

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS Glossary-23

Prescribed fire. A wildland fire originating from a planned ignition to meet 

specific objectives identified in a written, approved, prescribed fire plan for 

which National Environmental Policy Act requirements (where applicable) have 

been met prior to ignition.

Primitive road. A linear route managed for use by four-wheel drive or highclearance 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).

Public Lands Not Designated as Recreation Management Areas. All 

lands not designated as a Special Recreation Management Area or Extensive 

Recreation Management Area.

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.
Glossary

Glossary-24 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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 pre-determined objectives and/or make it acceptable for 

certain defined resources (e.g., wildlife habitat, grazing, and ecosystem function).

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 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.
Glossary

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS Glossary-25

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). RDFs are required for certain activities in 

all Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. RDFs establish the minimum specifications for 

certain activities to help mitigate adverse impacts. However, the applicability and 

overall effectiveness of each RDF cannot be fully assessed until the project level 

when the project location and design are known. Because of site-specific 

circumstances, some RDFs 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 RDFs would require that at least one 

of the following be demonstrated in the NEPA analysis associated with the 

project/activity:

• A specific RDF is documented to not be applicable to the sitespecific conditions of the project/activity (e.g., due to site limitations 

or engineering considerations). Economic considerations, such as 

increased costs, do not necessarily require that an RDF be varied or 

rendered inapplicable;

• An alternative RDF is determined to provide equal or better 

protection for Greater Sage-Grouse or its habitat; and

• A specific RDF will provide no additional protection to Greater 

Sage-Grouse or its habitat.

Reserve common allotment. An area which is designated in the land use 

plan as available for livestock grazing but reserved as an area available for use as 

an alternative to grazing in another allotment in order to facilitate rangeland 

restoration treatments and recovery from natural disturbances such as drought 

or wildfire. The reserve common allotment would provide needed flexibility 

that would help the agency apply temporary rest from grazing where vegetation 

treatments and/or management would be most effective.

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 
Glossary

Glossary-26 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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. 

Right-of-way (ROW). Public lands the BLM authorizes a holder to use or 

occupy under a grant (i.e., road, pipeline, power line, and fiber optic line).

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 lowclearance 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.
Glossary

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS Glossary-27

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.” 

Sagebrush Focal Areas. Areas identified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service

that represent recognized “strongholds” for Greater Sage-Grouse that have 

been noted and referenced by the conservation community as having the highest 

densities of Greater Sage-Grouse and other criteria important for the 

persistence of Greater Sage-Grouse.

Sale (public land). A method of land disposal pursuant to Section 203 of the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act, whereby the US receives a fairmarket 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 resource management plan (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, 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 
Glossary

Glossary-28 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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.

Stipulation (general). A term or condition in an agreement or contract.
Glossary

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS Glossary-29

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, power line, 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). 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 near-surface (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), and/or administrative sites (e.g., 

government ware-yard) where only authorized agency personnel are admitted.
Glossary

Glossary-30 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Sustained yield. The achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a highlevel annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of 

the public lands consistent with multiple uses.

Technically/Economically Feasible. Actions that are practical or feasible 

from the technical and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather 

than simply desirable from the standpoint of the applicant. It is the BLM’s sole 

responsibility to determine what actions are technically and economically 

feasible. The BLM will consider whether implementation of the proposed action 

is likely given past and current practice and technology; this consideration does 

not necessarily require a cost-benefit analysis or speculation about an applicant’s 

costs and profit” (Modified from the CEQ’s 40 Most Asked Questions and BLM 

NEPA Handbook, Section 6.6.3).

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 lesser-protected of the two 

categories. Designation as threatened (or endangered) is determined by US Fish 

and Wildlife Service 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, and construction of wells and/or pads), and other surfacedisturbing 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 no surface occupancy

and controlled surface use, as well as with areas that have no other restrictions.
Glossary

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS Glossary-31

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 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 H-1601-1 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.
Glossary

Glossary-32 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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, Part 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, BLM-administered 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.

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.
Glossary

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS Glossary-33

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) of the 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.

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 
Glossary

Glossary-34 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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.

Wildfire: Unplanned ignitions or prescribed fires that are declared wildfires. 

Wildfires may be managed to meet one or more objectives as specified in the 

Resource Management Plan and these objectives can change as the fire spreads 

across the landscape (NWCG #024-2010 Memorandum, April 30, 2010).

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; these fires are now included within the 

“Wildfire” definition).

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 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.
Index

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS Index-1

INDEX

Adaptive Management, 1-18, 1-26, 2-3, 2-11, 

2-31, 2-32, 2-33, 2-34, 2-36, 2-38, 2-75, 2-76, 

2-80, 2-82, 2-82, 2-84, 2-86, 2-88, 2-89, 2-91, 

2-92, 2-94, 2-99, 2-100, 2-101, 2-102, 2-103, 

2-104, 4-34, 4-36, 4-38, 4-40, 4-52, 4-60, 

4-81, 4-95, 4-118, 4-128, 4-144, 4-171, 4-184, 

4-205, 4-218, 5-15, 5-28, 5-33, 5-34, 5-62, 

5-72, 5-84, 5-86, 5-88, 5-90

Air quality, 1-27, 3-1, 3-73, 3-74, 3-75, 3-76, 

3-77, 3-78, 3-79, 3-108, 4-153, 4-154, 5-80, 

5-81

Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC), 1-10, 2-42, 2-43, 2-45, 2-50, 2-54, 

2-55, 2-56, 2-71, 2-95, 3-3, 3-29, 3-30, 3-72, 

3-73, 4-9, 4-19, 4-23, 4-27, 4-30, 4-31, 4-33, 

4-38, 4-42, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-68, 

4-74, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-81, 4-83, 4-86, 4-88, 

4-90, 4-91, 4-93, 4-95, 4-98, 4-102, 4-106, 

4-110, 4-121, 4-123, 4-125, 4-126, 4-128, 

4-129, 4-134, 4-138, 4-140, 4-142, 4-144, 

4-147, 4-148, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 4-150, 

4-151, 4-152, 4-154, 4-157, 4-163, 4-164, 

4-175, 4-176, 4-191, 4-195, 4-198, 4-199, 

4-202, 4-205, 4-207, 4-211, 4-213, 4-214, 

4-215, 4-217, 4-219, 4-221, 4-227, 4-228, 

4-230, 4-231, 5-60, 5-67, 5-71, 5-77, 5-79, 

6-11, 6-12, 6-14, 6-18

Best Management Practice (BMP), 1-16, 2-63, 

2-65, 4-98, 5-53, 5-61, 6-13

Biologically Significant Unit (BSU), 2-17, 2-27, 

2-33, 2-34, 4-114, 4-118

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), 3-25, 4-55, 6-3

Candidate species, 3-5, 4-187

Cheatgrass, 2-68, 3-1, 3-16, 3-17, 3-32, 3-36, 

3-37, 3-41, 3-42, 3-82, 4-10, 4-11, 4-64, 4-65, 

4-85, 5-41, 5-45, 5-47, 5-52, 5-69

Clean Water Act, 2-59, 3-87, 3-90, 4-194, 4-211

Coal, 2-26, 2-42, 2-43, 2-45, 2-47, 2-64, 2-65, 

3-53, 3-54, 3-81, 4-19, 4-25, 4-31, 4-45, 4-68, 

4-82, 4-86, 4-87, 4-89, 4-100, 4-101, 4-102, 

4-122, 4-134, 4-160, 4-163, 4-165, 4-167, 

4-168, 4-169, 4-170, 4-172, 4-173, 4-175, 

4-177, 4-179, 4-180, 4-181, 4-182, 4-183, 

4-185, 4-194, 4-197, 4-204, 4-206, 4-211, 

4-213, 4-217, 4-219, 5-19, 5-22, 5-24, 5-26, 

5-27, 5-28, 5-29, 5-30, 5-65

Communication site, 2-9, 3-23, 3-29, 3-107, 

4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-61, 5-5, 5-36, 5-37, 

5-67

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 1-17, 

2-6, 2-37, 2-39, 3-108, 4-6, 5-1, 5-7, 6-1, 6-7

County, Chouteau, 1-7, 3-18, 3-47, 3-48, 3-100, 

3-109, 3-110, 6-3, 6-16

County, Fergus, 1-7, 1-24, 3-42, 3-48, 3-49, 

3-55, 3-61, 3-71, 3-110, 5-67, 5-77, 6-3, 6-16

County, Judith Basin, 1-7, 3-55, 3-110, 6-3, 6-16

County, Meagher, 1-5, 1-7, 1-24, 3-18, 3-40, 

3-60, 3-83, 3-95, 3-100, 3-110, 6-3, 6-16

County, Petroleum, 1-6, 1-7, 2-109, 3-2, 3-12, 

3-18, 3-27, 3-42, 3-47, 3-48, 3-53, 3-54, 3-60, 

3-102, 3-103, 3-105, 3-110, 4-22, 4-26, 4-30, 

4-225, 5-6, 5-67, 5-77, 5-83, 5-85, 6-3, 6-4, 

6-16, 6-17

Eagle, golden, 3-8, 3-9, 4-16, 4-187, 5-35
Index

Index-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Emergency stabilization and rehabilitation, 2-29, 

2-30, 2-69, 2-70, 4-27, 4-53, 4-77, 4-80, 

4-149, 4-198, 4-201, 4-204, 4-215, 4-217

Endangered species, 3-5, 3-24, 4-8, 4-17, 4-23, 

4-27, 4-191, 5-42, 6-3

Endangered Species Act (ESA), 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 

1-4, 1-14, 2-10, 2-37, 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-98, 

4-187, 4-205, 4-217, 5-18, 5-21, 5-78, 6-3

Environmental justice, 1-12, 3-108, 3-109, 

3-110, 4-231, 5-92

Exclusion area, 1-25, 2-1, 2-20, 2-41, 2-42, 2-47, 

2-54, 2-55, 2-76, 2-77, 2-81, 2-82, 2-88, 2-94, 

2-98, 2-101, 2-105, 2-107, 2-108, 2-110, 3-29, 

4-4, 4-16, 4-19, 4-20, 4-25, 4-26, 4-28, 4-30, 

4-32, 4-35, 4-39, 4-40, 4-43, 4-55, 4-58, 4-59, 

4-66, 4-68, 4-72, 4-75, 4-77, 4-79, 4-81, 4-87, 

4-88, 4-90, 4-92, 4-109, 4-111, 4-121, 4-124, 

4-126, 4-135, 4-138, 4-147, 4-148, 4-151, 

4-160, 4-163, 4-164, 4-166, 4-168, 4-171, 

4-173, 4-175, 4-176, 4-178, 4-180, 4-184, 

4-186, 4-189, 4-191, 4-192, 4-193, 4-196, 

4-199, 4-206, 4-208, 4-209, 4-210, 4-212, 

4-214, 4-218, 4-220, 4-221, 4-222, 4-223, 

4-224, 4-227, 4-228, 4-229, 5-36, 5-60, 5-61, 

5-68, 5-70, 5-71, 5-75, 5-77, 5-84, 5-86, 5-87, 

5-90, 5-91, 6-13

Extensive recreation management area (ERMA), 

2-90, 3-59, 3-60, 3-62, 3-63, 4-56, 4-119, 

4-120, 4-121, 4-125, 4-126, 4-127

Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA), 1-1, 1-8, 1-10, 1-15, 1-17, 1-19, 2-7, 

2-20, 2-55, 2-73, 3-24, 3-29, 3-64, 3-72, 

3-106, 4-2, 4-57, 4-107, 4-122, 4-123, 6-4, 

6-11, 6-13

Federal mineral estate, 1-6, 1-7, 2-88, 3-2, 3-52, 

3-54, 3-55, 3-57, 4-2, 4-96, 4-98, 4-99, 4-102, 

4-106, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-172, 4-185, 

5-28, 5-29, 5-30, 5-57, 5-58, 5-65, 5-74, 5-75

Fire management, 1-4, 1-12, 2-28, 2-68, 2-69, 

2-80, 2-86, 3-42, 3-47, 4-48, 4-83, 4-84, 4-85, 

4-86, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-95, 

4-134, 4-195, 4-211, 5-53, 5-72, 5-73, 6-14

Fire regime condition class (FRCC), 3-42, 3-44, 

4-83

Fire, suppression, 2-28, 2-29, 2-34, 2-42, 2-45, 

2-69, 2-80, 2-85, 2-97, 3-32, 3-42, 4-10, 4-18, 

4-23, 4-24, 4-27, 4-30, 4-31, 4-45, 4-46, 4-48, 

4-65, 4-74, 4-77, 4-84, 4-85, 4-86, 4-87, 4-89, 

4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-132, 4-140, 4-154, 

4-158, 4-187, 4-195, 4-198, 4-201, 4-204, 

4-211, 4-213, 4-215, 4-217, 4-232, 5-52, 5-53, 

5-59, 5-69, 5-72, 5-73, 5-86, 5-89

Fire/burning, prescribed, 2-28, 2-67, 2-68, 2-80, 

2-85, 3-41, 4-11, 4-18, 4-24, 4-33, 4-46, 4-47, 

4-46, 4-48, 4-65, 4-74, 4-82, 4-85, 4-87, 4-94, 

4-146, 4-154, 4-158, 4-191, 4-194, 4-198, 

4-204, 4-207, 4-219, 5-4, 5-46, 5-53, 5-59, 

5-61, 5-70, 5-71, 5-72, 5-73, 5-78, 5-82, 5-84, 

5-87, 5-89

Fuel load, 2-80, 3-32, 3-40, 4-15, 4-24, 4-48, 

4-65, 4-67, 4-74, 4-77, 4-78, 4-83, 4-84, 4-85, 

4-87, 4-88, 4-90, 4-91, 4-95, 4-149, 4-154, 

4-158, 4-198, 5-41, 5-52, 5-60, 5-69, 5-70, 

5-71

Fugitive dust, 3-79, 4-66, 4-68, 4-153, 4-154, 

4-155, 4-233, 5-3, 5-80

General habitat (GH), 1-2, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-12, 

1-14, 1-26, 2-2, 2-40, 2-66, 3-4, 3-7, 3-11, 

3-12, 3-14, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 3-21, 3-22, 3-25, 

3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-32, 3-36, 3-37, 

3-38, 3-39, 3-41, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 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, 3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 3-66, 3-67, 

3-68, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 3-84, 3-85, 3-86, 3-87, 

3-88, 3-89, 3-92, 3-94, 3-95, 3-96, 3-101, 

3-107, 4-9, 4-18, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-38, 

4-39, 4-48, 4-50, 4-57, 4-62, 4-123, 4-135, 

4-188, 4-196, 4-227, 5-5, 5-9, 5-15, 5-67, 

5-68, 5-70, 5-71, 5-72, 5-74, 5-77, 5-89

General Habitat Management Area (GHMA), 

1-2, 1-3, 1-5, 1-14, 1-22, 1-25, 1-27, 2-1, 2-3, 

2-11, 2-12, 2-17, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-22, 2-23, 

2-25, 2-26, 2-27, 2-29, 2-30, 2-36, 2-39, 2-40, 

2-41, 2-42, 2-43, 2-44, 2-45, 2-46, 2-47, 2-48, 

2-49, 2-50, 2-53, 2-54, 2-55, 2-56, 2-57, 2-58, 

2-59, 2-60, 2-61, 2-62, 2-62, 2-63, 2-62, 2-63, 

2-64, 2-63, 2-64, 2-64, 2-65, 2-66, 2-67, 2-68, 

2-69, 2-70, 2-71, 2-74, 2-75, 2-76, 2-77, 2-79, 

2-81, 2-82, 2-83, 2-85, 2-86, 2-88, 2-89, 2-90, 

2-91, 2-92, 2-94, 2-96, 2-97, 2-98, 2-99, 

2-100, 2-101, 2-103, 2-104, 2-105, 2-106, 

2-107, 2-108, 4-8, 4-9, 4-13, 4-20, 4-24, 4-25, 

4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-32, 4-35, 4-38, 

4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-46, 4-48, 

4-50, 4-52, 4-53, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-62, 4-66, 

4-69, 4-72, 4-74, 4-75, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-81, 

4-82, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-98, 4-99, 4-100, 

4-104, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 4-111, 4-112, 

4-113, 4-115, 4-117, 4-124, 4-126, 4-127, 

4-128, 4-132, 4-135, 4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 
Index

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS Index-3

4-145, 4-155, 4-158, 4-166, 4-167, 4-168, 

4-169, 4-170, 4-171, 4-172, 4-178, 4-180, 

4-181, 4-182, 4-183, 4-184, 4-185, 4-188, 

4-191, 4-192, 4-193, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 

4-198, 4-199, 4-200, 4-201, 4-202, 4-203, 

4-205, 4-206, 4-209, 4-212, 4-213, 4-214, 

4-215, 4-218, 4-228, 4-229, 4-230, 5-7, 5-8, 

5-10, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 5-19, 5-26, 5-27, 5-29, 

5-30, 5-31, 5-32, 5-33, 5-34, 5-35, 5-36, 5-37, 

5-39, 5-40, 5-43, 5-44, 5-48, 5-50, 5-52, 5-55, 

5-58, 5-59, 5-60, 5-62, 5-63, 5-67, 5-68, 5-70, 

5-71, 5-72, 5-74, 5-77, 5-89

General habitat, preliminary (PGH), 3-4, 3-11, 

3-12, 3-14, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 3-21, 3-22, 3-25, 

3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-32, 3-36, 3-37, 

3-38, 3-39, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 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, 3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 3-66, 3-67, 3-68, 

3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 3-84, 3-85, 3-86, 3-87, 3-89, 

3-92, 3-94, 3-95, 3-96, 3-101, 3-107, 5-31, 

5-33, 5-34, 5-37, 5-39, 5-43, 5-50, 5-55, 5-74

Geothermal, 1-22, 3-30, 3-31, 3-47, 3-98, 5-24

Grazing, allotment, 1-9, 2-21, 2-22, 2-22, 2-23, 

2-24, 2-25, 2-29, 2-30, 2-41, 2-44, 2-56, 2-57, 

2-57, 2-58, 2-60, 2-61, 2-62, 2-69, 2-70, 2-71, 

2-78, 2-84, 2-93, 2-95, 3-41, 3-47, 3-64, 3-65, 

3-66, 3-67, 3-68, 3-106, 4-43, 4-85, 4-130, 

4-131, 4-132, 4-134, 4-136, 4-137, 4-139, 

4-143, 4-146, 4-177, 4-186, 4-196, 4-203, 

4-208, 4-216, 4-217, 4-227, 5-42, 5-44, 6-13

Grazing, management, 1-23, 2-8, 2-12, 2-16, 

2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 2-28, 2-41, 2-57, 2-57, 2-58, 

2-60, 2-61, 2-68, 2-68, 2-70, 2-73, 2-83, 2-93, 

2-102, 2-105, 2-107, 3-64, 3-65, 3-68, 3-69, 

3-70, 3-71, 4-14, 4-15, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-67, 

4-73, 4-76, 4-85, 4-91, 4-131, 4-133, 4-134, 

4-136, 4-145, 4-147, 4-160, 4-162, 4-164, 

4-197, 4-216, 5-18, 5-20, 5-41, 5-46, 5-51, 

5-59, 5-61, 5-70, 5-71, 5-78

Land tenure adjustments, 2-21, 2-56, 3-23, 3-31, 

3-107, 4-8, 4-17, 4-41, 4-54, 4-56, 4-58, 4-60,

4-61, 4-68, 4-81, 4-192, 4-206, 4-218, 5-49, 

5-67

Leasing, oil and gas, 1-5, 1-14, 3-49, 3-50, 3-53, 

4-13, 4-66, 5-4, 5-27, 5-28, 5-74, 5-83, 5-85, 

5-87, 5-89

Lek, 1-3, 1-23, 1-26, 2-3, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 

2-15, 2-17, 2-25, 2-30, 2-32, 2-33, 2-42, 2-53, 

2-54, 2-61, 2-63, 2-75, 2-76, 2-78, 2-80, 2-81, 

2-82, 2-83, 2-84, 2-86, 2-87, 2-88, 2-89, 2-91, 

2-92, 2-99, 2-100, 2-101, 2-102, 2-103, 2-104, 

3-7, 3-11, 3-12, 3-16, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 

3-22, 3-23, 3-30, 3-95, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-12, 

4-13, 4-16, 4-22, 4-26, 4-30, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 

4-36, 4-38, 4-40, 4-44, 4-52, 4-56, 4-59, 4-60, 

4-77, 4-81, 4-83, 4-94, 4-100, 4-104, 4-113, 

4-116, 4-117, 4-119, 4-125, 4-128, 4-144, 

4-151, 4-167, 4-171, 4-180, 4-184, 4-191, 

4-198, 4-205, 4-214, 4-218, 5-8, 5-12, 5-13, 

5-14, 5-16, 5-17, 5-19, 5-21, 5-24, 5-25, 5-28, 

5-30, 5-35, 5-37, 5-38, 5-40, 5-45, 5-55, 5-56, 

5-59, 5-61, 5-63, 5-66, 5-72, 5-76, 5-84, 5-86, 

5-88, 5-90

Listed species, see Threatened and endangered 

species, 3-6, 4-205, 4-217, 5-21

Minerals, entry, 2-65, 2-100, 2-103, 3-55, 4-25, 

4-35, 4-48, 4-73, 4-74, 4-76, 4-82, 4-104, 

4-139, 4-148, 4-151, 4-165, 4-167, 4-168, 

4-170, 4-177, 4-179, 4-181, 4-183, 4-191, 

4-197, 5-15, 5-32, 5-33, 5-34

Minerals, fluid, 1-5, 1-14, 1-27, 2-8, 2-25, 2-35, 

2-41, 2-43, 2-48, 2-62, 2-66, 2-71, 2-83, 2-86, 

2-91, 2-94, 2-100, 2-103, 2-106, 2-108, 3-3, 

3-19, 3-47, 3-49, 3-50, 3-53, 3-73, 4-4, 4-13, 

4-18, 4-19, 4-24, 4-28, 4-31, 4-34, 4-35, 4-38, 

4-45, 4-50, 4-73, 4-76, 4-78, 4-80, 4-82, 4-87, 

4-89, 4-91, 4-92, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 

4-99, 4-100, 4-102, 4-106, 4-110, 4-121, 

4-123, 4-124, 4-126, 4-127, 4-129, 4-134, 

4-136, 4-137, 4-139, 4-142, 4-143, 4-146, 

4-149, 4-150, 4-152, 4-154, 4-157, 4-161, 

4-162, 4-164, 4-166, 4-167, 4-168, 4-169, 

4-170, 4-172, 4-173, 4-177, 4-179, 4-181, 

4-183, 4-185, 4-194, 4-197, 4-201, 4-204, 

4-206, 4-211, 4-213, 4-215, 4-217, 4-219, 

4-221, 5-26, 5-27, 5-28, 5-32, 5-38, 5-58, 

5-60, 5-61, 5-70, 5-74, 5-76, 5-77, 5-83, 5-85, 

6-17

Minerals, leasable, 1-25, 2-2, 2-8, 2-27, 2-35, 

2-42, 2-43, 2-45, 2-49, 2-50, 2-65, 2-66, 2-96, 

2-97, 3-3, 3-19, 3-30, 3-47, 3-53, 3-54, 3-98, 

4-19, 4-25, 4-32, 4-35, 4-50, 4-76, 4-101, 

4-104, 4-136, 4-139, 4-153, 4-154, 4-155, 

4-156, 4-158, 4-159, 4-172, 4-185, 4-194, 

4-198, 4-204, 4-206, 4-213, 4-219, 5-24, 5-34, 

5-35, 5-74, 6-11, 6-13

Minerals, locatable, 2-8, 2-26, 2-35, 2-42, 2-43, 

2-45, 2-48, 2-49, 2-65, 2-87, 3-3, 3-19, 3-53, 

3-55, 4-19, 4-25, 4-32, 4-35, 4-48, 4-49, 4-73, 

4-74, 4-76, 4-80, 4-82, 4-87, 4-89, 4-93, 4-94, 
Index

Index-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

4-104, 4-105, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 4-122, 

4-136, 4-137, 4-146, 4-148, 4-156, 4-159, 

4-172, 4-177, 4-183, 4-185, 4-194, 4-197, 

4-204, 4-207, 4-217, 4-219, 5-24, 5-32, 5-33, 

5-34, 5-74, 6-11, 6-14

Minerals, material, 1-25, 2-2, 2-27, 2-91, 3-56, 

4-66, 4-73, 4-82, 4-129, 4-172, 4-185, 4-206, 

4-219, 5-24, 5-30, 5-31, 5-32

Minerals, saleable, 1-27, 2-3, 4-35, 6-11, 6-14

Minerals, solid leasable, 2-48, 2-86, 3-3, 3-19, 

3-53, 3-54, 4-100, 4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 

5-74

Mining operations, 2-65, 4-133

Mountain biking, 4-17, 4-162, 4-174, 5-53

National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 3-74, 

3-75, 3-78

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-11, 1-15, 1-17, 1-23, 

1-26, 1-28, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-20, 2-22, 2-25, 

2-26, 2-28, 2-31, 2-38, 2-41, 2-43, 2-45, 2-58, 

2-63, 2-64, 2-63, 2-64, 2-63, 2-64, 2-67, 2-73, 

2-85, 3-64, 3-70, 3-108, 4-4, 4-6, 4-32, 4-57, 

4-100, 4-104, 4-108, 4-196, 4-201, 4-204, 

4-231, 4-232, 4-233, 5-49, 5-66, 6-1, 6-2, 6-4, 

6-5, 6-7, 6-8, 6-9, 6-11, 6-13

Off-highway vehicle (OHV), 1-15, 1-23, 2-18, 

2-19, 2-47, 2-71, 2-76, 2-89, 3-19, 3-57, 3-59, 

3-63, 3-108, 4-2, 4-17, 4-26, 4-39, 4-41, 4-57, 

4-59, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-75, 4-86, 4-114, 

4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-121, 4-122, 

4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 4-131, 4-134, 4-162, 

4-164, 4-166, 4-167, 4-169, 4-174, 4-176, 

4-178, 4-180, 4-182, 4-210, 5-53, 5-54, 5-76, 

6-9, 6-14

Ozone (O3), 3-74, 3-75, 3-76, 4-154, 5-80

Planning issue, 1-8, 1-10, 1-11, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 

2-51, 4-5, 6-3, 6-6

Plants, invasive, see Vegetation, invasive/noxious 

weeds, 3-36, 3-42, 4-8, 4-9, 4-11, 4-12, 4-16, 

4-17, 4-63, 4-64, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-192, 

5-20, 5-35, 5-45, 5-49, 5-53, 5-54, 5-60, 5-61, 

5-62, 5-63, 5-69, 5-70, 5-71

Particulate matter (PM2.5), 3-74, 3-75, 3-77, 

4-153, 4-154, 4-155, 5-80

Priority habitat (PH), 1-2, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-12, 

1-14, 1-26, 2-2, 2-40, 2-66, 3-4, 3-11, 3-12, 

3-13, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 

3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-32, 3-36, 

3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 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, 3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 3-66, 

3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 3-72, 3-73, 3-84, 

3-85, 3-86, 3-87, 3-88, 3-89, 3-92, 3-94, 3-95, 

3-96, 3-97, 3-101, 3-107, 4-18, 4-20, 4-21, 

4-22, 4-23, 4-38, 4-39, 4-48, 4-50, 4-57, 

4-123, 4-135, 4-150, 4-188, 4-227, 5-5, 5-13, 

5-20, 5-49, 5-61, 5-67, 5-68, 5-70, 5-71, 5-72, 

5-74, 5-76, 5-77, 5-79, 5-89

Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA), 1-2, 

1-3, 1-5, 1-14, 1-22, 1-25, 2-1, 2-2, 2-11, 2-16, 

2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-22, 2-22, 2-23, 

2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 2-26, 2-27, 2-28, 2-29, 2-30, 

2-33, 2-34, 2-36, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42, 2-43, 

2-44, 2-45, 2-46, 2-47, 2-48, 2-49, 2-50, 2-53, 

2-54, 2-55, 2-56, 2-57, 2-57, 2-58, 2-59, 2-60, 

2-61, 2-62, 2-62, 2-63, 2-64, 2-62, 2-63, 2-64, 

2-63, 2-64, 2-64, 2-65, 2-66, 2-67, 2-68, 2-68, 

2-69, 2-70, 2-71, 2-74, 2-75, 2-77, 2-77, 2-78, 

2-79, 2-81, 2-82, 2-83, 2-84, 2-85, 2-86, 2-87, 

2-88, 2-89, 2-90, 2-91, 2-93, 2-92, 2-93, 2-94, 

2-96, 2-97, 2-98, 2-99, 2-100, 2-101, 2-102, 

2-103, 2-104, 2-105, 2-106, 2-107, 2-108, 4-9, 

4-13, 4-20, 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, 4-36, 

4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-39, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 

4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-53, 

4-56, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-62, 4-66, 4-67, 4-69, 

4-72, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 

4-81, 4-82, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-94, 

4-98, 4-99, 4-100, 4-103, 4-104, 4-106, 4-107, 

4-108, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-115, 4-117, 

4-118, 4-119, 4-120, 4-124, 4-125, 4-126, 

4-127, 4-128, 4-129, 4-132, 4-135, 4-138, 

4-139, 4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 

4-145, 4-146, 4-150, 4-154, 4-155, 4-158, 

4-165, 4-166, 4-167, 4-168, 4-169, 4-170, 

4-171, 4-172, 4-178, 4-179, 4-180, 4-181, 

4-182, 4-183, 4-184, 4-185, 4-186, 4-188, 

4-191, 4-192, 4-193, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 

4-198, 4-199, 4-200, 4-201, 4-202, 4-203,

4-204, 4-205, 4-206, 4-207, 4-208, 4-209, 

4-212, 4-213, 4-214, 4-215, 4-216, 4-217, 

4-218, 4-224, 4-228, 4-229, 4-230, 5-7, 5-10, 

5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 5-15, 5-20, 5-26, 5-27, 5-28, 

5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 5-32, 5-33, 5-34, 5-35, 5-36, 

5-37, 5-38, 5-39, 5-40, 5-43, 5-44, 5-48, 5-49, 

5-50, 5-52, 5-55, 5-58, 5-59, 5-60, 5-61, 5-62, 

5-63, 5-67, 5-68, 5-70, 5-71, 5-72, 5-74, 5-76, 

5-77, 5-79, 5-89
Index

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS Index-5

Priority habitat, preliminary (PPH), 3-4, 3-11, 

3-12, 3-13, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 

3-22, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-32, 

3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 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, 3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 3-66, 

3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 3-72, 3-73, 3-84, 

3-85, 3-86, 3-87, 3-89, 3-92, 3-94, 3-95, 3-96, 

3-97, 3-101, 3-107, 5-33, 5-34, 5-74

Proper functioning condition, 2-16, 2-22, 2-23, 

2-57, 2-59, 2-83, 2-102, 3-34, 3-39, 3-41, 

3-90, 3-93, 4-62, 4-64, 4-73, 4-131, 4-136, 

4-139, 4-173, 4-175, 4-177, 4-179, 4-183, 

4-194, 4-211, 6-14

Public access, 2-18, 2-53, 3-62, 4-115, 4-118, 

4-202

Rangeland health, 2-12, 2-62, 2-78, 2-83, 2-93, 

3-38, 3-69, 4-12, 4-14, 4-21, 4-23, 4-44, 4-73, 

4-78, 4-130, 4-133, 4-136, 4-137, 4-139, 5-59

Raptor, 2-78, 3-8, 3-9, 3-18, 3-66, 3-96, 3-98, 

4-11, 4-16, 4-21, 4-29, 4-43, 4-44, 4-64, 

4-188, 4-209, 5-44

Record of Decision (ROD), 1-5, 1-10, 1-14, 

1-22, 1-23, 2-16, 2-18, 2-37, 2-38, 2-39, 2-47, 

2-53, 2-71, 3-49, 3-50, 3-53, 3-59, 3-63, 4-3, 

4-39, 4-117, 4-118, 4-127, 5-27, 5-74, 5-76, 

6-15

Renewable energy, 1-12, 1-14, 3-18, 3-30, 3-31, 

3-98, 3-99, 3-100, 3-101, 4-35, 4-54, 4-55, 

4-84, 4-121, 4-123, 4-148, 4-161, 4-220, 

4-221, 5-38, 5-61, 5-67, 5-68, 5-90, 6-13

Rights-of-way (ROW), 1-25, 2-1, 2-19, 2-20, 

2-27, 2-41, 2-42, 2-44, 2-47, 2-54, 2-55, 2-56, 

2-63, 2-64, 2-71, 2-75, 2-77, 2-81, 2-82, 2-84, 

2-85, 2-86, 2-88, 2-90, 2-94, 2-95, 2-98, 

2-101, 2-105, 2-107, 2-108, 2-109, 2-109, 

2-110, 2-109, 3-18, 3-19, 3-23, 3-24, 3-27, 

3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-57, 3-62, 3-73, 3-94, 

3-99, 3-100, 3-107, 4-4, 4-16, 4-19, 4-20, 

4-25, 4-26, 4-28, 4-30, 4-32, 4-33, 4-35, 4-39, 

4-40, 4-42, 4-43, 4-51, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 

4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-65, 4-66, 4-68, 4-69, 4-72, 

4-75, 4-77, 4-79, 4-81, 4-86, 4-88, 4-90, 4-92, 

4-93, 4-109, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 

4-114, 4-115, 4-121, 4-122, 4-123, 4-124, 

4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-132, 4-135, 4-138, 

4-140, 4-143, 4-145, 4-147, 4-148, 4-150, 

4-151, 4-160, 4-161, 4-162, 4-163, 4-164, 

4-166, 4-168, 4-170, 4-171, 4-173, 4-175, 

4-176, 4-178, 4-180, 4-182, 4-184, 4-186, 

4-189, 4-191, 4-192, 4-193, 4-194, 4-196,

4-199, 4-202, 4-206, 4-208, 4-209, 4-210, 

4-211, 4-212, 4-214, 4-218, 4-220, 4-221, 

4-222, 4-223, 4-224, 4-225, 4-227, 4-228, 

4-229, 4-230, 4-233, 4-234, 5-5, 5-6, 5-35, 

5-36, 5-37, 5-38, 5-39, 5-40, 5-58, 5-60, 5-61, 

5-62, 5-66, 5-67, 5-68, 5-70, 5-71, 5-72, 5-73, 

5-75, 5-77, 5-79, 5-80, 5-81, 5-82, 5-83, 5-84, 

5-86, 5-87, 5-89, 5-90, 5-91, 5-92, 6-9, 6-13

Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFA), 1-25, 2-2, 2-11, 

2-26, 2-78, 4-82, 4-108, 5-15, 5-61

Sensitive species, 1-14, 2-23, 2-30, 2-37, 2-59, 

2-70, 2-71, 3-5, 3-6, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-81, 

4-187, 4-191, 4-204, 4-231, 5-23

Socioeconomics, 1-12, 1-13, 1-17, 1-18, 3-101, 

3-102, 4-134, 5-91, 6-11, 6-14, 6-18

Soils, erodible, 4-73, 4-149

Soils, fragile, 3-73, 4-163

Special recreation management area (SRMA), 

2-90, 3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 4-56, 4-119, 4-120, 

4-121, 4-125, 4-126, 5-53

Split estate, 4-2, 4-4, 4-56, 4-86, 4-102, 4-106, 

4-110, 4-122, 4-133, 4-142, 4-149, 4-154, 

4-157, 4-165, 4-167, 4-169, 4-170, 4-172, 

4-177, 4-179, 4-180, 4-181, 4-182, 4-183, 

4-185, 4-221, 5-26, 5-64, 5-65

Stipulation, No surface occupancy (NSO), 2-63, 

3-28, 5-15, 5-17, 5-19, 5-24, 5-25, 5-28

Stipulation, Timing limitation (TL), 2-91, 4-55, 

4-97, 4-99, 4-124, 5-19, 5-59, 5-61

Threatened and endangered species, 1-1, 1-2, 

2-19, 2-30, 2-71, 2-110, 3-5, 4-8, 4-17, 4-23, 

4-27, 4-187, 4-231

Timber harvest, 2-71, 3-73

Travel management, 1-12, 1-13, 1-23, 2-18, 

2-19, 2-34, 2-41, 2-44, 2-47, 2-53, 2-54, 2-68, 

2-69, 2-70, 2-89, 3-3, 3-57, 4-22, 4-26, 4-33, 

4-39, 4-56, 4-84, 4-86, 4-90, 4-101, 4-105, 

4-109, 4-114, 4-115, 4-116, 4-118, 4-121, 

4-124, 4-127, 4-132, 4-134, 4-140, 4-142, 

4-165, 4-178, 4-195, 4-202, 4-212, 5-55, 5-56, 

5-76, 5-77, 5-79, 6-11, 6-13, 6-17, 6-18

Travel, dispersed, 4-134

Travel, mechanized, 1-12, 4-56, 4-86, 4-134

Travel, motorized, 2-41, 2-42, 2-44, 2-53, 2-71, 

2-89, 3-19, 3-73, 4-86, 4-90, 4-121, 4-124, 

4-127, 4-148, 4-150, 4-165, 4-178, 4-187, 

4-188, 4-208, 4-210, 5-54, 5-76, 5-79

United States Forest Service, 1-6, 1-16, 1-19, 

1-20, 3-2, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-37, 3-38, 3-40, 
Index

Index-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

3-43, 3-44, 3-49, 3-50, 3-51, 3-56, 3-58, 3-59, 

3-66, 3-67, 3-86, 3-95, 3-101, 3-103, 3-105, 

3-106, 3-107, 5-4, 5-10, 5-12, 5-15, 5-18, 

5-21, 5-53, 5-64, 6-3, 6-15, 6-16, 6-18

Utility corridor, 2-20, 2-41, 2-56, 3-27, 4-54, 

5-35

Vegetation, invasive /noxious weeds, 1-12, 1-18, 

2-20, 2-24, 2-25, 2-56, 2-61, 2-68, 2-78, 2-79, 

2-82, 2-84, 2-95, 2-106, 2-107, 3-16, 3-34, 

3-36, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 3-64, 3-65, 3-70, 

3-71, 4-8, 4-11, 4-18, 4-23, 4-25, 4-26, 4-28, 

4-29, 4-32, 4-35, 4-44, 4-45, 4-62, 4-63, 4-65, 

4-73, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-80, 4-84, 4-85, 

4-132, 4-133, 4-134, 4-136, 4-137, 4-139, 

4-141, 4-143, 4-146, 4-186, 4-188, 4-190, 

4-199, 4-209, 5-6, 5-35, 5-44, 5-45, 5-46, 

5-47, 5-52, 5-68, 5-69, 5-70, 5-71, 5-82, 5-86, 

5-87, 5-89, 6-11, 6-14

Vegetation, Riparian, 1-18, 2-16, 2-17, 2-21, 

2-22, 2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 2-57, 2-58, 2-59, 2-60, 

2-59, 2-60, 2-69, 2-83, 2-93, 2-102, 2-105, 

2-106, 2-107, 2-108, 3-2, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 

3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-31, 3-33, 3-34, 3-38, 3-39, 

3-41, 3-65, 3-87, 3-89, 3-90, 3-91, 3-92, 3-93, 

3-96, 4-8, 4-15, 4-17, 4-18, 4-21, 4-23, 4-25, 

4-27, 4-46, 4-61, 4-62, 4-64, 4-67, 4-70, 4-71, 

4-73, 4-74, 4-76, 4-128, 4-131, 4-133, 4-136, 

4-139, 4-143, 4-145, 4-173, 4-176, 4-179, 

4-181, 4-183, 4-188, 4-190, 4-194, 4-195, 

4-197, 4-200, 4-203, 4-211, 4-216, 5-6, 5-41, 

5-68, 5-70, 5-82, 5-84, 5-85, 5-87, 5-89, 6-14, 

6-17

Vegetation, wetlands, 2-23, 2-24, 2-58, 2-59, 

2-60, 2-60, 2-102, 3-2, 3-13, 3-15, 3-17, 3-31, 

3-33, 3-34, 3-38, 3-39, 3-41, 3-87, 3-89, 3-90, 

3-93, 3-96, 4-8, 4-25, 4-61, 4-62, 4-67, 4-71, 

4-136, 4-177, 4-183, 4-188, 4-190, 4-200, 

4-203, 4-216, 5-42, 5-68

Water quality, 2-22, 2-23, 2-24, 2-57, 2-59, 

3-33, 3-34, 3-87, 3-90, 3-93, 3-94, 3-108, 

4-61, 4-131, 4-173, 4-174, 4-175, 4-177, 

4-178, 4-179, 4-181, 4-183, 4-188, 4-208, 

4-209, 5-86, 6-14

Water, groundwater, 3-33, 3-34, 3-87, 3-88, 

3-89, 3-92, 3-93, 4-173, 4-174, 4-175

Water, surface water, 3-83, 3-87, 3-90, 4-98, 

4-162, 4-174, 4-175, 4-181, 4-184

Watershed, 2-23, 2-44, 2-57, 2-57, 2-58, 2-59, 

2-60, 2-61, 2-74, 2-77, 3-6, 3-18, 3-19, 3-21, 

3-22, 3-40, 3-68, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 3-86, 3-88, 

4-8, 4-22, 4-30, 4-33, 4-36, 4-42, 4-131, 

4-164, 4-172, 4-173, 4-194, 4-211, 5-5, 5-12, 

5-13, 5-14, 5-25, 5-27, 5-28, 5-41, 5-48, 5-57, 

5-61, 5-63, 5-65, 5-66, 5-72

West Nile virus, 2-23, 2-25, 2-59, 2-60, 2-61, 

2-63, 2-79, 3-10, 3-87, 4-15, 4-22, 4-23, 4-34, 

4-45, 4-48, 4-174, 4-177, 4-179, 4-180, 4-181, 

4-182, 4-183, 4-200, 5-20, 5-23, 5-57, 5-85

Wilderness Characteristics, 1-15, 6-11

Wilderness study area (WSA), 1-15, 1-16, 2-19, 

2-54, 4-9, 4-192

Wildland fire, 1-12, 2-67, 2-68, 2-85, 3-40, 3-41, 

3-42, 3-43, 3-47, 3-82, 4-62, 4-65, 4-83, 4-84, 

4-85, 4-87, 4-89, 4-94, 4-95, 4-132, 4-134, 

4-152, 4-156, 4-191, 4-204, 4-214, 4-232, 5-6, 

5-52, 5-53, 5-69, 5-72, 5-73, 5-78, 5-80, 5-81, 

5-82, 5-84, 5-86, 5-87, 5-89, 5-91

Withdrawal, 1-25, 1-26, 2-2, 2-3, 2-11, 2-18, 

2-21, 2-26, 2-41, 2-42, 2-43, 2-44, 2-48, 2-49, 

2-56, 2-65, 2-87, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-30, 4-25, 

4-35, 4-49, 4-48, 4-54, 4-55, 4-57, 4-59, 4-61, 

4-68, 4-73, 4-74, 4-76, 4-81, 4-82, 4-89, 4-92, 

4-93, 4-94, 4-104, 4-105, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 

4-135, 4-139, 4-146, 4-156, 4-159, 4-172, 

4-177, 4-183, 4-185, 4-191, 4-197, 4-203, 

4-207, 4-219, 5-15, 5-32, 5-33, 5-67
Appendices

Appendix A 

Figures
This page intentionally left blank.
June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS A-i

Figures

1-1 Project Planning Area

2-1 Sagebrush Focal Area - Proposed Plan

2-2 Major Rights-of-Way Avoidance Areas - Proposed Plan

2-3 Minor Rights-of-Way Avoidance Areas - Proposed Plan

2-4 Rights-of-Way Wind and Solar Energy -Proposed Plan

2-5 Areas Open and Closed, Grazing Allotments - Proposed Plan

2-6 Withdrawals and Recommend for Withdrawal - Proposed Plan

2-7 Nonenergy Leaseable Minerals - Proposed Plan

2-8 Salable Minerals - Proposed Plan

2-9 Rights-of-Way Avoidance Areas – Alternative A

2-10 Rights-of-Way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas – Alternative B

2-11 Rights-of-Way Exclusion Areas – Alternative C

2-12 Rights-Of-Way Avoidance Areas – Alternative D 

2-13 Rights-Of-Way Wind Energy Avoidance Areas – Alternative D

2-14 Grazing Allotments Alternative A

2-15 Areas Open and Closed Grazing Allotments Alternative B and D

2-16 Areas Open and Closed Grazing Allotments Alternative C

2-17 Solid Leasable and Salable Minerals – Alternative A

2-18 Solid Leasable and Salable Minerals – Alternative B

2-19 Solid Leasable and Salable Minerals – Alternative C 

2-20 Solid Leasable and Salable Minerals – Alternative D

2-21 Withdrawals and Recommend for Withdrawal – Alternative A

2-22 Withdrawals and Recommend for Withdrawal – Alternative B

2-23 Withdrawals and Recommend for Withdrawal – Alternative C

2-24 Withdrawals and Recommend for Withdrawal – Alternative D

2-25 Area of Critical Environmental Concern – Alternative C

3-1 Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

3-2 Wetland and Riparian Areas

3-3 Fire Regime Condition Class

3-4 Fluid Minerals – Existing Leases

3-5 Recreation Management Areas

3-6 Resource Activity Plans – Grazing Authorization Renewal Areas

3-7 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

3-8 Major Soil Orders

3-9 NRCS Farmland Classification

3-10 Soil Restoration Potential

3-11 Water Features
This page intentionally left blank.





































This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix B

The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring 

Framework

APPENDIX B

THE GREATER SAGE-GROUSE (GRSG)

MONITORING FRAMEWORK

B.1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Greater Sage-grouse 

Monitoring Framework (hereafter, monitoring framework) is to describe the 

methods to monitor habitats and evaluate the implementation and effectiveness 

of the BLM planning strategy (BLM IM 2012-044) to conserve the species and its 

habitat. The regulations for the BLM (43 CFR 1610.4-9) require that land use 

plans establish intervals and standards, as appropriate, for monitoring and 

evaluations, based on the sensitivity of the resource to the decisions involved. 

Therefore, BLM will use the methods described herein to collect monitoring 

data to evaluate implementation and effectiveness of the Greater Sage-grouse 

(hereafter, sage-grouse) planning strategy and the conservation measures 

contained in land use plans. The type of monitoring data to be collected at the 

land use plan scale will be described in the monitoring plan which will be 

developed after the signing of the ROD. For a summary of the frequency of 

reporting see Attachment A, An Overview of Monitoring Commitments. 

Adaptive management will be informed by data collected at any and all scales.

To ensure the BLM has the ability to make consistent assessments about sagegrouse habitats across the range of the species, this framework lays out the 

methodology for monitoring the implementation and evaluating the effectiveness 

of BLM actions to conserve the species and its habitat through monitoring that 

informs effectiveness at multiple scales. Monitoring efforts will include data for

measurable quantitative indicators of sagebrush availability, anthropogenic 

disturbance levels, and sagebrush conditions. Implementation monitoring results 

will provide information to allow the BLM to evaluate the extent that decisions 

from the BLM resource management plans (RMP) to conserve sage-grouse and 

its habitat have been implemented. Population monitoring information will be 

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS B-1
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

collected by state fish and wildlife agencies and will be incorporated into 

effectiveness monitoring as it is made available.

This multi-scale monitoring approach is necessary as sage-grouse are a 

landscape species and conservation is scale-dependent whereby conservation 

actions are implemented within seasonal habitats to benefit populations. The 

four orders of habitat selection (Johnson 1980) used in this monitoring 

framework are described by Connelly et al. (2003) and Stiver et al. (2014) as 

first order (broad scale), second order (mid-scale), third order (fine scale), and 

fourth order (site scale) to apply them to sage-grouse habitat selection. Habitat 

selection and habitat use by sage-grouse occurs at multiple scales and is driven 

by multiple environmental and behavioral factors. Managing and monitoring 

sage-grouse habitats are complicated by the differences in habitat selection 

across the range and habitat utilization by individual birds within a given season. 

Therefore, the tendency to look at a single indicator of habitat suitability or only 

one scale limits the ability for managers to identify the threats to sage-grouse 

and to respond at the appropriate scale. For descriptions of these habitat 

suitability indicators for each scale, see the Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment 

Framework (HAF; Stiver et al. in press).

Monitoring methods and indicators in this monitoring framework are derived 

from the current peer-reviewed science. Range wide best-available datasets for 

broad and mid-scale monitoring will be acquired. If these exiting datasets are 

not readily available or are inadequate, but are necessary to effectively inform 

the three measurable quantitative indicators (sagebrush availability, 

anthropogenic disturbance levels, and sagebrush conditions), the BLM will strive 

to develop datasets or obtain information to fill these data gaps. Datasets that 

are not readily available to inform the fine and site scale indicators will be 

developed. These data will be used to generate monitoring reports at the 

appropriate and applicable geographic scales, boundaries and analysis units: 

across the range of sage-grouse as defined by Schroeder et al. (2004), and 

clipped by Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) 

Management Zone (MZ) (Stiver et al. 2006) boundaries and other areas as 

appropriate for size (e.g., populations based on Connelly et al. 2004; Figure 

B-1, Map of greater sage-grouse range, populations, subpopulations and Priority 

Areas for Conservation (PACs) as of 2013). This broad and mid-scale 

monitoring data and analysis will provide context for RMP areas; states; priority 

habitat, general habitat; and Priority Areas for Conservation (PACs) as defined 

in the Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Objectives: Final Report (COT, US

Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). Throughout the remainder of the document, all 

of these areas will be referred to as “sage-grouse areas”.

B-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

Figure B-1

Map of greater sage-grouse range, populations, subpopulations and Priority Areas for 

Conservation (PACs) as of 2013.

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS B-3 
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

This monitoring framework is divided into two sections. The broad and midscale methods, described in Section B.2, provide a consistent approach across 

the range of the species to monitor implementation decisions and actions, midscale habitat attributes (e.g., sagebrush availability and habitat degradation), and 

population changes to determine the effectiveness of BLM planning strategy and 

management decisions (see Table B-1, Indicators for monitoring 

implementation of the strategy, decisions, sage-grouse habitat, and sage-grouse 

populations at the broad and mid-scales). For the sage-grouse habitat fine and 

site scales (Section B.3), this framework describes a consistent approach (e.g., 

indicators and methods) for monitoring sage-grouse seasonal habitats. Funding, 

support, and dedicated personnel for broad and mid-scale monitoring will be 

renewed annually through the normal budget process. For an overview of the 

BLM multi-scale monitoring commitments see Attachment A.

Table B-1

Indicators for monitoring implementation of the strategy, decisions, sage-grouse habitat, 

and sage-grouse populations at the broad and mid-scales.

Geographic 

Scales Implementation Habitat

Population 

(State Wildlife 

Agencies)

Availability Degradation Demographics

Broad Scale: 

From the range 

of sage-grouse 

to WAFWA 

Management 

Zones

BLM Planning 

Strategy goal and 

objectives 

Distribution and 

amount of 

sagebrush within 

the range

Distribution and 

amount of energy, 

mining and 

infrastructure 

facilities

WAFWA 

Management 

Zone population 

trend

Mid-scale: From 

WAFWA 

Management 

Zone to 

populations. 

PACs

RMP decisions Mid-scale habitat 

indicators (HAF 

2014; Table B.2 

e.g., percent of 

sagebrush per unit 

area)

Distribution and 

amount of energy, 

mining and 

infrastructure 

facilities (Table 

B.2)

Individual 

population trend

B.2 BROAD AND MID-SCALES

First order habitat selection at the broad scale describes the physical or 

geographical range of a species. The first order habitat, the range of the species,

is defined by populations of sage-grouse associated with sagebrush landscapes

based on Schroeder et al. 2004, Connelly et al. 2004 and population surveys and 

local adjustments based on population or habitat surveys since 2004. There is an 

intermediate scale between the broad and mid-scales that was delineated by 

WAFWA from floristic provinces within which similar environmental factors 

influence vegetation communities. This scale is referred to as the WAFWA 

Sage-grouse MZs. Although no indicators are specific to this scale, these MZs 

are biologically meaningful as reporting units. 

B-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

Second order habitat selection, the mid-scale, includes sage-grouse populations

and PACs. The second order includes at least 40 discrete populations and 

subpopulations (Connelly et al. 2004). Populations range in area from 150 to 

60,000 mi2. PACs range from 20 to 20,400 mi2 and are nested within population 

areas, and populations are nested within Management Zones.

Other mid-scale landscape indicators such as patch size and number, patch 

connectivity, linkage areas, and landscape matrix and edge effects (Stiver et al. in 

press) will also be assessed. The methods used to calculate these metrics will be 

derived from existing literature (Knick et al. 2011, Leu and Hanser 2011, Knick 

and Hanser 2011).

B.2.1 Implementation (Decision) Monitoring

Implementation monitoring is the process of tracking and documenting the 

implementation (or the progress toward implementation) of land use plan 

decisions. The BLM will monitor implementation of project level and/or site 

specific actions and authorizations with their associated conditions of 

approval/stipulations for sage-grouse spatially (as appropriate) within priority 

habitat, general habitat, at a minimum, for the Lewistown Field Office Greater 

Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS. These actions and authorizations as well as progress 

toward completing and implementing activity-level plans will be monitored 

consistently across all planning units and reported to BLM headquarters 

annually, with a summary report every five years, for this Lewistown Field Office 

Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS. A national-level Land Use Plan Implementation 

Monitoring and Reporting Structure (IMARS) that describes how the BLM will 

consistently and systematically monitor and report implementation level activity 

plans and implementation actions for all plans within the range of sage-grouse 

will be developed by the Implementation Monitoring Team and will be included 

in the Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved Plan. A centralized tracking tool 

(IMARS) for collection, roll-up and reporting of tabular and spatially explicit data 

will be utilized. BLM will provide data that can be integrated with other 

conservation efforts conducted by state and federal partners.

B.2.2 Habitat Monitoring

In the USFWS’s 2010 listing decision for the sage-grouse, the USFWS identified 

18 threats contributing to the destruction, modification, or curtailment of the 

sage-grouse’s habitat or range (75 FR 13910 2010). The BLM will therefore 

monitor the relative extent of these threats that remove sagebrush (see Table 

B-2, Relationship between the 18 threats and the three habitat disturbance 

measures for monitoring. Data availability may preclude specific analysis of 

individual layers), both spatially and temporally, on all lands within an analysis 

area, and to report on amount, pattern and condition at the appropriate and 

applicable geographic scales and boundaries. These 18 threats have been 

aggregated into three broad and mid-scale measures to account for whether the 

threat predominantly removes sagebrush or degrades habitat. The three 

measures are:

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS B-5
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

Table B-2

Relationship between the 18 threats and the three habitat disturbance measures for 

monitoring. Data availability may preclude specific analysis of individual layers. See the 

detailed methodology for more information.

USFWS Listing Decision Threat Sagebrush 

Availability

Habitat 

Degradation

Density of 

Energy and 

Mining

Agriculture X

Urbanization X

Wildfire X

Conifer encroachment X

Treatments X

Invasive Species 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 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

• Measure 1: Sagebrush Availability (percent of sagebrush per unit 

area)

• Measure 2: Habitat Degradation (percent of human activity per unit 

area) 

• Measure 3: Density of Energy and Mining (facilities and locations per 

unit area)

These three habitat disturbance measures will evaluate disturbance on all lands

regardless of land ownership. The direct area of influence will be assessed with 

the goal to account for actual removal of sagebrush upon which sage-grouse 

depend (Connelly et al. 2000) and for habitat degradation as a surrogate for 

human activity. Measure 1 examines where disturbances have removed plant 

communities that support sagebrush (or have broadly removed sagebrush from 

the landscape), and therefore monitors the change in sagebrush availability, or 

specifically where and how much of the sagebrush community is available within 

the range of sage-grouse. The sagebrush community is defined as the ecological 

systems that have the capability to support sagebrush vegetation and seasonal 

sage-grouse habitats within the range of sage-grouse (see Section B.2.2.1

B-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

below). Measures 2 and 3 (see Section B.2.2.2 below) focus on where habitat 

degradation is occurring using the footprint/area of direct disturbance and the 

number of facilities at the mid-scale to identify the relative amount of 

degradation per geographic unit of interest and in areas that have the capability 

to support sagebrush and seasonal sage-grouse use. Measure 2 is not only a 

quantification of footprint/area of direct disturbance but also a surrogate for 

those threats most likely to have ongoing activity. In addition, energy 

development and mining activities are typically the most intensive activities in 

sagebrush habitat. Therefore, measure 3, the density of active energy 

development, production, and mining sites will be monitored to help identify 

areas of particular concern for factors such as noise, dust, traffic, etc., that 

degrade sage-grouse habitat.

The methods to monitor disturbance found herein differ slightly from methods 

used in the Sage-Grouse Baseline Environmental Report (BER; Manier et al. 

2013) that provided a baseline of datasets of disturbance across jurisdictions.

One difference is that, for some threats, the data in the BER were for federal 

lands only. In addition, threats were assessed individually in that report, using

different assumptions from those in this monitoring framework about how to 

quantify the location and magnitude of threats. The methodology herein builds 

on the BER methodology and identifies datasets and procedures to utilize the 

best available data across the range of the sage-grouse and to formulate a 

consistent approach to quantify impact of the threats through time. This 

methodology also describes an approach to combine the threats and calculate 

the three measures.

B.2.2.1 Sagebrush Availability (Measure 1)

Sage-grouse populations have been found to be more resilient where a 

percentage of the landscape is maintained in sagebrush (Knick and Connelly 

2011), which will be determined by sagebrush availability. This measure has been 

divided into two sub-measures to describe sagebrush availability on the 

landscape: 

• Measure 1a) the current amount of sagebrush on the landscape of 

interest and 

• Measure 1b) the amount of sagebrush on the landscape of interest 

compared to the amount of sagebrush the landscape of interest 

could ecologically support. 

Measure 1a (the current amount of sagebrush on the landscape) will be 

calculated using this formula: [the existing updated sagebrush layer] divided by 

[the geographic unit of interest]. The appropriate geographic units of interest

for sagebrush availability include the species’ range, WAFWA Management 

Zones, populations, and PACs. In some cases these sage-grouse areas will need 

to be aggregated to provide an estimate of sagebrush availability with an 

acceptable level of accuracy.

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS B-7
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

Measure 1b (the amount of sagebrush for context within the area of interest) 

will be calculated using this formula: [the existing updated sagebrush layer 

(EVT)] divided by [pre Euro-American geographic extent of lands that could 

have supported sagebrush (BpS)]. This will provide information during 

evaluations of monitoring data to set the context for a given geographic unit of 

interest. That information could also be used for management options for 

restoration or mitigation.

The sagebrush base layer for the sagebrush availability measure will be based on 

geospatial vegetation data adjusted for the threats listed in Table B-2. The 

following sub-sections of this monitoring framework describe the methodology 

to determine both the current availability of sagebrush on the landscape and the 

context of the amount of sagebrush on the landscape at the broad and midscales.

Establishing the Sagebrush Base Layer

The current geographic extent of sagebrush vegetation within the range wide 

distribution of sage-grouse populations will be ascertained using the most recent 

version of the Existing Vegetation Type (EVT) layer in LANDFIRE (2010). 

LANDFIRE EVT was selected to serve as the sagebrush base layer for five 

reasons: 1) it is the only nationally consistent vegetation layer that has been 

updated multiple times since 2001; 2) the ecological systems classification within 

LANDFIRE EVT includes multiple sagebrush type classes that, when aggregated, 

provide a more accurate (compared with individual classes) and seamless 

sagebrush base layer across jurisdictional boundaries; 3) LANDFIRE performed 

a rigorous accuracy assessment from which to derive the range wide uncertainty 

of the sagebrush base layer; 4) LANDFIRE is consistently used in several recent 

analyses of sagebrush habitats (Knick et al. 2011, Leu and Hanser 2011, Knick 

and Hanser 2011); and 5) LANDFIRE EVT can be compared against the 

geographic extent of lands that are believed to have had the capability to 

support sagebrush vegetation pre Euro-American settlement [LANDFIRE 

Biophysical Setting (BpS)]. This fifth reason provides a reference point for 

understanding how much sagebrush currently remains in a defined geographic 

area compared with how much sagebrush existed historically (Measure 1b).

Therefore, BLM have determined that LANDFIRE provides the best available 

data at broad and mid-scales to serve as a sagebrush base layer for monitoring 

changes in the geographic extent of sagebrush. Along with aggregating the 

sagebrush types into the sagebrush base layer, BLM will aggregate the accuracy 

assessment reports from LANDFIRE to document the cumulative accuracy for 

the sagebrush base layer. For the long-term, BLM through its Assessment, 

Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) program and specifically the BLM’S Landscape 

Monitoring Framework (Taylor et al., in press) will provide field data to the 

LANDFIRE program to support continuous quality improvements in their 

products specifically for rangeland systems to improve the LANDFIRE EVT 

layer.

B-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

Within the BLM, 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 finer scale products are useful for 

additional and complimentary mid-scale indicators and local scale analyses (see 

Section B.3, Fine and Site Scale). The fact that these products are not available 

everywhere limits their utility for monitoring at the broad and mid-scale where 

consistency of data products is necessary across broader geographies.

The sagebrush layer based on LANDFIRE EVT will allow for the mid-scale 

estimation of existing percent sagebrush across a variety of reporting units. This

sagebrush base layer will be adjusted by changes in land cover and successful 

restoration for future calculations of sagebrush availability (Measures 1a and 1b).

This layer will be used to determine the trend in other landscape indicators, e.g. 

patch size and number, patch connectivity, linkage areas, and landscape matrix 

and edge effects (Stiver et al. in press). In the future, changes in sagebrush 

availability, generated bi-annually, will be included in the sagebrush base layer. 

The landscape metrics will be recalculated to examine changes in pattern and 

abundance of sagebrush at the various geographic boundaries. This information 

will be included in effectiveness monitoring (see Section B.2.4).

Data Sources to Establish and Monitor Sagebrush Availability

In much the same manner as how the LANDFIRE data was selected as the data 

source, described above, the criteria for selecting the datasets (Table B-3,

Datasets for Establishing and Monitoring Changes in Sagebrush Availability) for

establishing and monitoring the change in sagebrush availability, Measure 1, were 

threefold:

• Nationally consistent dataset available across the range

• Known level of confidence or accuracy in the dataset

• Dataset is continually maintained with a known update interval

Table B-3

Datasets for Establishing and Monitoring Changes in Sagebrush Availability

Dataset Source Update 

Interval

Most Recent 

Version Year Use

BioPhysical Setting 

(BpS) v1.1

LANDFIRE Static 2008 Denominator for 

Sagebrush 

Availability 

(Section B.2.2.1)

Existing Vegetation 

Type (EVT) v1.2

LANDFIRE Static 2010 Numerator for 

Sagebrush 

Availability 

Cropland Data Layer 

(CDL)

National 

Agricultural 

Statistics Service 

Annual 2012 Agricultural 

Updates; removes 

existing sagebrush 

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS B-9
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

Table B-3

Datasets for Establishing and Monitoring Changes in Sagebrush Availability

Dataset Source Update 

Interval

Most Recent 

Version Year Use

(NASS) from numerator of 

sagebrush 

availability

National Land Cover 

Dataset (NLCD) 

Percent 

Imperviousness

Multi-Resolution 

Land 

Characteristics 

Consortium 

(MRLC)

5 Year 2011 available in 

March 2014

Urban Area 

Updates; removes 

existing sagebrush 

from numerator of 

sagebrush 

availability

Fire Perimeters GeoMac Annual 2013 < 1,000 acres Fire 

updates; removes 

existing sagebrush 

from numerator of 

sagebrush 

availability 

Burn Severity Monitoring Trends 

in Burn Severity 

(MTBS)

Annual 2012 available in 

April 2014

> 1,000 acres Fire 

Updates; removes 

existing sagebrush 

from numerator of 

sagebrush 

availability except 

for unburned 

sagebrush islands

LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Type (EVT) Version 1.2

LANDFIRE EVT represents existing vegetation types on the landscape derived 

from remote sensing data. Initial mapping was conducted using imagery collected 

in approximately 2001. Since the initial mapping, there have been two update 

efforts: version 1.1 represents changes up to 2008 and version 1.2 reflects 

changes on the landscape up to 2010. Version 1.2 will be used as the starting 

point to develop the sagebrush base layer.

Ecological systems from the LANDFIRE EVT to be used in the sagebrush base 

layer were determined by sage-grouse subject matter experts through the 

identification of the ecological systems that have the capability of supporting 

sagebrush vegetation and could provide suitable seasonal habitat for the sagegrouse (Table B-4, Ecological Systems in BpS and EVT Capable of Supporting 

Sagebrush Vegetation and Could Provide Suitable Seasonal Habitat for Greater 

Sage-grouse). Two additional vegetation types that are not ecological systems 

were added to the EVT and are Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland 

Alliance and Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance. These alliances have species 

B-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

Table B-4

Ecological Systems in BpS and EVT Capable of Supporting Sagebrush Vegetation and 

Could Provide Suitable Seasonal Habitat for Greater Sage-grouse.

Ecological System Sagebrush Vegetation that the Ecological System 

has the Capability to Produce

Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush 

Shrubland

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba

Artemisia bigelovii

Artemisia nova

Artemisia frigida

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Columbia Plateau Scabland Shrubland Artemisia rigida

Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush 

Shrubland

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longicaulis

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush 

Shrubland

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. xericensis

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert 

Scrub

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Artemisia spinescens

Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland 

and Steppe

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Artemisia tripartita ssp. rupicola

Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba

Artemisia nova

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe Artemisia cana ssp. cana

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. xericensis

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Artemisia tripartita ssp. tripartita

Artemisia frigida

Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Artemisia nova

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia tridentata ssp. spiciformis

Northwestern Great Plains Mixed grass 

Prairie

Artemisia cana ssp. cana

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Artemisia frigida

Northwestern Great Plains Shrubland Artemisia cana ssp. cana

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Western Great Plains Sand Prairie Artemisia cana ssp. cana

Western Great Plains Floodplain Systems Artemisia cana ssp. cana

Columbia Plateau Steppe and Grassland Artemisia spp.

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS B-11
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

Table B-4

Ecological Systems in BpS and EVT Capable of Supporting Sagebrush Vegetation and 

Could Provide Suitable Seasonal Habitat for Greater Sage-grouse.

Ecological System Sagebrush Vegetation that the Ecological System 

has the Capability to Produce

Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert ShrubSteppeArtemisia tridentata

Artemisia bigelovii

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill 

Shrubland

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia frigida

Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed 

Montane Shrubland

Artemisia tridentata

Inter-Mountain Basins Curl-Leaf Mountain 

Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Shrubland Alliance (EVT only)

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance (EVT 

only)

Artemisia tridentata

composition directly related to the Rocky Mountain Lower Montane - Foothill 

Shrubland ecological system and the Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed 

Montane Shrubland ecological system, both of which are ecological systems in 

LANDFIRE BpS. In LANDFIRE EVT however, in some map zones, the Rocky 

Mountain Lower Montane - Foothill Shrubland ecological system and the Rocky 

Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland ecological system were 

named Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance and Quercus gambelii

Shrubland Alliance respectively.

Accuracy and Appropriate Use of LANDFIRE Datasets

Because of concerns over the thematic accuracy of individual classes mapped by 

LANDFIRE, all ecological systems listed in Table B-4 will be merged into one 

value that represents the sagebrush base layer. By aggregating all ecological 

systems, the combined accuracy of the sagebrush base layer (EVT) is much 

greater than if all categories were treated separately.

LANDFIRE performed the original accuracy assessment of their EVT product on 

a map zone basis. There are 20 LANDFIRE map zones that cover the historic 

range of sage-grouse as defined by Schroeder (2004). Attachment C, User 

and Producer Accuracies for Aggregated Ecological Systems within LANDFIRE 

Map Zones, lists the user and producer accuracies for the aggregated ecological 

systems that make up the sagebrush base layer and also defines user and 

producer accuracies. The aggregated sagebrush base layer for monitoring had 

producer accuracies ranging from 56.7% to 100% and user accuracies ranging 

from 57.1% to 85.7%.

B-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

LANDFIRE EVT data are not designed to be used at a local level. In reporting the 

percent sagebrush statistic for the various reporting units (Measure 1a), the 

uncertainty of the percent sagebrush will increase as the size of the reporting 

unit gets smaller. LANDFIRE data should never be used at the pixel level (30m2

resolution of raster data) for any reporting. The smallest geographic extent use 

of the data for this purpose is at the PAC level and for the smallest PACs the 

initial percent sagebrush estimate will have greater uncertainties compared with 

the much larger PACs.

Agricultural Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer

The dataset for the geographic extent of agricultural lands will come from the 

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Cropland Data Layer (CDL) 

(http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/Release/index.htm). CDL data are 

generated on an annual basis with “estimated producer accuracies for large row 

crops from the mid 80 to mid-90 percent” depending on the State 

(http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/sarsfaqs2.htm#Section3_18.0). 

Readers are referred to the NASS metadata website for specific information on 

accuracy (http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/metadata/meta.htm). 

CDL provided the only dataset that matches the three criteria (nationally 

consistent, known level of accuracy, and periodically updated) for use in this 

monitoring framework and represents the best available agricultural lands 

mapping product.

The CDL data contain both agricultural classes as well as non-agricultural 

classes. For this effort, as was also done in the Baseline Environmental Report 

(Manier et al. 2013), non-agricultural classes were removed from the original 

dataset. The excluded classes are:

Barren (65 & 131), Deciduous Forest (141), Developed/High Intensity 

(124), Developed/Low Intensity (122), Developed/Med Intensity (123), 

Developed/Open Space (121), Evergreen Forest (142), Grassland 

Herbaceous (171), Herbaceous Wetlands (195), Mixed Forest (143), 

Open Water (83 & 111), Other Hay/Non Alfalfa (37), Pasture/Hay 

(181), Pasture/Grass (62), Perennial Ice/Snow (112), Shrubland (64 & 

152), Woody Wetlands (190).

The rule set for adjusting the sagebrush base layer for agricultural lands is that 

once an area is classified as agriculture in any year of the CDL, those pixels will 

remain out of the sagebrush base layer even if a new version of CDL classifies 

that pixel as one of the non-ag classes listed above. The assumption is that even 

though individual pixels may get classified as a non-agricultural class in any given 

year the pixel has not necessarily been restored to a natural sagebrush 

community that would be included in Table B-4. It is further assumed that 

once an area has moved into agricultural use, it is unlikely that it would be 

restored to sagebrush, however, should that occur, the method and criteria for 

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS B-13
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

adding pixels back into the sagebrush base layer would follow those found in the 

Restoration Updates section of this framework. 

Urban Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer

The National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) Percent Imperviousness was 

selected as the best available dataset to be used for urban updates. These data 

are generated on a five-year cycle and specifically designed to support 

monitoring efforts. Other datasets were evaluated and lacked the spatial 

specificity that was captured in the NLCD product. Any new impervious pixel 

will be removed from the sagebrush base layer during the update process. 

Although the impervious surface layer includes a number of impervious pixels 

outside of urban areas, there are two reasons why this is acceptable for this

process. First, an evaluation of national urban area datasets did not reveal a

layer that could be confidently used in conjunction with the NLCD product to 

screen impervious pixels outside of urban zones because unincorporated urban 

areas were not being included thus leaving large chunks of urban pixels 

unaccounted for in this rule set. Secondly, experimentation with setting a 

threshold on the percent imperviousness layer that would isolate rural features 

proved to be unsuccessful. No combination of values could be identified that 

would result in the consistent ability to limit impervious pixels outside urban 

areas. Therefore, to ensure consistency in the monitoring estimates, it was

determined to include all impervious pixels.

Fire Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer

Two datasets were selected for performing fire updates: GeoMac fire 

perimeters and Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS). An existing data 

standard in the BLM requires all fires with sizes greater than 10 acres to be 

reported to GeoMac, therefore there will be many small fires less than 10 acres 

in size that will not be accounted for in the fire updates. In the update process 

using fire perimeters from GeoMac, all sagebrush pixels falling within the 

perimeter of fires less than 1,000 acres in size will be used to update the 

sagebrush layer.

MTBS was selected for use as a means to account for unburned sagebrush 

islands during the update process of the sagebrush base layer. The MTBS 

program (http://www.mtbs.gov) is an on-going multi-year project to consistently 

map fire severity and fire perimeters across the US. For lands in the western 

US, MTBS only maps burn severity for fires greater than 1,000 acres in size. 

One of the burn severity classes within MTBS is an unburned to low severity 

class. This burn severity class will be used to represent unburned islands of 

sagebrush within the fire perimeter that will be retained in the sagebrush base 

layer. Areas within the other severity classes within the fire perimeter will be 

removed from the base sagebrush layer during the update process. However, 

not all wildfires have the same impact on the recovery of sagebrush habitat 

depending largely on soil moisture and temperature regimes. For example,

cooler, moister sagebrush habitat has a higher potential for recovery or, if 

B-14 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

needed restoration, than the warmer, dryer sagebrush habitat. These areas will 

likely be detected as sagebrush in future updates to LANDFIRE.

Conifer Encroachment adjustment for the Sagebrush Base Layer

Conifer encroachment into sagebrush vegetation reduces the spatial extent of 

greater sage-grouse habitat (Davies et al. 2011, Baruch-Mordo et al. 2013). 

Conifer species that show propensity for encroaching into sagebrush vegetation 

which results in sage-grouse habitat loss include various juniper species such as 

Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma), western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis), 

Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum), pinyon species including singleleaf 

pinyon (Pinus monophylla) and pinyon pine (Pinus edulis), ponderosa pine (Pinus

ponderosa), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga

menziesii) (Gruell et al. 1986, Grove et al. 2005, Davies et al. 2011).

A rule set for conifer encroachment was developed to be used for 

determination of the existing sagebrush base layer. To capture the geographic 

extent of sagebrush that is likely to experience conifer encroachment, ecological 

systems within LANDFIRE EVT version 1.2 (NatureServe 2011) were identified 

if they have the capability of supporting the conifer species (listed above) and 

have the capability of supporting sagebrush vegetation. Those ecological systems 

(Table B-5, Ecological Systems with Conifers Most Likely to Encroach into 

Sagebrush Vegetation) were deemed to be the plant communities with conifers 

most likely to encroach into sagebrush vegetation. Sagebrush vegetation was 

defined as including sagebrush species (Attachment B, List of All Sagebrush 

Species and Subspecies Included in the Selection Criteria for Building the EVT 

and BpS Layers) that provide habitat for the greater sage-grouse and are 

included in the Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework. An adjacency 

analysis was conducted to identify all sagebrush pixels that were directly 

adjacent to these conifer ecological systems and these immediately adjacent 

sagebrush pixels were removed from the sagebrush base layer. 

Table B-5

Ecological Systems with Conifers Most Likely to Encroach into Sagebrush Vegetation

EVT Ecological Systems

Coniferous Species and Sagebrush 

Vegetation that the Ecological System has 

the Capability to Produce

Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Pinus edulis

Juniperus osteosperma

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Artemisia bigelovii

Artemisia pygmaea

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS B-15
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

Table B-5

Ecological Systems with Conifers Most Likely to Encroach into Sagebrush Vegetation

EVT Ecological Systems

Coniferous Species and Sagebrush 

Vegetation that the Ecological System has 

the Capability to Produce

Columbia Plateau Western Juniper Woodland and 

Savanna

Juniperus occidentalis

Pinus ponderosa

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia rigida

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

East Cascades Oak-Ponderosa Pine Forest and 

Woodland

Pinus ponderosa

Pseudotsuga menziesii

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia nova

Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Pinus monophylla

Juniperus osteosperma

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Northern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine 

Woodland and Savanna

Pinus ponderosa

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper 

Woodland

Juniperus osteosperma

Juniperus scopulorum

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata

Rocky Mountain Poor-Site Lodgepole Pine Forest Pinus contorta

Pseudotsuga menziesii

Pinus ponderosa

Artemisia tridentata

Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland

Pinus edulis

Juniperus monosperma

Artemisia bigelovii

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Artemisia tridentata ssp.vaseyana

Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine 

Woodland

Pinus ponderosa

Pseudotsuga menziesii

Pinus edulis

Pinus contorta

Juniperus spp.

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

B-16 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

Invasive Annual Grasses Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer

There are no invasive species datasets from 2010 to present (beyond the 

LANDFIRE data) that meet our 3 criteria (nationally consistent, known level of 

accuracy, and periodically updated) for use in the determination of the 

sagebrush base layer. For a description of how invasive species land cover will 

be incorporated in the sagebrush base layer in the future, see the Monitoring 

Sagebrush Availability section below.

Sagebrush Restoration Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer

There are no datasets from 2010 to present that could provide additions to the 

sagebrush base layer from restoration treatments that meet the three criteria 

(nationally consistent, known level of accuracy, and periodically updated) 

therefore, no adjustments were made to the sagebrush base layer calculated 

from the LANDFIRE EVT (Version 1.2) due to restoration activities since 2010. 

Successful restoration treatments prior to 2010 are assumed to have been 

captured in the LANDFIRE refresh.

Monitoring Sagebrush Availability

Updating the Sagebrush Availability Sagebrush Base Layer

Sagebrush availability will be updated annually by incorporating changes to the 

sagebrush base layer attributable to agriculture, urbanization, and wildfire. The 

monitoring schedule for the existing sagebrush base layer updates is as follows:

2010 Existing Sagebrush Base Layer = [Sagebrush EVT] minus [2006 

Imperviousness Layer] minus [2009 and 2010 CDL] minus [2009/10 

GeoMac Fires < 1,000 acres] minus [2009/10 MTBS Fires excluding 

unburned sagebrush islands] minus [Conifer Encroachment Layer] 

2012 Existing Sagebrush Update = [Base 2010 Existing Sagebrush 

Layer] minus [2011 Imperviousness Layer] minus [2011 and 2012 CDL] 

minus [2011/12 GeoMac Fires < 1,000 acres] minus [2011/12 MTBS 

Fires that are greater than 1,000 acres, excluding unburned sagebrush 

islands within the perimeter]

2013 and beyond Existing Sagebrush Updates = [Previous Existing 

Sagebrush Update Layer] minus [Imperviousness Layer (if new data are 

available)] minus [Next 2 years of CDL] minus [Next 2 years of 

GeoMac Fires < 1,000 acres] minus [Next 2 years MTBS Fires that are 

greater than 1,000 acres, excluding unburned sagebrush islands within 

the perimeter] plus [restoration/monitoring data provided by the field]

Sagebrush Restoration Updates

Restoration after fire, after agricultural conversion, after seedings of introduced 

grasses, or after treatments of pinyon pine and/or juniper, are examples of 

updates to the sagebrush base layer that can add sagebrush vegetation back in. 

When restoration has been determined to be successful through range wide, 

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS B-17
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

consistent, interagency fine and site-scale monitoring, the polygonal data will be 

used to add sagebrush pixels back into the broad and mid-scale sagebrush base 

layer.

Measure 1b – Context for the change in the amount of sagebrush in a landscape 

of interest

Measure 1b describes the amount of sagebrush on the landscape of interest 

compared with the amount of sagebrush the landscape of interest could 

ecologically support. Areas with the potential to support sagebrush were 

derived from the BpS data layer that describes sagebrush pre Euro-American 

settlement (biophysical setting (BpS) v1.2 of LANDFIRE). This measure (1b) will 

provide information during evaluations of monitoring data to set the context for 

a given geographic area of interest. The information could also be used to 

inform management options for restoration, mitigation and inform effectiveness 

monitoring.

The identification and spatial locations of natural plant communities (vegetation) 

that are believed to have existed on the landscape (BpS) were constructed 

based on an approximation of the historical (pre Euro-American settlement) 

disturbance regime and how the historical disturbance regime operated on the 

current biophysical environment. BpS is composed of map units which are based 

on NatureServe’s (2011) terrestrial ecological systems classification. 

The ecological systems within BpS used for this monitoring framework are 

those ecological systems that have the capability of supporting sagebrush 

vegetation and could provide seasonal habitat for the sage-grouse. These 

ecological systems are listed in Table B-4 with the exception of the Artemisia 

tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance and the Quercus gambelii Shrubland 

Alliance. Ecological systems selected included sagebrush species or subspecies 

that are included in the Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework and are 

found in Attachment B.

Attributable to the lack of any reference data, the BpS layer does not have an 

associated accuracy assessment. Visual inspection, however, of the BpS data 

reveals inconsistencies in the labeling of pixels among LANDFIRE map zones. 

The reason for these inconsistencies between map zones are the decision rules 

used to map a given ecological system will vary between map zones based on 

different physical, biological, disturbance and atmospheric regimes of the region. 

This can result in artificial edges in the map that are an artifact of the mapping 

process. However, metrics will be calculated at broad spatial scales using BpS 

potential vegetation type, not small groupings or individual pixels, therefore, the 

magnitude of these observable errors in the BpS layer is minor compared with 

the size of the reporting units. Therefore, since BpS will be used to identify 

broad landscape patterns of dominant vegetation, these inconsistencies will only 

have a minor impact on the percent sagebrush availability calculation.

B-18 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

LANDFIRE BpS data are not designed to be used at a local level. In reporting the 

percent sagebrush statistic for the various reporting units, the uncertainty of the 

percent sagebrush will increase as the size of the reporting unit gets smaller. 

LANDFIRE data should never be used at the pixel level (30m2) for any 

reporting. The smallest geographic extent use of the data for this purpose is at 

the PAC level and for the smallest PACs the initial percent sagebrush remaining 

estimate will have greater uncertainties compared with the much larger PACs.

Tracking

BLM will analyze and monitor sagebrush availability (Measure 1) on a bi-annual 

basis and it will be used to inform effectiveness monitoring and initiate adaptive 

management actions as necessary. The 2010 estimate of sagebrush availability 

will serve as the base year and an updated estimate for 2012 will be reported in 

2014 after all datasets become available. The 2012 estimate will capture changes 

attributable to fire, agriculture, and urban development. Subsequent updates will 

always include new fire and agricultural data and new urban data when available. 

Restoration data that meets criteria of adding sagebrush areas back into the 

sagebrush base layer will begin to be factored in as data allows. Attributable to 

data availability, there will be a two year lag (approximately) between when the 

estimate is generated and when the data used for the estimate becomes 

available (e.g., the 2014 sagebrush availability will be included in the 2016 

estimate).

Future Plans

Geospatial data used to generate the sagebrush base layer will be available 

through BLM’s EGIS Web Portal and Geospatial Gateway or through the 

authoritative data source. Legacy datasets will be preserved, so that trends may 

be calculated. Additionally, accuracy assessment data for all source datasets will 

be provided on the portal either spatially, where applicable, or through the

metadata. Accuracy assessment information was deemed vital to share to help 

users understand the limitation of the sagebrush estimates and will be 

summarized spatially by map zone and included in the Portal.

LANDFIRE plans to begin a remapping effort in 2015. This remapping has the 

potential to greatly improve overall quality of the data products primarily 

through the use of higher quality remote sensing datasets. Additionally, BLM 

and the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC) are working 

to improve the accuracy of vegetation map products for broad and mid-scale 

analyses through the Grass/Shrub mapping effort in partnership with the MRLC. 

The Grass/Shrub mapping effort applies the Wyoming multi-scale sagebrush 

habitat methodology (Homer et al. 2009) to spatially depict fractional percent 

cover estimates for five components range and west-wide. These five 

components are percent cover of sagebrush vegetation, percent bare ground, 

percent herbaceous vegetation (grass and forbs combined), annual vegetation, 

and percent shrubs. One of the benefits of the design of these fractional cover 

maps is that they facilitate monitoring “with-in” class variation (e.g., examination 

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS B-19
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

of declining trend in sagebrush cover for individual pixels). This “with-in” class 

variation can serve as one indicator of sagebrush quality that cannot be derived

from LANDFIRE’s EVT information. The Grass/Shrub effort is not a substitute 

for fine scale monitoring, but will leverage fine scale data to support the 

validation of the mapping products. An evaluation will be conducted to 

determine if either dataset is of great enough quality to warrant replacing the 

existing sagebrush layers. The earliest possible date for this evaluation will not 

occur until 2018 or 2019 depending on data availability.

B.2.2.2 Habitat Degradation Monitoring (Measure 2)

The measure of habitat degradation will be calculated by combining the 

footprints of threats identified in Table B-2. The footprint is defined as the 

direct area of influence of “active” energy and infrastructure and is used as a 

surrogate for human activity. Thus, the footprint of habitat degradation per 

sage-grouse area will be calculated. Although these analyses will try to 

summarize results at the aforementioned meaningful landscape units, some may 

be too small to appropriately report the metrics and may be combined (smaller 

populations, PACs within a population, etc.). Data sources for each threat are 

found in Table B-6, Geospatial Data Sources for Habitat Degradation (Measure 

2). Specific assumptions (inclusion criteria for data, width/area assumptions for 

point and line features, etc.) and methodology for each threat, and the 

combined measure are detailed below. All datasets will be updated annually to 

monitor broad and mid-scale year-to-year changes and to calculate trends in 

habitat degradation to inform adaptive management. A 5-year summary report 

will be available to the USFWS.

Habitat Degradation Datasets and Assumptions:

Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities)

This dataset will be a compilation of two oil and gas well databases: the 

proprietary IHS Enerdeq® database and the BLM Automated Fluid Minerals 

Support System (AFMSS) database (AFMSS data will be used to supplement the 

IHS data). Point data from wells active within the last ten years from IHS and 

producing wells from AFMSS will be considered as a 5 acre (2.0ha) footprint 

(BLM WO 2014) centered on the well point. Plugged and abandoned wells will 

be removed, though only if the date of well abandonment was prior to the first 

day of the reporting year (i.e. for the 2010 reporting year a well must be 

plugged and abandoned by 12/31/2009 to be removed).

Additional Measure: Reclaimed Energy-related Degradation This 

dataset will include those wells that have been plugged and abandoned

in an effort to measure energy-related degradation that has been 

reclaimed but not necessary fully restored to sage-grouse habitat. This 

measure will establish a baseline by using wells that have been plugged 

and abandoned within the last ten years from the IHS and AFMSS 

datasets. Time lags for lek attendance in response to infrastructure have 

B-20 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

been documented to be delayed by 2-10 years from energy 

development activities (Harju et al. 2010), while reclamation actions may 

require two or more years from the Final Abandonment Notice. 

Sagebrush seedling establishment may take six or more years from the 

point of seeding, depending on variables such as annual precipitation, 

annual temperature, and soil type and depth (Pyke, 2011). This ten-year 

period is conservative, assuming some level of habitat improvement ten 

years after plugging. However, research by Hemstrom et al. (2002) 

proposes an even longer period of greater than 100 years for recovery 

of sagebrush habitats even with active restoration approaches. Direct 

area of influence will be considered 3 acres (1.2ha) (J. Perry, personal 

communication February 12, 2014). This additional layer/measure could 

be used at the broad and mid-scale to identify areas where sagebrush 

habitat and/or potential sagebrush habitat is likely still degraded and 

where further investigation at the fine or site-scale would be warranted 

to: (1) quantify the level of reclamation already conducted, and (2) 

evaluate the amount of restoration still required (for sagebrush habitat 

recovery). At a particular level (e.g., population, PACs), these areas and 

the reclamation efforts/success could be used to inform reclamation 

standards associated with future developments. Once these areas have 

transitioned from reclamation standards to meeting restoration

standards, they can be added back into the sagebrush availability layer 

using the same methodology as described for adding restoration 

treatment areas lost to fire and agriculture conversion (see Sagebrush 

Restoration Updates section). This dataset will be updated annually 

with new plugged and abandoned well from the IHS dataset.

Energy (coal mines)

Currently there is no comprehensive dataset available that identifies the 

footprint of active coal mining across all jurisdictions. Therefore, point and 

polygon datasets will be used each year to identify coal mining locations. Data 

sources will be identified and evaluated annually and will include at a minimum: 

BLM coal lease polygons, U.S. Energy Information Administration mine 

occurrence points, US Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSMRE) coal mining permit polygons (as available), and USGS Mineral 

Resources Data System (MRDS) mine occurrence points. These data will inform 

where active coal mining may be occurring. Aerial imagery will then be used to 

manually digitize active coal mining surface disturbance in or near these known 

occurrence areas. While the date of aerial imagery varies by scale, the most 

current data available from ESRI and/or Google will be utilized to locate 

(generally at 1:50,000 and below) and digitize (generally at 1:10,000 and below) 

active coal mine footprints. Coal mine location data source and imagery date 

will be documented for each digitized coal footprint polygon at the time of 

creation. Sub-surface facility locations (polygon or point location as available) 

will also be collected, if available, and included in density calculations, and added 

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS B-21
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

to the active surface activity layer as appropriate (if actual footprint can be 

located).

Energy (wind energy facilities)

This dataset will be a subset of the Federal Aviation Administration Digital 

Obstacles point file to include points where “Type_” = “WINDMILL”. Direct 

area of influence of these point features will be measured by converting to a 

polygon dataset of three acres (1.2 ha) centered on each tower point (BLM 

Wind Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, 2005).

Additionally, we will use Platts Power Plants and Generating Units database for 

transformer stations associated with wind energy sites.

Energy (solar energy facilities)

This dataset will include solar plants in existence or under construction as 

compiled with the proprietary Platts in the Power Plants and Generating Units 

database. The point data will be buffered to represent a three acre (1.2 ha) 

direct area of influence.

Energy (geothermal energy facilities)

This dataset will include geothermal plants in existence or under construction as 

compiled with the proprietary I.H.S and Platts (Power Plants and Generating 

Units) databases. The point data will be buffered to represent a three acre (1.2 

ha) direct area of influence.

Mining (active developments; locatable, leasable, saleable)

This dataset will include active mining locations as compiled with the proprietary 

InfoMine® database. Other data sources will be evaluated as they are identified 

or become available. The point data will be buffered to represent a five acre (2.0

ha) direct area of influence, unless actual surface disturbance is available.

Infrastructure (roads)

This dataset will be compiled from the proprietary ESRI® StreetMap Premium 

for ArcGIS. Dataset features that will be used are: Interstates, Major Roads, and 

Surface Streets to capture most paved and “crowned and ditched” roads while 

not including “two-track” and 4-wheel-drive routes. These minor roads, while 

not included in our broad and mid-scale monitoring, may support a volume of 

traffic that can have deleterious effects to sage-grouse leks. It may be 

appropriate to consider the frequency and type of use of roads in a NEPA 

analysis for a proposed project. This fine/project scale analysis will require more 

site-specific data than is identified in this monitoring framework. The direct 

influence area for roads will be represented by 240.2 ft., 84.0 ft., and 40.7 ft.

(73.2 m, 25.6 m, and 12.4 m) total widths centered on the line feature for 

Interstates, Major Roads, and Surface Streets respectively (Knick et al. 2011). 

The most current dataset will be used for each monitoring update. Note: this is a 

related but different dataset as was used in the Summary of Science, Activities, 

Programs, and Policies That Influence the Rangewide Conservation of Greater SageB-22 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

Grouse (Manier et al., 2013). Individual BLM planning units may utilize different roads 

layers for fine and site scale monitoring.

Infrastructure (railroads)

This dataset will be a compilation of Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Rail 

Lines of the USA dataset. Non-abandoned rail lines will be used; abandoned rail 

lines will not be used. The direct influence area for railroads will be represented 

by a 30.8 ft. (9.4m) total width (Knick et al. 2011) centered on non-abandoned 

railroad line feature.

Infrastructure (power lines)

This line dataset will be a compilation from EV Energy Map, Platts/Global Energy 

of transmission lines, substations, electric power generation plants, and energy 

distribution control facilities. Linear features in the dataset attributed as 

“buried” will be removed from the disturbance calculation. Only “In Service” 

lines will be used, not “Proposed” lines. Direct area of influence will be 

determined by the kV designation: 1-199 kV (100 ft./30.5 m), 200-399 kV (150

ft./45.7 m), 500-699 kV (200 ft./61.0 m), and 700-or greater kV (250 ft./76.2 m) 

based on average ROW and structure widths.

Infrastructure (communication towers)

This point dataset will be compiled from the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) communication towers point file; all duplicate points will be 

removed. It will be converted to a polygon dataset by using a direct area of 

influence of 2.47 acres (1.0 ha) centered on each communication tower point 

(Knick et al. 2011).

Infrastructure (other vertical structures)

This point dataset will be compiled from the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) Digital Obstacles point file. Points where “Type_” = “WINDMILL” will be 

removed. Duplicate points from the FCC communication towers point file will 

be removed. Remaining features will be converted to a polygon dataset using a 

direct area of influence of 2.47 acres (1.0ha) centered on each vertical structure 

point (Knick et al. 2011).

Other developed rights-of-ways

Currently no additional data sources for other rights-of-ways have been 

identified; roads, power lines, railroads, pipelines, and other known linear 

features are represented in categories above. Our newly purchased IHS data 

does contain pipeline information, but further investigation is needed to 

determine if the dataset is comprehensive. If additional features representing 

human activities are identified, they will be added to monitoring reports using 

similar assumptions to the threats above.

Habitat Degradation Threat Combination and Calculation:

The threats targeted for measuring human activity from Table B-2, will be 

converted to direct area of influence polygons as described for each threat 

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS B-23
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

above. These threat polygon layers will be combined and features dissolved to 

create one overall polygon layer representing footprints of active human activity 

in the range of sage-grouse. However, individual datasets will be preserved to 

ascertain which types of threats may be contributing to overall habitat 

degradation. Percentages will be calculated as follows: This measure has been 

divided into three sub-measures to describe habitat degradation on the 

landscape:

Measure 2a) Footprint by landscape unit: Divide area of the active/direct 

footprint within a sage-grouse area by the total area of the sage-grouse 

area. (% disturbance in landscape unit)

Measure 2b) Active/direct footprint by historic sagebrush potential:

Divide area of the active footprint that coincides with areas with 

historic sagebrush potential (BpS calculation from habitat availability) 

within a given landscape unit by the total area with sagebrush potential 

within the landscape unit. (% disturbance on potential historic sagebrush 

in landscape unit)

Measure 2c) Active/direct footprint by current sagebrush: Divide area of 

the active footprint that coincides with areas of existing sagebrush (EVT 

calculation from habitat availability) within a given landscape unit by the 

total area that is current sagebrush within the landscape unit. (% 

disturbance on current sagebrush in landscape unit)

B.2.2.3 Density of Energy and Mining (Measure 3)

The measure of density of energy and mining will be calculated by combining the 

locations of threats identified in Table B-2. This will provide an estimate of 

intensity of human activity or intensity of habitat degradation. The number

energy facilities and mining locations will be summed and divided by the area of 

meaningful landscape units to calculate density of these activities. Data sources 

for each threat are found in Table B-6. Specific assumptions (inclusion criteria 

for data, width/area assumptions for point and line features, etc.) and 

methodology for each threat, and the combined measure are detailed below. All 

datasets will be updated annually to monitor broad and mid-scale year-to-year 

changes and 5-year (or longer) trends in habitat degradation.

Table B-6

Geospatial Data Sources for Habitat Degradation (Measure 2).

USFWS Listing Decision 

Threat Data Source Direct Area of Influence

Agriculture National Agriculture Statistics 

Service

Polygon Area

Urbanization USGS Percent Imperviousness Polygon Area

Wildfire Geospatial Multi-Agency 

Coordination Group; Monitoring 

Trends in Burn Severity

Polygon Area

B-24 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

Table B-6

Geospatial Data Sources for Habitat Degradation (Measure 2).

USFWS Listing Decision 

Threat Data Source Direct Area of Influence

Conifer encroachment LANDFIRE Polygon Area

Energy (oil and gas wells and 

development facilities)

IHS; BLM (AFMSS) 5 ac (2.0 ha)

Energy (reclaimed site degradation) IHS; BLM (AFMSS) 3 ac (1.2 ha)

Energy (coal mines) BLM & FS data; Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement

Polygon Area

Energy (wind towers) Federal Aviation Administration 3 ac (1.2 ha)

Energy (solar fields) Argonne National Laboratory Polygon Area

Energy (geothermal) Argonne National Laboratory Polygon Area or 5 ac (2.0

ha)

Mining (active locatable, leasable, 

and salable developments)

InfoMine Polygon Area or 5 ac (2.0

ha)

Infrastructure (roads) ESRI StreetMap Premium 40.7-240.2 ft. (12.4-73.2 m)

Infrastructure (railroads) Federal Railroad Administration 30.8 ft. (9.4 m)

Infrastructure (power lines) Platts Transmission Lines 100-250 ft. (30.5-76.2 m)

Infrastructure (communication 

towers)

Federal Communications 

Commission

2.5 ac (1.0 ha)

Infrastructure (other vertical 

structures)

Federal Aviation Administration 2.5 ac (1.0 ha)

Density of Energy and Mining Datasets and Assumptions:

Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities)

[See Section B.2.2.2]

Energy (coal mines)

[See Section B.2.2.2]

Energy (wind towers)

[See Section B.2.2.2]

Energy (solar energy facilities)

[See Section B.2.2.2]

Energy (geothermal energy facilities)

[See Section B.2.2.2]

Mining (active developments; locatable, leasable, saleable)

[See Section B.2.2.2]

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS B-25
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

Density of Energy and Mining Threat Combination and Calculation:

Datasets for energy and mining will be collected in two primary forms: point 

locations (e.g. wells) and polygon areas (e.g. surface coal mining). The following 

rule set will be used to calculate density for meaningful landscape units including 

standard grids and per polygon:

1. Point locations will be preserved; no additional points will be 

removed beyond the methodology described above. Energy facilities 

in close proximity (an oil well close to a wind tower) will be 

retained.

2. Polygons will not be merged, nor features further dissolved. Thus, 

overlapping facilities will be retained, such that each individual threat 

will be a separate polygon data input for the density calculation.

3. The analysis unit (polygon or 640 acre section in a grid) will be the 

basis for counting the number of mining or energy facilities per unit 

area. Within the analysis unit all point features will be summed, and 

any individual polygons will be counted as one (e.g.; a coal mine will 

be counted as one facility within population). Where polygon 

features overlap multiple units (polygons or pixels), the facility will 

be counted as one in each unit where the polygon occurs (e.g. a 

polygon crossing multiple 640 acre sections would be counted as 

one in each 640 acre section for a density per 640 acre section 

calculation).

4. In methodologies with different sized units (e.g. MZs, populations, 

etc.) raw counts will be converted to densities by dividing by the 

total area of the unit. Typically this will be measured as facilities per 

640 acres.

5. For uniform grids, raw facility counts will be reported. Typically this 

number will also be converted to facilities per 640 acres.

6. Reporting may include summaries beyond the simple ones above. 

Zonal statistics may be used to smooth smaller grids to help with 

display and conveying information about areas within meaningful 

landscape units that have high energy and/or mining activity.

7. Additional statistics for each defined unit may also include adjusting 

the area to only include area with the historic potential for 

sagebrush (BpS) or areas currently sagebrush (EVT).

Key habitat degradation individual datasets and threat combination datasets will 

be available through BLM’s EGIS Web Portal and Geospatial Gateway. Legacy 

datasets will be preserved, so that trends may be calculated.

B.2.3 Population (Demographics) Monitoring

State wildlife management agencies are responsible for monitoring sage-grouse 

populations within their respective states. WAFWA will coordinate this 

B-26 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

collection of annual population data by state agencies. These data will be made 

available to BLM through the Sage-grouse Implementation Memorandum of 

Understanding (2013) signed by WAFWA, BLM, NRCS, USGS, Farm Service 

Agency, and USFWS. An amendment to the MOU (2014) will outline a process, 

timeline, and responsibilities for regular data sharing of sage-grouse population 

and/or habitat information. The Landscape Conservation Management and 

Analysis Portal (LC MAP) will be used as the instrument for state wildlife 

agencies to annually submit population data and analyses that will be accessed by 

the BLM through a data sharing agreement. Population areas were refined from 

the Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Objectives: Final Report (COT) report 

by individual state wildlife agencies to create a consistent naming nomenclature 

for future data analyses. These population data will be used for analysis at the 

applicable scale to supplement habitat effectiveness monitoring of management 

actions and inform the adaptive management responses.

B.2.4 Effectiveness Monitoring

Effectiveness monitoring will provide the information to evaluate BLM actions to 

reach the objective of the planning strategy (BLM IM 2012-044), to conserve 

sage-grouse populations and its habitat, and the objectives in this Lewistown 

Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS. Effectiveness monitoring methods 

described here will encompass multiple larger scales, from areas as large as the 

WAFWA MZ to the scale of this RMP. Effectiveness information used for these 

larger scale evaluations includes all-lands in the area of interest regardless of 

surface ownership/ management and will help inform where finer scale 

evaluations are needed such as population areas smaller than a RMP or PACs 

within a RMP (described in Section B.3). The information will also include the 

trend of disturbance within these areas of interest which informs the need to 

initiate adaptive management responses as described in this Lewistown Field 

Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS.

Effectiveness monitoring reported for these larger areas provides the context to 

then conduct effectiveness monitoring at finer scales and helps focus scarce 

resources to areas experiencing habitat loss, degradation, or population 

declines. These large area evaluations would not exclude the need for 

concurrent finer scale evaluations where habitat or population anomalies have 

been identified through some other means.

To determine the effectiveness of the sage-grouse planning strategy, the BLM 

will evaluate the answers to the following questions and prepare a broad and 

mid-scale effectiveness report:

1. Sagebrush Availability and Condition:

a. What is the amount of sagebrush availability and the change 

in the amount and condition of sagebrush?

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS B-27
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

b. What is the existing amount of sagebrush on the landscape 

and the change in the amount relative to the pre EuroAmerican historical distribution of sagebrush (BpS)?

c. What is the trend and condition of the indicators describing 

sagebrush characteristics important to sage-grouse?

2. Habitat Degradation and Intensity of Activities:

a. What is the amount of habitat degradation and the change 

in that amount?

b. What is the intensity of activities and the change in the 

intensity?

c. What is the amount of reclaimed energy-related 

degradation and the change in the amount?

3. What is the population estimation of sage-grouse and the change in 

the population estimation?

4. How is the BLM contributing to changes in the amount of 

sagebrush?

5. How is the BLM contributing to disturbance?

The compilation of broad and mid-scale data (and population trends as available) 

into an effectiveness monitoring report will occur on a 5-year reporting 

schedule, which may be accelerated to respond to critical emerging issues (in 

consultation with USFWS and state wildlife agencies). In addition, effectiveness 

monitoring results will be used to identify emerging issues and research needs 

and will be consistent with and inform the BLM adaptive management strategy 

(see “Adaptive Management” section of the EIS).

To determine the effectiveness of the sage-grouse objectives of this Lewistown 

Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS, the BLM will evaluate the answers 

to the following questions and prepare a plan effectiveness report:

1. Is this plan meeting the sage-grouse habitat objectives?

2. Are sage-grouse areas within the land use plan meeting, or making 

progress towards meeting, land health standards, including the 

Special Status Species/ wildlife habitat standard?

3. Is the plan meeting the disturbance objective(s) within sage-grouse 

areas?

4. Are the sage-grouse populations within this plan boundary and 

within the sage-grouse areas increasing, stable, or declining?

The effectiveness monitoring report for this RMP will occur on a 5-year 

reporting schedule (see Attachment A) or more often if habitat or population 

anomalies identify the need for an evaluation to facilitate adaptive management 

B-28 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

or respond to critical emerging issues. Data will be made available through the 

BLM’s EGIS Web Portal and the Geospatial Gateway.

Methods: At the broad and mid- biological scales (PACs and above) the BLM will 

summarize the vegetation, disturbance, and population data (when available). 

Although the analysis will try to summarize results for PACs within each sagegrouse population, some populations may be too small to appropriately report 

the metrics and may need to be combined to provide an estimate with an 

acceptable level of accuracy or they will be flagged for more intensive

monitoring by the appropriate landowner or agency. The BLM will then analyze 

monitoring data to detect the trend in the amount of sagebrush; the condition 

of the vegetation in the sage-grouse areas (MacKinnon et al. 2011); the trend in 

the amount of disturbance; the change in disturbed areas due to successful 

restoration; and the amount of new disturbance the BLM has permitted. This 

information could be supplemented with population data to understand the 

correlation between habitat and PACs within a population when population data 

are available. This overall effectiveness evaluation must consider the lag effect 

response of populations to habitat changes (Garton et al. 2011).

Calculating Question 1, Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The amount of sagebrush 

available in the large area of interest will utilize the information from Measure 

1a (Section B1, Sagebrush Availability) and calculate the change from the 2012 

Baseline to the end date of the reporting period. To calculate the change in the 

amount of sagebrush on the landscape to compare with the historical areas with 

potential to support sagebrush, the information from Measure 1b (Section 

B.2.2.1, Sagebrush Availability) will be utilized. To calculate the trend in the 

condition of sagebrush at the mid-scale, three sources of data will be utilized: 

the BLM Grass/ Shrub mapping effort (Section B.2.2.1, Future Plans); the 

results from the calculation of the landscape indicators such as patch size 

(described below); and the BLM Landscape Monitoring Framework (LMF) and 

sage-grouse intensification effort (also described below). The LMF and sagegrouse intensification effort data is collected in a statistical sampling framework 

that allows calculation of indicator values at multiple scales.

Beyond the importance of sagebrush availability to sage-grouse, the mix of 

sagebrush patches on the landscape at the broad and mid-scale provides the life 

requisite of space for sage-grouse dispersal needs (see the HAF). The 

configuration of sagebrush habitat patches and the land cover or land use 

between the habitat patches at the broad and mid-scales also defines suitability. 

There are three significant habitat indicators that influence habitat use, dispersal 

and movement across populations: the size and number of habitat patches, the 

connectivity of habitat patches (linkage areas), and habitat fragmentation (scope 

of unsuitable and non-habitats between habitat patches). The most appropriate 

commercial software to measure patch dynamics, connectivity, and 

fragmentation at the broad and mid-scales will be utilized using the same data 

layers derived for sagebrush availability.

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS B-29
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

The BLM initiated the LMF in 2011 in cooperation with NRCS. The objective of 

the LMF effort is to provide non-biased estimates of vegetation and soil 

condition and trend using a statistically balanced sample design across BLM 

lands. Recognizing that sage-grouse populations are more resilient where the 

sagebrush plant community has certain characteristics unique to a particular life 

stage of sage-grouse (Knick and Connelly 2011, Stiver et al. in press), a group of 

sage-grouse habitat and sagebrush plant community subject matter experts 

identified those vegetation indicators collected at LMF sampling points that 

inform sage-grouse habitat needs. The experts represented BLM, USFWS, 

WAFWA, NRCS, ARS, state wildlife agencies, and academia. The common 

indicators that were identified include: species composition, foliar cover, height 

of the tallest sagebrush and herbaceous plant, intercanopy gap, percent of 

invasive species, sagebrush shape, and bare ground. To increase the precision of 

estimates of sagebrush conditions within the range of sage-grouse, additional 

plot locations in occupied sage-grouse habitat (Sage-grouse Intensification) were 

added in 2013. The common indicators are also collected on sampling locations 

in the NRCS Rangeland Monitoring Survey.

The Sage-grouse Intensification baseline data will be collected over a five year 

period and an annual Sage-grouse Intensification report will be prepared 

describing the status of the indicators. Beginning in year six, the annual status 

report will be accompanied with a trend report which will be available on an 

annual basis thereafter contingent upon continuation of the current monitoring 

budget. This information, in combination with the Grass/ Shrub mapping 

information, the mid-scale habitat suitability indicator measures, and the 

sagebrush availability information will be used to answer Question 1 of the 

Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report.

Calculating Question 2, Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The amount of habitat 

degradation and the intensity of the activities in the area of interest will utilize 

the information from Measures 2 and 3 (Section B.2.2.2, Habitat 

Degradation). The amount of reclaimed energy-related degradation will be 

collected by the FO on plugged and abandoned and oil/gas well sites. The data 

will demonstrate that the reclaimed sites have yet to meet the habitat 

restoration objectives for sage-grouse habitat. This information, in combination 

with the amount of habitat degradation, will be used to answer Question 2 of 

the Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report.

Calculating Question 3, Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The change in sage-grouse 

estimated populations will be calculated from data provided by the state wildlife 

agencies, when available. This population data (Section C, Population 

Monitoring) will be used to answer Question 3 of the Planning Strategy

Effectiveness Report.

Calculating Question 4, Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The estimated contribution 

by the BLM to the change in the amount of sagebrush in the area of interest will 

B-30 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

utilize the information from Measure 1a (Section B.2.2.1, Sagebrush 

Availability).This measure is derived from the national data sets that remove 

sagebrush (Table B-2). To determine the relative contribution of the BLM 

management, the current Surface Management Agency geospatial data layer will 

be used to differentiate the amount of change for each management agency for 

this measure in area of interest. This information will be used to answer 

Question 4 of the Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report.

Calculating Question 5, Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The estimated contribution 

by the BLM to the change in the amount of disturbance in the area of interest 

will utilize the information from Measure 2a (Section B.2.2.2, Habitat 

Degradation, Percent) and Measure 3 Section B.2.2.2, Habitat Degradation, 

Intensity). These measures are all derived from the national disturbance data 

sets that degrade habitat (Table B-2). To determine the relative contribution 

of the BLM management, the current Surface Management Agency geospatial 

data layer will be used to differentiate the amount of change for each 

management agency for these two measures in area of interests. This 

information will be used to answer Question 5 of the Planning Strategy 

Effectiveness Report.

Answering the five questions that determine the effectiveness of the BLM

Planning Strategy will identify areas that appear to be meeting the objectives of 

the strategy and will facilitate identification of population areas for more 

detailed analysis. Conceptually, if the broad scale monitoring identifies increasing 

sagebrush availability and improving vegetation conditions, decreasing 

disturbance, and a stable or increasing population for the area of interest, there 

is evidence the objectives of the Planning Strategy to maintain populations and 

their habitats have been met. Conversely, where information indicates 

sagebrush is decreasing and vegetation conditions are degrading, disturbance in 

sage-grouse areas is increasing, and populations are declining relative to the 

baseline, there is evidence the objectives of the Planning Strategy are not being 

achieved. This would likely result in a more detailed analysis and could be the 

basis for implementing more restrictive adaptive management measures.

At the RMP area, the BLM will summarize the vegetation, disturbance, and 

population data to determine if the RMP is meeting the plan objectives. 

Effectiveness information used for these evaluations includes BLM surface 

management areas and will help inform where finer scale evaluations are needed 

such as seasonal habitats, corridors, or linkage areas. The information should 

also include the trend of disturbance within the sage-grouse areas which informs 

the need to initiate adaptive management responses as described in this 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS.

Calculating Question 1, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: The condition of vegetation 

and the allotments meeting Land Health Standards in sage-grouse areas will both 

be used as part of the determination of the effectiveness of the RMP in meeting 

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS B-31
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

the vegetation objectives in sage-grouse habitat set forth in this RMP. The 

collection of this data will be the responsibility of the Field Office/Ranger 

District. In order for this data to be consistent and comparable, common 

indicators, consistent methods, and a nonbiased sampling framework should be 

implemented following the principles in the AIM Strategy (Toevs, et al, BLM TN 

440 BLM Core Indicators and Methods), in the BLM Technical Reference 

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health (Pellant et al. 2005), and the HAF 

(Stiver et al. in press) or other approved WAFWA MZ consistent guidance to 

measure and monitor sage-grouse habitats. The analysis of this information will 

be used to answer Question 1 of the Land Use Plan Effectiveness Report.

Calculating Question 2, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: The amount of habitat 

disturbance in sage-grouse areas identified in this RMP will be used as part of 

the determination of the effectiveness of the RMP in meeting the disturbance 

objectives set forth in this RMP. National data sets can be used to calculate the 

amount of disturbance, but Field Office data will likely increase the accuracy of 

this estimate. This information will be used to answer Question 2 of the Land 

Use Plan Effectiveness Report.

Calculating Question 3, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: The change in estimated sagegrouse populations will be calculated from data provided by the state wildlife 

agencies, when available and will part of the determination of effectiveness. This 

population data (Section B.2.3) will be used to answer Question 3 of the Land 

Use Plan Effectiveness Report.

Results of the effectiveness monitoring process for the RMP will be used to 

inform the need for finer scales investigations, initiate Adaptive Management 

actions as described in Chapter 2 of the Lewistown Field Office Proposed 

RMPA/Final EIS, initiate causation determination, and/ or determine if changes to 

management decisions are warranted. The measures used at the broad and midscales will provide a suite of characteristics from which the effectiveness of the 

adaptive management strategy will be evaluated.

B.3 FINE AND SITE SCALES

Fine scale (third order) habitat selected by sage-grouse is described as the 

physical and geographic area within home ranges including breeding, summer, 

and winter periods. At this level, habitat suitability monitoring should address 

factors that affect sage-grouse use of, and movements between, seasonal use 

areas. The habitat monitoring at fine and site scale (fourth order) should focus

on indicators to describe seasonal home ranges for sage-grouse associated with 

a lek, or lek group within a population or subpopulation area. Fine and site scale 

monitoring should inform RMP effectiveness monitoring (see Section B.2.4) 

and the hard and soft triggers identified in the Adaptive Management section of 

the Lewistown Field Office Proposed RMPA/Final EIS.

Site-scale habitat selected by sage-grouse is described as the more detailed 

vegetation characteristics of seasonal habitats. Habitat suitability characteristics 

B-32 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

include canopy cover and height of sagebrush and the associated understory 

vegetation as well as vegetation associated with riparian areas, wet meadows, 

and other mesic habitats adjacent to sagebrush that may support sage-grouse 

habitat needs during different stages in their annual cycle.

As described in the Conclusion (Section B.4), details and application of 

monitoring at the fine and site scales will be described in the implementationlevel monitoring plan of the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse 

RMPA/EIS. 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. Examples of fine and site-scale monitoring include:

habitat vegetation monitoring to assess current habitat conditions; monitoring 

and evaluating the success of projects targeting sage-grouse habitat 

enhancement and/or restoration; and habitat disturbance monitoring to provide 

localized disturbance measures to inform proposed project review and potential 

mitigation for project impacts. Monitoring plans should incorporate the 

principles outlined in the BLM AIM Strategy (Toevs, et. al., 2011) and AIMMonitoring: A Component of the Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring 

Strategy (Taylor, et.al., in press). Approved monitoring methods are:

• BLM Core Terrestrial Indicators and Methods, (MacKinnon, et. al, 

2011) 

• BLM Technical Reference Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland 

Health (Pellant et al. 2005); and

• Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework. 

Other state-specific disturbance tracking models include: 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. Population monitoring data (in cooperation with state wildlife agencies) 

should be included during evaluation of the effectiveness of actions taken at the 

fine and site scales.

Fine and site scale sage-grouse habitat suitability indicators for seasonal habitats 

are identified in the HAF. The HAF has incorporated the Connelly et al. (2000) 

sage-grouse guidelines as well as many of the core indicators in the assessment, 

inventory and monitoring (AIM) strategy (Toevs et al. 2011). There may be a 

need to develop adjustments to height and cover or other site suitability values

described in the HAF and any such adjustments should be ecologically 

defensible. However, to foster consistency, adjustments to site suitability values

at the local scale should be avoided unless there is strong, scientific justification 

for doing so and that justification should be provided. WAFWA MZ adjustments 

must be supported by regional plant productivity and habitat data for the

floristic province. If adjustments are made to the site scale indicators they must 

be made using data from the appropriate seasonal habitat designation 

(breeding/nesting, brood-rearing, winter) collected from sage-grouse studies 

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS B-33
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

found in the relevant area and peer reviewed by the appropriate wildlife 

management agency(s) and researchers.

When conducting land heath assessments, at a minimum, the BLM should follow 

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health (Pellant, et. al., 2005) and the BLM 

Core Terrestrial Indicators and Methods, (MacKinnon, et. al, 2011). If the 

assessment is being conducted in sage-grouse areas, the BLM should collect 

additional data to inform the HAF indicators that have not been collected using 

the above methods. Implementation of the principles outlined in the AIM 

strategy will allow the data to be used to generate unbiased estimates of 

condition across the area of interest; facilitate consistent data collection and 

roll-up analysis among management units; will be useful to provide consistent 

data to inform the classification and interpretation of imagery; and will provide 

condition and trend of the indicators describing sagebrush characteristics 

important to sage-grouse habitat (see Section B.2.4).

B.4 CONCLUSION

This Greater Sage-grouse Monitoring Framework was developed for all of the

Final Environmental Impact Statements involved in the sage-grouse planning 

effort. As such, it describes the monitoring activities at the broad and mid-scales 

and sets the stage for BLM to collaborate with partners/other agencies to 

develop the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS Monitoring 

Plan using this Greater Sage-grouse Monitoring Framework as a guide.

B.5 THE GREATER SAGE-GROUSE DISTURBANCE AND MONITORING SUB-TEAM 

MEMBERSHIP

Gordon Toevs (BLM -WO) 

Duane Dippon (BLM-WO) 

Frank Quamen (BLM-NOC) 

David Wood (BLM-NOC) 

Vicki Herren (BLM-NOC) 

Matt Bobo (BLM-NOC) 

Michael “Sherm” Karl (BLM-NOC) 

Emily Kachergis (BLM-NOC) 

Doug Havlina (BLM-NIFC) 

Mike Pellant (BLM-GBRI) 

John Carlson (BLM-MT) 

Jenny Morton (BLM -WY) 

Robin Sell (BLM-CO) 

Paul Makela (BLM-ID) 

Renee Chi (BLM-UT) 

Sandra Brewer (BLM-NV) 

Glenn Frederick (BLM-OR) 

Robert Skorkowsky (USFS) 

Dalinda Damm (USFS) 

Rob Mickelsen (USFS) 

Tim Love (USFS) 

Pam Bode (USFS)

Lief Wiechman (USFWS) 

Lara Juliusson (USFWS) 

B-34 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

B.6 LITERATURE CITED

Baruch-Mordo, S., J. S. Evans, J. P. Severson, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, J. M. Kiesecker, M. J. Falkowski, 

C. A. Hagen, and K. P. Reese. 2013. Saving sage-grouse from the trees: a proactive solution to 

reducing a key threat to a candidate species. Biological Conservation 167:233-241.

Davies, K. W., C. S. Boyd, J. L. Beck, J. D. Bates, T. J. Svejcar, and M. A. Gregg. 2011. Saving the 

sagebrush sea: an ecosystem conservation plan for big sagebrush plant communities. Biological 

Conservation 144:2573-2584.

Fry, J., Xian, G., Jin, S., Dewitz, J., Homer, C., Yang, L., Barnes, C., Herold, N., and Wickham, J., 

2011. Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the Conterminous United 

States, PE&RS, Vol. 77(9):858-864.

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., K. P. Reese, and M. A. Schroeder. 2003. Monitoring of Greater Sage-grouse habitats and 

populations. University of Idaho Station College of Natural Resources Experiment Station 

Bulletin 80. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

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. Internet website:

http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/docs/Greater_Sage-grouse_Conservation_Assessment_060404.pdf.

Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month findings for petitions to list the greater sagegrouse (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, 

California. 

Grove, A. J., C. L. Wambolt, and M. R. Frisina. 2005. Douglas-fir’s effect on mountain big sagebrush 

wildlife habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:74-80.

Gruell, G. E., J. K. Brown, and C. L. Bushey. 1986. Prescribed fire opportunities in grasslands invaded by 

Douglas-fir: state-of-the-art guidelines. General Technical Report INT-198. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 19 p.

Hemstrom, M. A., M. J. Wisdom, M. M. Rowland, B. Wales, W. J. Hann, and R. A. Gravenmier. 2002. 

Sagebrush-steppe vegetation dynamics and potential for restoration in the Interior Columbia 

Basin, USA. Conservation Biology 16:1243-1255.

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS B-35
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

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: US 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, California.

Knick, S. T., and S. E. Hanser. 2011. Connecting pattern and process in greater sage-grouse populations 

and sagebrush landscapes, pages 383-405 in: Knick, S. T. and J. W. Connelly (editors), Greater 

sage-grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian 

Biology No. 38. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, California. 646 p.

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, pages 203-251 in: Knick, S. T. 

and J. W. Connelly (editors), Greater sage-grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape 

species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology No. 38. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, 

California. 646 p.

LANDFIRE. 2006. National existing vegetation type layer. USDI Geological Survey. Internet website: 

http://gisdata.usgs.net/website/lanfire/. Accessed on August, 21 2009.

Leu, M., and S. E. Hanser. 2011. Influences of the human footprint on sagebrush landscape patterns: 

implications for sage-grouse conservation, pages 253-271 in: Knick, S. T. and J. W. Connelly 

(editors), Greater sage-grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. 

Studies in Avian Biology No. 38, Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, California. 646 p.

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 sagegrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus): US Geological Survey Open–File Report 2013–1098, 170 pp.

MacKinnon, W. C., J. W. Karl, G. R. Toevs, J. J. Taylor, M. Karl, C. S. Spurrier, and J. E. Herrick. 2011. 

BLM core terrestrial indicators and methods. Tech Note 440. US Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, Colorado.

NatureServe. 2011. International Ecological Classification Standard: Terrestrial Ecological Classifications. 

NatureServe Central Databases. Arlington, Virginia, USA. Data current as of 31 July 2011.

Pellant, M., P. Shaver, D. A. Pyke, and J. E. Herrick. 2005. Interpreting indicators of rangeland health, 

version 4. Technical Reference 1734-6. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, National Science and Technology Center, Denver, Colorado. BLM/WO/ST00/001+1734/REV05. 122 pp.

B-36 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

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, 

Wyoming, USA. Internet website: http://www.wafwa.org/documents/pdf/GreaterSagegrouseConservationStrategy2006.pdf.

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, P. D. Makela, D. A. Nance, and J. W. Karl. 2014. Sage-grouse 

habitat assessment framework: multi-scale habitat assessment tool. Bureau of Land Management 

and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Technical Reference in press. US 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.

Taylor, J., E. J. Kachergis, G. Toevs, J. Karl, M. Bobo, M. Karl, S. Miller, and C. Spurrier. In press. AIMMonitoring: A Component of the Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy. US 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, 

Colorado.

Toevs, G. R., J. J. Taylor, C. S. Spurrier, W. C. MacKinnon, M. R. Bobo. 2011. Bureau of Land 

Management Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy: for integrated renewable 

resources management. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National 

Operations Center, Denver, Colorado.

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer. {YEAR}. Published crop-specific data 

layer [Online]. Internet website: http://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/ (accessed {DATE}; 

verified {DATE}). USDA-NASS, Washington, DC.

US 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.

US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2011. BLM Memorandum of 

Understanding Washington Office 220-2011-02. BLM Washington Office, Washington DC.

US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) conservation objectives: final report. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, 

Colorado.

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS B-37
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

ATTACHMENT A: AN OVERVIEW OF MONITORING COMMITMENTS

Broad and Mid-scales

Fine & Site 

Scales Implementation

Sagebrush 

Availability

Habitat 

DegradationPopulation Effective-ness

How will 

the data 

be used?

Tracking and 

documenting 

implementtation of 

RMP

decisions 

and inform 

adaptive 

management

Tracking 

changes in 

land cover 

(sagebrush) 

and inform 

adaptive 

management

Tracking 

changes in 

disturbance 

(threats) to 

sage-grouse 

habitat and 

inform 

adaptive 

management 

Tracking 

trends in 

sage-grouse 

populations 

(and/or leks; 

as 

determined 

by state 

wildlife 

agencies) and 

inform 

adaptive 

management

Characterizing 

the relationship 

among 

disturbance, 

implementation 

actions, and 

sagebrush 

metrics and 

inform adaptive 

management

Measuring 

seasonal 

habitat, 

connectivity at 

the fine scale, 

and habitat 

conditions at 

the site scale, 

calculating 

disturbance and 

inform adaptive 

management

Who is 

collecting 

the data?

BLM FO NOC and 

NIFC

National data 

sets (NOC), 

BLM FOs as 

applicable

State wildlife 

agencies 

through 

WAFWA

Comes from 

other broad 

and mid-scale

monitoring 

types, analyzed 

by the NOC

BLM FO and 

SO, (with 

partners)

including 

disturbance

How 

often are 

the data 

collected, 

reported 

and 

made 

available 

to 

USFWS?

Collected 

and 

reported 

annually;

summary 

every 5 

years

Updated and 

changes 

reported 

annually; 

summary 

reports every 

5 years

Collected 

and changes 

reported 

annually; 

summary

reports 

every 5 years

State data 

reported

annually per 

WAFWA 

MOU; 

summary

reports every 

5 years

Collected and 

reported every 

5 years 

(coincident with 

RMP

evaluations)

Collection and 

trend analysis 

ongoing, 

reported every 

5 years or as 

needed to 

inform adaptive 

management

What is 

the 

spatial 

scale?

Summarized 

by RMP with 

flexibility for 

reporting by 

other units

Summarized 

by PACs (size 

dependent) 

with flexibility 

for reporting 

by other units

Summarized 

by PACs

(size 

dependent) 

with 

flexibility for 

reporting by 

other units

Summarized 

by PACs 

(size 

dependent) 

with 

flexibility for 

reporting by 

other units

Summarized by 

MZ, and RMP

with flexibility 

for reporting by 

other units

(e.g., PAC)

Variable (e.g., 

projects and 

seasonal 

habitats)

B-38 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

Broad and Mid-scales

Fine & Site 

Scales Implementation

Sagebrush 

Availability

Habitat 

DegradationPopulation Effective-ness

What are 

the 

potential 

personnel 

and 

budget 

impacts?

Additional 

capacity or 

reprioritization 

of ongoing 

monitoring 

work and 

budget 

realignment

At a minimum, 

current skills 

and capacity 

must be 

maintained; 

data mgmt.

cost are TBD

At a 

minimum, 

current skills 

and capacity 

must be 

maintained; 

data mgmt.

and data 

layer 

purchase 

cost are TBD 

No additional 

personnel or 

budget 

impacts for 

BLM

Additional 

capacity or reprioritization of 

ongoing 

monitoring 

work and 

budget 

realignment

Additional 

capacity or reprioritization of 

ongoing 

monitoring 

work and 

budget 

realignment

Who has 

primary 

and 

secondary 

responsibi

lities for 

reporting?

BLM FO & 

SO

BLM 

Planning

NOC

WO

NOC

BLM SO & 

appropriate 

programs

WAFWA & 

state wildlife 

agencies

BLM SO, 

NOC

Broad and midscale at the 

NOC, RMP at 

BLM SO

BLM FO & SO

What 

new 

processes

/ tools 

are

needed?

National 

implementation data 

sets and 

analysis 

tools 

Updates to 

national land 

cover data 

Data 

standards 

and roll-up 

methods for 

these data

Standards in 

population 

monitoring 

(WAFWA)

Reporting 

methodologies

Data standards 

data storage; 

and reporting

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS B-39
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

ATTACHMENT B - LIST OF ALL SAGEBRUSH SPECIES AND SUBSPECIES INCLUDED IN THE 

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR BUILDING THE EVT AND BPS LAYERS

• Artemisia arbuscula subspecies longicaulis

• Artemisia arbuscula subspecies longiloba

• Artemisia bigelovii

• Artemisia nova

• Artemisia papposa

• Artemisia pygmaea

• Artemisia rigida

• Artemisia spinescens

• Artemisia tripartita subspecies rupicola

• Artemisia tripartita subspecies tripartita

• Tanacetum nuttallii

• Artemisia cana subspecies bolanderi

• Artemisia cana subspecies cana

• Artemisia cana subspecies viscidula

• Artemisia tridentata subspecies wyomingensis

• Artemisia tridentata subspecies tridentata

• Artemisia tridentata subspecies vaseyana

• Artemisia tridentata subspecies spiciformis

• Artemisia tridentata subspecies xericensis

• Artemisia tridentata variety pauciflora

• Artemisia frigida

• Artemisia pedatifida 

B-40 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
B. The Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Monitoring Framework

ATTACHMENT C – USER AND PRODUCER ACCURACIES FOR AGGREGATED ECOLOGICAL 

SYSTEMS WITHIN LANDFIRE MAP ZONES

LANDFIRE Map Zone Name User 

Accuracy

Producer 

Accuracy

% of Map Zone 

within Historic 

Schroeder

Wyoming Basin 76.9% 90.9% 98.5%

Snake River Plain 68.8% 85.2% 98.4%

Missouri River Plateau 57.7% 100.0% 91.3%

Grand Coulee Basin of the Columbia Plateau 80.0% 80.0% 89.3%

Wyoming Highlands 75.3% 85.9% 88.1%

Western Great Basin 69.3% 75.4% 72.9%

Blue Mountain Region of the Columbia Plateau 85.7% 88.7% 72.7%

Eastern Great Basin 62.7% 80.0% 62.8%

Northwestern Great Plains 76.5% 92.9% 46.3%

Northern Rocky Mountains 72.5% 89.2% 42.5%

Utah High Plateaus 81.8% 78.3% 41.5%

Colorado Plateau 65.3% 76.2% 28.8%

Middle Rocky Mountains 78.6% 73.3% 26.4%

Cascade Mountain Range 57.1% 88.9% 17.3%

Sierra Nevada Mountain Range 0.0% 0.0% 12.3%

Northwestern Rocky Mountains 66.7% 60.0% 7.3%

Southern Rocky Mountains 58.6% 56.7% 7.0%

Northern Cascades 75.0% 75.0% 2.6%

Mogollon Rim 66.7% 100.0% 1.7%

Death Valley Basin 0.0% 0.0% 1.2%

There are two anomalous map zones with 0% user and producer accuracies 

attributable to no available reference data for the ecological systems of interest.

Producer's accuracy is a reference-based accuracy that is computed by looking 

at the predictions produced for a class and determining the percentage of 

correct predictions. In other words, if I know that a particular area is sagebrush 

(I've been out on the ground to check), what is the probability that the digital 

map will correctly identify that pixel as sagebrush? Omission Error equates to 

excluding a pixel that should have been included in the class (i.e., omission error 

= 1 - producers accuracy).

User’s accuracy is a map-based accuracy that is computed by looking at the 

reference data for a class and determining the percentage of correct predictions 

for these samples. For example, if I select any sagebrush pixel on the classified 

map, what is the probability that I'll be standing in a sagebrush stand when I visit 

that pixel location in the field? Commission Error equates to including a pixel 

in a class when it should have been excluded (i.e., commission error = 1 – user’s 

accuracy).

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS B-41
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix C

Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse 

Habitat for Alternatives B and C

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS C-1

APPENDIX C

REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES FOR GREATER 

SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT FOR ALTERNATIVES B

AND C

INTRODUCTION

Required Design Features (RDF) are required for certain activities in all 

Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) habitat. RDFs establish the minimum 

specifications for certain activities to help mitigate adverse impacts. However, 

the applicability and overall effectiveness of each RDF cannot be fully assessed 

until the project level when the project location and design are known. Because 

of site-specific circumstances, some RDFs 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 RDFs would require 

that at least one of the following be demonstrated in the NEPA analysis 

associated with the project/activity:

• A specific RDF is documented to not be applicable to the sitespecific conditions of the project/activity (e.g., due to site limitations 

or engineering considerations). Economic considerations, such as 

increased costs, do not necessarily require that an RDF be varied or 

rendered inapplicable;

• An alternative RDF is determined to provide equal or better 

protection for GRSG or its habitat;

• A specific RDF would provide no additional protection to GRSG or 

its habitat.

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 
C. Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternatives B and C

C-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

applicable and appropriate for Alternatives B and C in the Lewistown Field 

Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMP Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement.

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 for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternatives B and C

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final 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. Master’s Thesis. Montana State University, 

Bozeman.

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 Habitat Management Area (PHMA) in Alternative B and 

All GRSG 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 for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternatives B and C

C-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

• 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 PHMA areas. Have no 

tanks at well locations within PHMA (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 GRSG.
C. Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternatives B and C

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final 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 

GRSG 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 GRSG-safe fences.

• Locate new compressor stations outside PHMA and design them to 

reduce noise that may be directed towards PHMA.
C. Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternatives B and C

C-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

• Clean up refuse.

• Locate man camps outside of PHMA.

Reclamation

• Include objectives for ensuring habitat restoration to meet GRSG

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 GRSG 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.

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. Master’s thesis, Montana State University, 

Bozeman.

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, DC.

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.
C. Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternatives B and C

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS C-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.

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.

REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES FOR FIRE & FUELS MANAGEMENT

RDFs for PHMA in Alternative B and All GRSG 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 GRSG

habitat.

2. Provide training to fuels treatment personnel on GRSG 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 

GRSG seasonal habitats and landscape.

5. Where appropriate, ensure that treatments are configured in a 

manner that promotes use by GRSG.

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 GRSG habitat. Additionally, develop maps for 

GRSG habitat which spatially display current fuels treatment 

opportunities for suppression resources.

9. Give priority for implementing specific GRSG habitat restoration 

projects in annual grasslands, first to sites which are adjacent to or 
C. Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternatives B and C

C-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

surrounded by PHMA or that reestablish continuity between 

PHMA. Annual grasslands are a second priority for restoration 

when the sites are not adjacent to PHMA, but within two miles of 

PHMA. The third priority for annual grassland habitat restoration 

projects are sites beyond two miles of PHMA. 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 GRSG 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 PHMA or important restoration areas 

(such as where investments in restoration have already been made).

Fire Operations

1. Compile district-level information into state-wide GRSG 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 GRSG expertise, or who has access 

to GRSG expertise, to all extended attack fires in or near GRSG

habitat areas. Prior to the fire season, provide training to GRSG

resource advisors on wildfire suppression organization, objectives, 

tactics, and procedures to develop a cadre of qualified individuals.
C. Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternatives B and C

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS C-9

4. On critical fire weather days, pre-position additional fire 

suppression resources to optimize a quick and efficient response in 

GRSG 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 GRSG 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 GRSG habitat areas to minimize 

noxious weed spread.

9. Minimize unnecessary cross-country vehicle travel during fire 

operations in GRSG habitat.

10. Minimize burnout operations in key GRSG 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 GRSG habitat for 

potential follow-up coordination activities.

ALTERNATIVES B AND C SOLID MINERAL DEVELOPMENT – REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES 

Introduction

The following measures outlined would be applied as RDFs for solid minerals. 

For locatable minerals, the RDFs would be applied to the extent consistent with 

applicable laws.

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.
C. Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternatives B and C

C-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

• 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.

• 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:
C. Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternatives B and C

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS C-11

– 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 PHMA.

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.

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.
C. Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternatives B and C

C-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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.

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 for Greater Sage-Grouse 

Habitat for Alternative D and Proposed Plan

Amendment

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS D-1

APPENDIX D

REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES FOR GREATER

SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT FOR ALTERNATIVE D

AND PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT

INTRODUCTION

Required Design Features (RDFs) are required for certain activities in all 

Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) habitat. RDFs establish the minimum 

specifications for certain activities to help mitigate adverse impacts. However, 

the applicability and overall effectiveness of each RDF cannot be fully assessed 

until the project level when the project location and design are known. Because 

of site-specific circumstances, some RDFs 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 RDFs would require 

that at least one of the following be demonstrated in the NEPA analysis 

associated with the project/activity:

• A specific RDF is documented to not be applicable to the sitespecific conditions of the project/activity (e.g., due to site limitations 

or engineering considerations). Economic considerations, such as 

increased costs, do not necessarily require that an RDF be varied or 

rendered inapplicable;

• An alternative RDF is determined to provide equal or better 

protection for GRSG or its habitat;

• A specific RDF would provide no additional protection to GRSG or 

its habitat.

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 and the Proposed Plan 
D. Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D and Proposed Plan Amendment

D-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Amendment, in the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMP 

Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement.

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 for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D and Proposed Plan Amendment

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final 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. Master’s Thesis. Montana State University, 

Bozeman.

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 HABITAT 

MANAGEMENT AREA (PHMA) AND GENERAL HABITAT MANAGEMENT AREA (GHMA)

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.
D. Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D and Proposed Plan Amendment

D-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

• 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, 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 PHMA. Have no tanks at 

well locations within PHMA (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 GRSG.
D. Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D and Proposed Plan Amendment

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS D-5

• Cover (e.g., fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques) all 

drilling and production pits and tanks regardless of size to reduce 

GRSG 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 GRSG-safe fences.

• Locate new compressor stations outside PHMA and design them to 

reduce noise that may be directed towards PHMA.
D. Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D and Proposed Plan Amendment

D-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

• Clean up refuse.

• Locate man camps outside of PHMA.

• 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 GRSG

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 GRSG 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.

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. Master’s thesis, Montana State University, 

Bozeman.

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, DC.

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.
D. Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D and Proposed Plan Amendment

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS D-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.

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.

REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES FOR FIRE & FUELS MANAGEMENT IN PHMA

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 GRSG

habitat.

2. Provide training to fuels treatment personnel on GRSG 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 

GRSG seasonal habitats and landscape.

5. Where appropriate, ensure that treatments are configured in a 

manner that promotes use by GRSG.

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 
D. Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D and Proposed Plan Amendment

D-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

reduce the fire risk to GRSG habitat. Additionally, develop maps for 

GRSG habitat which spatially display current fuels treatment 

opportunities for suppression resources.

9. Give priority for implementing specific GRSG habitat restoration 

projects in annual grasslands, first to sites which are adjacent to or 

surrounded by PHMA or that reestablish continuity between 

PHMA. Annual grasslands are a second priority for restoration 

when the sites are not adjacent to PHMA, but within two miles of 

PHMA. The third priority for annual grassland habitat restoration 

projects are sites beyond two miles of PHMA. 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 GRSG 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 PHMA or important restoration areas 

(such as where investments in restoration have already been made).

Fire Operations

1. Compile district-level information into state-wide GRSG 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.
D. Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D and Proposed Plan Amendment

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS D-9

3. Assign a resource advisor with GRSG expertise, or who has access 

to GRSG expertise, to all extended attack fires in or near GRSG

habitat areas. Prior to the fire season, provide training to GRSG

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 

GRSG 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 GRSG 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 GRSG habitat areas to minimize 

noxious weed spread.

9. Minimize unnecessary cross-country vehicle travel during fire 

operations in GRSG habitat.

10. Minimize burnout operations in key GRSG 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 GRSG habitat for 

potential follow-up coordination activities.

SOLID MINERAL DEVELOPMENT – REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES

Introduction

The following measures outlined would be applied as RDFs for solid minerals. 

For locatable minerals, the RDFs would be applied to the extent consistent with 

applicable laws.
D. Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D and Proposed Plan Amendment

D-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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.

• 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).
D. Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D and Proposed Plan Amendment

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS D-11

• 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 PHMA.

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.

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.
D. Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D and Proposed Plan Amendment

D-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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.

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 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 GRSG 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 GRSG 

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 GRSG wintering areas from 

December 1 through March 31.

• Use minimal surface disturbance to install roads and pipelines and 

reclaim site of abandoned wells to natural communities.

• Locate storage facilities, generators, and holding tanks outside the 

line of sight and sound of breeding habitat.

• See conservation actions related to preventing the spread of weeds 

and controlling infestations of noxious weeds.

• Engage industry as a partner to develop and establish new sources 

of seed of native plant species for restoration of sites disturbed by 

development.

• Design impoundments and manage discharge so as not to degrade 

or inundate leks, nesting sites, and wintering sites.
D. Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D and Proposed Plan Amendment

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS D-13

• 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 GRSG.

• 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 sage‐

grouse. University of California, Davis.

Bui, T. D., J. M. Marzluff, and B. Bedrosian. 2010. “Common raven activity in

relation to land use in western Wyoming: implications for greater sage‐

grouse reproductive success.” Condor 112:65‐78.

Connelly, J. W., M. A Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun 2000. “Guidelines 

to Manage Sage-grouse Populations and Their Habitats.” Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 28:967-985.

De Szalay, F. A. and V. H. Resh. 2000. “Factors influencing macroinvertebrate 

colonization of seasonal wetlands: responses to emergent plant cover.” 

Freshwater Biology. 45: 295‐308.

Doherty, M. K. 2007. Mosquito populations in the Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming: a comparison of natural, agricultural and effluent coal‐bed 

natural gas aquatic habitats. Master’s thesis, Montana State University, 

Bozeman.

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, DC.

Gelbard, J. L., and J. Belnap. 2003. “Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions 

in a semiarid landscape.” Conservation Biology 17:420‐432.

Knight, R. L., W. E. Walton, G. F. Meara, W. K. Riesen and R. Wass. 2003. 

“Strategies for effective mosquito control in constructed treatment 

wetlands.” Ecological Engineering. 21: 211-232.
D. Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D and Proposed Plan Amendment

D-14 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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.

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.

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

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final 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 Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

• 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). An ACEC that meets both relevance 

and importance criteria is included in at least one management alternative 
E. Area of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation of Relevance and Importance Criteria 

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final 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.

Safety/public welfare 

concerns

No No safety or public welfare concerns are known.

Poses a significant 

threat

No No significant threats.
E. Area of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation of Relevance and Importance Criteria 

E-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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). 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) (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 

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final 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
This page intentionally left blank.
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

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS G-1

APPENDIX G

REGIONAL MITIGATION STRATEGY

GENERAL

In undertaking US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) management actions, and, consistent with valid existing rights and 

applicable law, in authorizing third party actions that result in habitat loss and 

degradation, the BLM will require and ensure mitigation that provides a net 

conservation gain to the species including accounting for any uncertainty 

associated with the effectiveness of such mitigation. This will be achieved by 

avoiding, minimizing, and compensating for impacts by applying beneficial 

mitigation actions. “Actions which result in habitat loss and degradation” include 

those identified as threats which contribute to Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) 

disturbance as identified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in its 

2010 listing decision (75 FR 13910) and shown in Table B-2 in the Monitoring 

Framework (Appendix B of the Lewistown Field Office Proposed Resource 

Management Plan Amendment/Final Environmental Impact Statement). 

Mitigation will follow the regulations from the White House Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1508.20; 

e.g. avoid, minimize, and compensate), hereafter referred to as the mitigation 

hierarchy. If impacts from BLM management actions and authorized third party 

actions that result in habitat loss and degradation remain after applying 

avoidance and minimization measures (i.e. residual impacts), then compensatory 

mitigation projects will be used to provide a net conservation gain to the 

species. Any compensatory mitigation will be durable, timely, and in addition to 

that which would have resulted without the compensatory mitigation (see 

Glossary Terms).

The BLM, via the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) 

Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team, will develop a 

WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy that will inform the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decision making process including 

the application of the mitigation hierarchy for BLM management actions and 
G. Regional Mitigation Strategy

G-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

third party actions that result in habitat loss and degradation. A robust and 

transparent Regional Mitigation Strategy will contribute to GRSG habitat 

conservation by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats and compensating 

for residual impacts to GRSG and its habitat.

The BLM’s Regional Mitigation Manual MS-1794 serves as a framework for 

developing and implementing a Regional Mitigation Strategy. The following 

sections provide additional guidance specific to the development and 

implementation of a WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy.

DEVELOPING A REGIONAL MITIGATION STRATEGY

The BLM, via the WAFWA Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Team, will develop a WAFWA Management Zone Regional 

Mitigation Strategy to guide the application of the mitigation hierarchy for BLM 

management actions and third party actions that result in habitat loss and 

degradation. The Strategy should consider any State-level GRSG mitigation 

guidance that is consistent with the requirements identified in this Appendix. 

The Regional Mitigation Strategy should be developed in a transparent manner, 

based on the best science available and standardized metrics.

As described in Chapter 2 of the Lewistown Field Office Proposed Resource 

Management Plan Amendment/Final Environmental Impact Statement, the BLM 

will establish a WAFWA Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Team (hereafter, Team) to help guide the conservation of GRSG, within 90 days 

of the issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD). The Strategy will be 

developed within one year of the issuance of the ROD.

The Regional Mitigation Strategy should include mitigation guidance on 

avoidance, minimization, and compensation, as follows:

Avoidance

• Include avoidance areas (e.g. right-of-way avoidance/exclusion areas, 

no surface occupancy areas) already included in laws, regulations, 

policies, and/or land use plans (e.g. Resource Management Plans, 

State Plans); and

• Include any potential, additional avoidance actions (e.g. additional 

avoidance best management practices [BMPs]) with regard to GRSG 

conservation.

Minimization

• Include minimization actions (e.g. required design features [RDFs], 

BMPs) already included in laws, regulations, policies, land use plans,

and/or land-use authorizations; and

• Include any potential, additional minimization actions (e.g. additional 

minimization BMPs) with regard to GRSG conservation.
G. Regional Mitigation Strategy

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS G-3

Compensation

• Include discussion of impact/project valuation, compensatory 

mitigation options, siting, compensatory project types and costs, 

monitoring, reporting, and program administration. Each of these 

topics is discussed in more detail below.

– Residual Impact and Compensatory Mitigation Project 

Valuation Guidance

 A common standardized method should be 

identified for estimating the value of the residual 

impacts and value of the compensatory mitigation 

projects, including accounting for any uncertainty 

associated with the effectiveness of the projects. 

 This method should consider the quality of habitat, 

scarcity of the habitat, and the size of the 

impact/project.

 For compensatory mitigation projects, 

consideration of durability (see Glossary Terms), 

timeliness (see Glossary Terms), and the potential 

for failure (e.g. uncertainty associated with 

effectiveness) may require an upward adjustment of 

the valuation.

 The resultant compensatory mitigation project will, 

after application of the above guidance, result in 

proactive conservation measures for GRSG 

(consistent with BLM Manual 6840 – Special Status 

Species Management, section .02).

– Compensatory Mitigation Options

 Options for implementing compensatory mitigation 

should be identified, such as:

o Utilizing certified mitigation/conservation 

bank or credit exchanges.

o Contributing to an existing 

mitigation/conservation fund.

o Authorized-user conducted mitigation 

projects.

 For any compensatory mitigation project, the 

investment must be additional (i.e. additionality: the 

conservation benefits of compensatory mitigation 

are demonstrably new and would not have resulted 

without the compensatory mitigation project).
G. Regional Mitigation Strategy

G-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

– Compensatory Mitigation Siting

 Sites should be in areas that have the potential to 

yield a net conservation gain to the GRSG, 

regardless of land ownership.

 Sites should be durable (see Glossary Terms).

 Sites identified by existing plans and strategies (e.g. 

fire restoration plans, invasive species strategies, 

healthy land focal areas) should be considered, if 

those sites have the potential to yield a net 

conservation gain to GRSG and are durable.

– Compensatory Mitigation Project Types and Costs

 Project types should be identified that help reduce 

threats to GRSG (e.g. protection, conservation, and 

restoration projects).

 Each project type should have a goal and 

measurable objectives.

 Each project type should have associated 

monitoring and maintenance requirements, for the 

duration of the impact.

 To inform contributions to a 

mitigation/conservation fund, expected costs for 

these project types (and their monitoring and 

maintenance), within the WAFWA Management 

Zone, should be identified.

– Compensatory Mitigation Compliance and Monitoring

 Mitigation projects should be inspected to ensure 

they are implemented as designed, and if not, there 

should be methods to enforce compliance.

 Mitigation projects should be monitored to ensure 

that the goals and objectives are met and that the 

benefits are effective for the duration of the impact.

– Compensatory Mitigation Reporting

 Standardized, transparent, scalable, and scientificallydefensible reporting requirements should be 

identified for mitigation projects.

 Reports should be compiled, summarized, and 

reviewed in the WAFWA Management Zone in 

order to determine if GRSG conservation has been 

achieved and/or to support adaptive management 

recommendations.
G. Regional Mitigation Strategy

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS G-5

– Compensatory Mitigation Program Implementation 

Guidelines

 Guidelines for implementing the State-level 

compensatory mitigation program should include 

holding and applying compensatory mitigation funds, 

operating a transparent and credible accounting 

system, certifying mitigation credits, and managing 

reporting requirements.

INCORPORATING THE REGIONAL MITIGATION STRATEGY INTO SUBSEQUENT 

IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL LAND USE AUTHORIZATION ANALYSES

The BLM will include the avoidance, minimization, and compensatory 

recommendations from the Regional Mitigation Strategy in one or more of the 

NEPA analysis’ alternatives for BLM management actions and third party actions 

that result in habitat loss and degradation and the appropriate mitigation actions 

will be carried forward into the decision.

IMPLEMENTING A COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PROGRAM

The BLM need to ensure that compensatory mitigation is strategically 

implemented to provide a net conservation gain to the species, as identified in 

the Regional Mitigation Strategy. In order to align with existing compensatory 

mitigation efforts, this compensatory mitigation program will be managed at a 

State-level (as opposed to a WAFWA Management Zone or a Field Office), in 

collaboration with our partners (e.g. Federal, Tribal, and State agencies).

To ensure transparent and effective management of the compensatory 

mitigation funds, the BLM will enter into a contract or agreement with a thirdparty to help manage the State-level compensatory mitigation funds, within one 

year of the issuance of the ROD. The selection of the third-party compensatory 

mitigation administrator will conform to all relevant laws, regulations, and 

policies. The BLM will remain responsible for making decisions that affect 

Federal lands.

GLOSSARY TERMS

Additionality: The conservation benefits of compensatory mitigation are 

demonstrably new and would not have resulted without the compensatory 

mitigation project. (adopted and modified from BLM Manual Section 1794).

Avoidance mitigation: Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain 

action or parts of an action. (40 CFR 1508.20(a)) (e.g., may also include avoiding 

the impact by moving the proposed action to a different time or location.)

Compensatory mitigation: Compensating for the (residual) impact by 

replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. (40 CFR 1508.20)
G. Regional Mitigation Strategy

G-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Compensatory mitigation projects: The restoration, creation, 

enhancement, and/or preservation of impacted resources (adopted and modified 

from 33 CFR 332), such as on-the-ground actions to improve and/or protect 

habitats (e.g. chemical vegetation treatments, land acquisitions, conservation 

easements). (adopted and modified from BLM Manual Section 1794).

Compensatory mitigation sites: The durable areas where compensatory 

mitigation projects will occur. (adopted and modified from BLM Manual Section 

1794).

Durability (protective and ecological): The maintenance of the 

effectiveness of a mitigation site and project for the duration of the associated 

impacts, which includes resource, administrative/legal, and financial 

considerations. (adopted and modified from BLM Manual Section 1794).

Minimization mitigation: Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or 

magnitude of the action and its implementation. (40 CFR 1508.20 (b))

Residual impacts: Impacts that remain after applying avoidance and 

minimization mitigation; also referred to as unavoidable impacts.

Timeliness: The lack of a time lag between impacts and the achievement of 

compensatory mitigation goals and objectives (BLM Manual Section 1794).
Appendix H

Land Pattern Review and Land Adjustment

LAND PATTERN REVIEW 

AND 

LAND ADJUSTMENT 

Supplement to State Director 

Guidance for Resource Management 

Planning in Montana and the Dakotas 

Edwin Zaidlicz 

State Director 
BLM-MT-PT-84-015-4111 
Adjustment portion 

Response Incorporated 

J}'; Rf.PLY REFF.R TO· 

1601 (930) United States Department of the Interior 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

222 North 32nd Street 

P.O. Box 30157

Billings. Montana 59107 

June 8, 1984 

Dear Reader: 

This supplement 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 March 1984 draft. The document 

updates and replaces the Land 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 Recreation Program Guidance (pages H-1 through 

H-3) is replaced with minor revisions. 

I appreciate the effort and concern of all who submitted comments on the 

draft. All comments were carefully considered and many of the suggestions 

have been incorporated. 

to Comments Not 

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 objective 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 

believe 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 interest or which may reflect the highest public interest. 

In response 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 
Map 

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 off ices 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 resources 

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 subsequent 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 proposal requires its own EA and technical report on the land 

involved. Envirorunental impacts will be thoroughly examined, and, most 

appropriately, at the stages in case processing when the actions are tangible 

and meaningful analysis can be done. 

Revisions 

We 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 collUllent 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. We 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 . l - 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-Morton Counties -Azone 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 Prog r a m .. . .. ...... .. . . ..... .. . . ........ . . . .................. .. ...... .. ...... .... .. 2 


Goals and Objectives . ............... .. . . ... . ... .. . . . . ... .... .... .. .. ......... . ......... . ... :~ 

Map Basis and Inte rpre t a tion .... ..... . . ................... ...... .. .......... .... .... . . . .. . :~ 

Public Review ......... ... . . . . .. : ........................................................... 3 


Planning ......... .. . . .... . . .. . . ....... .. ....... . .. . ... .. .. . ......... . ...... . .. . ...... .. . . .. 3 


Map Interpretation . . ..... . . .. . . ..... . . .. .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . .... ... .. ..... . .. . ........ . ... 3 


Retention Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 


Other Lands ... ........ ...... ....... . ............................. . ........ .. ............. 3 


Land Patt ern Revie w ... ... .......... . .. . ....... . ........ . . . ... . ... .. .. . . . ... . . . ....... .. .. . 4 


Land Adjustment Program Phases ....... . .... . ... . . . ...... .. .......... . ... ...... . . . .... .. .. 4 


Land Pattern Review and Adj ustment Criteria .... .. ....... . ... .. ..... . ..... . ... . ... ... . . . . . . 4 


Retention ...................................... . ............ .... .. . ... . ........ ... ..... ... 4 


Disposal .. . ......... .. ....... .... .... . ..... .... . .............................. . ..... . . . ... 5 


Acquisition ..... .. ... . .. .. . .. . . .... .. . .. ..... . . .. . . . . ... . . .. .. . . ... ........ . . . ...... . . . ... 6 


General Criteria for Aquisition a nd Retention . . ... . . . . .. ... .. . .. . . ..... ... . ... .. .. ..... . . () 


Program Specific Acquisition Criteria . .... ..... . .. ... ....... .. . . . ... ..... ... ....... .... . 6 


Minerals ..... ..... ..... ...... ....... .. ... . ....................................... . ... 6 


Livestock Management .......... . .......... . ........ .. ...... .. . . ...... .. . .. ..... .... . 7 


Timber Management.. .. . . .... .. . .. ... . . . .. . ... . .... .... ...... . .. . ...... .. . . ........ . . 7 


Recreation ...... .. ......... ..... .. . . ..... .... .... ......... .... .. .. . ...... .. . ........ . . 7 


\\:ilderness ... ... ...... .. ... ..... ..... ... ............................................. ';­

Cultural Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 


Wildlife Habitat .. .... .. . . .. . .. .. . . .... .. . ...... .. . .. .. .... . . .... ... ...... ........ . ... 8 


Map An a lysis ..... .. .......................... .. .......... . . . ...... .. . . .... . .. .. ... . . . . . . . .. 9 


Retention Zones ...... ...... ... ..... . ..... .. ..... ..... .. ....... .... .... . . .. : ... . . . .... ... . .. 9 


Other Lands ..... . . .... . .......... . ..... .. ..... ... . . . .............. . .... ..... ... ....... .. . .. 9 


Monta na !Vlap .... . ... .... ...... .. ... . ... . ...... . . . ..... .. . . ... . ... . ........ . . . . . . . .... .. . . . 9 


South Dakota Map . .. ...... .. ............... .... .. ....... .. ......... . .......... . .. ...... . ... 9 


Korth Dakota Map ...... ... .............. .. .... . . . .. . ....... . ...... .... ..... .... ..... . .. ... 10 


Land Adjust m ent Impacts .. .. ..... .. .. . . .. .... ..... .... ....... . ... .. . . ...... . ..... . ... . ... 11 


Resource' Impacts . ... ....... . ... .... ..... . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . .. . ....... . ....... .. .. ... . . . .. . ... 11 


Ma nagement and Access .. . . .. ....... . . .. .... ... . .......... . ... .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . ........... . . 11 


Social nnd Economic Efferts .... ..... .... ........ .... ...... ... ..... .... ........... ... .. .... 11 


RECREATION PROGRAM GUIDANCE REVISIONS 

Recreation . .... . ... .. ... . . .. . . . ... .. .. .. . . ..... ... ........ .. . .. .... . . .. .... ... ........ . . ... 13 


Kind of Ownership Actions Vv'e Will Table .................. . ....... . ... .... . . .... . . ..... ... 13 


Kinds of Opportunities on Which \'"le Will Concentrate ...... .... .... .... .... ..... ........... 13 


Kinds and Levels of Development We Will Consider ...... . ........... . .. .... ... .......... .. . 14 


Off.Road Vehicle Designations ....... ....... ... .. . .... . . . . ............. . ...... .. ...... .... . 14 


STATE DIRECTOR GUIDANCE 


LAND BASE ADJUSTMENT SUPPLEMENT 


This supplement replaces the "Land Pattern Review and 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 the 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 characteristically 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 coincidenta! 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 

Public Sale 

No particular priority is implied by this list other than state land adjustments will take precedence 

over private 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 

c:ategorizes lands to provide a framework for future planning. Using this framework and the 1983 

State Director Guidance \\"e ha ve completed maps showing areas where public lands will generally be 

retained. Until such time as land use plans are amended or revised, these maps will serve as a guide 

for all land adj ustments. 

The land retention maps are presented as a gt-neral policy guide to aid the public and agency 

personnel in evaluating proposals for land transactions. They should be helpful in distinguishing 

between proposals worthy of more detailed eva luation and those which are not. These maps and the 

accompanying analysis provide an indication of the probable long term magnitude of land adjustment in Montana and the Dakot.:is. This guidance supplement also provides an opportunity to revise 

and clarify the criteria publishe<l in l0x:; and for public review and comment on these revisions. 

Tract-specific land adjustments must he based upon land use plan decisions followed by more detailed 

activity planning. Land excha nge~ wil l be based upon the voluntary offering by the owners of the 

land which BLM may acquire. and \•:ill involve exchange of appraised value for value. This does not 

mean that the same kind of values mu.-t iw exchanged. Relative abundance ofthe resources involved 

and their place in agency and public ,. . iorities must be considered. 
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 values while at the same time brings a bout better manageability. No 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 all resource interests. 

The Bureau's adjustment decisions should be made after thorough analysis and study of land use 

potential a nd should 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. 	 Adjust the BLM land pattern to g('t the highest puhlic 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 and transferthose 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 Billings 

and Headwaters Resource Management Plans <RMPs) in Montana and the Southwest 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 arl'as where BLM intends prima rily 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 ma>'' he exchanged when significant management efficiency or a 

g reater 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 a re 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 include the acquisition ofrecreation 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 a lso be considered which will acquire publicly 

desirable tracts outside the reten tion 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 I-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 are delineated th roui!h use of existing completed plans, ongoing planning and the 

State Director Guidance Supplement. The current delineationi categorization effort is summarized in 

this supplement and may be modified as a result of future land use planning. 

Phase Ill-Land Activity Planning and Realty Implementation 

Program priorities are developed followed by implementation which includes site specific land 

report-environmental analysis, appraisal, decisionmaking and land title processing. 

Land Pattern Review and Adjustment Criteria 

Three types of criteria are presented (retention. disposal. and acquisition) to provide guidance in 

categorizing the public lands and in making decisions concerning specific land pattern adjustment 

actions. 

The criteria range from specific to general a nd give direction for statewide consistency while allowing 

the manager flexibility in responding to local circumstances. 

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 erarchy of values defined 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 and the significance ofthe resources in 

descending order of national. ~g10 nal. statewide, and local. Both economic and non-economic 

val ues will be considered in assessing resource significance. 

~- A critical level of significance will be nssigned to resource values ifthey are adversely impacted 

ov(:'r an area larger than the specific tract being considered for land adjustment action. 

4. 	 Publi 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 are associated with solving 

chronic management problems which past efforts have failed to resolve and for which no other 

solutions are evident. 

Retention 

These are la nds which will remain in puhlic ownership and be managed by BLM. BLM is interested in 

exchanges to improve manageability ofareas with important public values. Although the underlying 

philo:->ophy is long term public owner~hip. minor adjustments involving sales and exchanges oflands 

may occur when the public interest is better served. 

1. 	 Areas of nationa l environmental significance: These include but are not limited to: 

a. 	 Wilderness. Wilderness Study Areas and Former WSAs being Studied for Protective 

Management 

b. 	 Wild & Scenic Rivers 

c. 	 ~ational Scenic & Histori c· Trails a nd Study Trails 

d. 	 Lands contain\ng nation;: i! ~· significant cultural resource sites nominated to or eligible for 

the National Register of r: :swric Places 

e. 	 :'\ation::il Conservation ar, 

f. 	 Wetlands and Riparian A: ·::s under Executive Order 11990 

g. 	 Other Congressionally Designated Areas and Study Areas 

h. 	 Wild Horse Management 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 wh<'re 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 minerals needed for national defense. 

:--l. 	 Public lands used in support of national defense: these include 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 


('. R<>creation sites and an•as 


f. 	 Cultural resource sites where the cost of mitigation actions required by disposal would 

exceed the public benefits of land disposal. 

5. 	 Lands with a combination ofmultiple use values which dictate they should be retained in public 

ownership and managed b~· BLM. 

6. 	 Areas where future 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 and 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 acc:ess 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 surface 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 arc>as to facilitate national. state and local objectives. 
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 a ny 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 nd1or be consistent with these plans. 

6. 	 Stabilize or enhance local economies or values. 

1. 	 Meet long term public lnnd mana)!ement goals as opposed to short 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 si1.rnificant water related land interests. These interests will include lake 

shore. river front. stream. pnnd or spring sites. 

Program Specific Acquisition Criteria 

Any of these program criteria may providt• the rationale for acquiring a particular tract of la nd in 

land adjustment transaction: however. priority' will be determined on the basis of multiple use 

analysis. That is, the greater the numht>r of programs and public values served, the higherthe priority 

for acquisition. 

Minerals 

1. 	 Consolidation of a 5 mint'ral estates-from the minerals program viewpointthisis probably 

the most important reason for ::1C'Quisition. The primary purpose for consolidation of estates is 

improvement ofpotential for de\'t·topment while improving resource management and economic 

\'alues. 

This concept can be applied to so ml· 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 estate 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: 

l. 	 Which exceed 30 cu. ft/acre 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 harvestable 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. 

Wild<'rness 

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. 	 Where no access exists 

2. 	 Where it is needed for proper r:~anagement as identified in 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 
1. 	 High Research Value 

2. 	 Moderate Scarcity 

3. 	 Possess some other unique values such as association with an important historic person or high 

aesthetic values, or 

4. 	 Contribute significantly to interpretive potential of cultural resources already in public owner 

ship. 

Strong 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. 

Hig h 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-footed 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 documented roosting or wintering areas. 

e. 	 Grey Wolf. Occupied habitat. 

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 

fisheries. 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. 	 BiR Game. Important habitat areas such as crucial winter and associated spring/ fall transi· 

tion a reas. kidding/ fawning/ calving/ lambing areas. crucial wallow complexes, mineral licks. 

and security areas. 

4. 	 Upland Game Birds. Migratory Birds and Waterfowl. Crucial breeding. nesting, resting, roosti~g. feeding a nd wintering habitat areas or complexes. These will vary in size, for example. a 

highly productive one acre wetland or 100 acres of nesting cover for pheasants. 

<> . Raptors. Existing and potential nesting areas for sensitive species or significant nesting 

complexes for nonsensitive species. 

6. 	 Nongame. Crucial habitat complexes. 

*From Guidelines for Management Ir.rnlving Grizzly Bears in Yellowstone Area, USFS. NPS 1979. 

"*Class .of streams defined by Mont.ma Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 1980. Stream 

Evaluation Map State of Montana. 

8 

MAP ANALYSIS 

Table I summarizes the acreage identified for retention by district and by state. Montana districts 

range from 91 percent retention in Lewistown to ~5 percent in Miles City. The state average is 8EI 

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% 987 121

fo 8.109 

South Dakota 177 681

1.1 85 821

':1 262 

North Dakota 44 65% 24 35% 6~ 

Three State 7,343 '~, 1,096 13% 8.439 

*Break-down of Montana by District Office: 

Butte DO 1.259 88% 175 121

li1 1.434 

Lewistown DO 3.119 91•;;, 315 9lf., 3.-la4 

Miles City D01 2.744 85% 497 15% .~41 

Montana Total 7.122 987 8. 109 

1 Miles City DO total does not include South Dakota Resource Area. 

Retention Zones 

These zones predominantly contain public lands that meet the retention criteria. 


All BLM iands in nationall y designated areas will be retained: including the Upper Missouri 


?\ational Wild and Scenic River. all wilderness study areas. Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. 


Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range. Square Butte Outstanding Natural Area and all designated 


National Register Historical and Cultural Sites. 


Othe r Lands 

These lands generally are scattered tracts that are difficult to manage due to their small size. very 

limited legal access. and distance from the office administering them. In many cases. the resource 

values of these lands are low. 

Although thl'se lands are open to consideration for all types ofland adjustment actions. many parcels 

of land where significant resource values are found will be retained under BLM management. Also, 

some parcels may be encumbered in a variety of ways that require public retention. Examples are 

withdrawals, 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 wa tershed would be retained. Also. tracts would be retained to be consistent with state and 

local land use plans or other agency's polici1~s. Enhancement of national historic trails such as the 

Continental Divide Trail may require that isolated tracts be retained. 

The Montana Map 

The BLM ownership information on tl.is 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 maps. 

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 va lues are high. This includes areas along rivers or where the lands n•nl'Ct 

public priorities such as wilderness study areas. In eastern Monta na some areas of rather limited 

surface ownership are classified for retention because of a significant Federal mineral esta te. 

The zones. as delineated. are generally con::;istent with existing pl a ns and pl a ns in progress. How· 

ever. in the Dillon Resource Area (southwest Monta na) the land use plan completed in Hl7~ 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 tha t 

considerations of any additional land sale proposals not covered in the programmatic environmenta! 

assessment in 1983 would require plan amendments. 

A substantial block ofBLM-a dminstered 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 not available, therefore, the retention zones were delinea ted 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 177,000 acres or 68 percent ofthe BLM lands in South Dakota a re contained in the retention 

zones. These are in four relatively compact clusters in the northwest quarter ofthe State. These zones 

were defined to correspond to the larger concentrations of public la nds. A number of the tracts 

conta ined 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 sca ttered 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 

appro ximately 68.000 acres. :V1ost BLM lands are in the western half ofthe state a nd there are onl~· 

two areas ofsignificant concentration . These lie along the Little Missouri River in Dunn County and 

western Bowman County in the southwest corner of the state. As in South Dakota. a single current 

map of BLM a dministration in ]'forth Da kota wa s 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 acreage 

BLM administers in North Dakota. About 40.600 acres ofthe BLM la nds within these zones are in two 

counties. Dunn a nd Bowman: a nd there are minor :..icrea ges in Williams, McHenry, Divide. Burleigh 

and McLean counties. totalling 3,800 acres. 

enerall~'. la nds within the retention zone will he retained in federal ownership or excha nged for 

th er lands ,.,·ithin these zones. These land~ mav also serve as core areas for acquiring adjacent lands 

m exchange for BLM lands categorize<l for disposal outside the retention zones. 

There are mnny valuable resources on BLM lands in Bowman a nd Dunn Counties, and a variety of 

u~es occur. including gra zing. dispersed recreation . hunting, fishing. and oil and gas development. 

Lands located within the retention z«r:-.·s in other counties may also contain ma ny resources or may 

be wetlands or riparian lands with mo:·.. li mited uses, 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 a re located in Bowman County, and the remaining 

1 • .600 are scattered among 31 counties across the State. Generally, the tracts ofland within this zone 

IO 

RECREATION PROGRAM GUIDANCE 


REVISIONS 


are available for disposal, except for wetlands. which have public value for water retention and 

wildlife habitats. Lands that fa ll 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 this 

area for lands within the retention zone. 


It is also recognized that limited acquisition outside the retention zones may be justified on the basis 


of one or more of the acq uisition 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 ~e general pubhc: and. m general. 


enhance recreation opportunities and natural resource protection m the State. 


LAND ADJUSTMENT IMP ACTS 

About 1.1 million acres of BLM administered land is found outside the designated retention an'as. 

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 many tracts of otherwise disposable land. 

R es o urce 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 ma nagement programs will he 

retained. Lands of lesser ,·alue will 1'!enerally be exch anged for lands which will make a greater 

contribution to public resource management objectives. 

Soml' adverse C'ffects ma~· occur to lands whi ch pass out ofBureau control because the Bureau cannot 

j.!uarante1:> the future stewardship of the new owner. However. it is BLM policr to avoid disposal 

actions where the intended future u~t· i::; harmful to the resource base or to community interests. 

Generally the lands coming into fedC'r;:il ownership and control will be important for public use. 

Man agement a nd 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 li vestock operators. decreased travel costs to 

manage isolated tracts and decreased paperwork associated with casefiles and other management 

problems. 

Consolidation would facilitate such management projects as land. watershed or vegetativC' treatments or wildlife habitat programs. Transfers of some public land tracts could make management 

more efficient and produce more public benefits under management of a nother agency or organizn· 

tion. 

Access to puhlic lands should he enhanced h~· thC' RLM acquiring key tracts or easements that would 

assure the public leg-al access to blocks of public· lands. Improved access will generally increase 

recreational use in a reas where a checkerboard ownership pattern now restricts public use. 

S ocial and Economic Effects 

The BLM is required by law to cst;:ihlish through standard appraisal procedure the fair market value 

of lands to be exchanged or sold. 

In some cases a private la ndowner who ndjoin~ n piece of public land and wishes to add it to his 

agricultura l operation may feel th;:it :'11:-h n 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 .id 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 (PILT) and payments 

from grazing and mineral receipts if pu.blic lands in their counties are exchanged for lands in another 

county. When public lands a re transferred to private ownership 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 how the tax return on lands passing into private ownership compares with 

the level ofPILTpayments and grazing and 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 

ofland 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:v to ohtain funds to sustain any kind of consistPnt 


rPcreation d<'v(:'lopment programs. 


Howevpr. we shouId take advnn tag'(' ofl'Xisting situations and l·a pa hiIities to pro,·id1• t'nr 1\11 u r\' pulili1 · 


needs. We are in a better position. in terms ofskills and land pattern. than an:v other Fedt'ral age nc~· tll 


acquire recreation opportunities through purchas(• or exchanges. We have the capabilit~· to ust:> th(• 


scattered tracts of public land as a trading hase to acquire areas or easements for access. This is 


particularly true in locations where there is no single Federal reserve and where there are limited 


public use areas. whether State or Federal. Throuμ'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. \Ve would 


then he in a position to" ·acquire such values when opportunities for purchase or exchang-e present 


themselves. Parameters of such a program are listed below. hut generally. the objecti\'e is to pro,·id ~' 

both legal and physical access to strategic locations. For example. for river floating the strategic 


location could he-on<> access point per four hours of float or at highway crossings: for historic 


battlefields-one prominent vi<-wpoint: or for National trails- on<> access point p<>r 10·15 miies or at 


State highway crossing. Loeation and number of aecess points will depend on the significance of tht:' 


value and the anticipated demand. Hoth ofthese should be determined through the planning system 


with public involvemPnt. 


New. fully developed destination type areas will not be provided hy 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 recognized as being pro\'ided h~· other Federal or the State agencies. 


The following ar<- the parameters of the s uggested recreation program. These are outside parameters 


and a general (not absolute) hierarchy from most important to lowest priority. 


Opportunities be~·ond those iisted can b(' idt•ntifit·d and diseussed in the RMPs. hut should he looked 


on as reereation resources to manage on a C'Ustodial basis until some other agenc~-. group or individual 


can he found to take over mnnagement. Such marrngement can be by lease, cooperative agreement, or 


tr<"lnsfers. 


Kinds of Ownership Actions We \Viii Take 


1. 	 Rl·tention of public use areas and access rouu•s (trail or motorized) to public lands involving the 

opportunities descrihed helow. 

Acquisition of strategicnll~· loc:1tt·c! l;111cls for public US<.' of recreation opportunities desC'ribed 

IH·low. These can be through C'xc·hange, purchnse. contributions or easements. 

:{. 	 A('quisit ion of nccess to opportunitiPs or strat<>gically loC'ated lands for public use ofrecreation 

opportunii ies clescriiwd iwlow. 

GPrwrall». w<• will not assist otlwr FPckrn i ;q.!('•H·il's in hlo('king up or eliminating in-holdings for 

recrl'ation purpos(·s unl es:-; puiliiC' support :rnd intl'n'st is ).!t•rwrated during the planning effort. 

Kinds of Opportunities on Whic-h W(.• Wiii Con<.:cntratt' Our Efforts 

I . 	 Existing national!>' reC'ogniz<'<l resourT1'"' 1( '1ingn•ssionall>· designated): 

:\. 	 l :pw·r Missouri Vvi id and Sl'l·ni' l{iwr 

B. 	 Ll'\\'is and Cla rk :\ational Historic Trail 

Cpp(•r Missouri Wild and :-'c·Pnic ]{iver s<·gment 


Yt'ilowston(· Hi\·,·r s1·i!n1t·n; 


l ; pper :\1 issouri l\i v1·r ;m·;1 


Low(•r Missouri Riv1·r s(:(!ment 


Land based trnil. Thrt·t· .Forks to Park Cit_,. 


Marias River area 


Blackfoot Hivc>r 


C. 	 Continental Divide '.\atic1; .. :-'cPnic· Trail 

D. 	 National Wilderness arl'a:-. undL'r BLM managem(·nt 

E. 	 National Conservation. !'\atura l Histori c.: or otherspecial type areas (Pryor Mtn. Wild Horse 

Range). 
9 	 Potential national values (desig-nated hy Con g-ress for study\: 

A. 	 Nez Perce Trail 

B. 	 Yellowstone Ri ver 

C. 	 North Country Trail 

:~ . Statewide recognized values defined in the Statt•wide Comprchensi vr Outdoor Recreation Pl a n 

CSCORP) as a Federal role or identified for cooperative management. 

A. 	 Recreation trails. waterways or rivers/streams with free flowing va lue (see SCORP Vol. 2. 

1978, p. 149). 

B. 	 Other recognized recreation 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 throug-h 

signs and maps of public use areas a nd access routes. Heavy reliance will be put on map 

handouts. 

2. 	 Primitive facilities where use exceeds natural carrying 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 Veh icle De signations 

Formal designa tions will bP made for a reas when· problems have been identifi ed. Pl a ns are to identify 

areas in which ORV use is restricw<l or closed. All other an•as will he considered open a nd receive 

form;il dt•sign ation onl.'· when considl'rPd n•s sa r~· by the District Manager. 

Earh anivity spc,cialist shall ha,·e the responsibility for rnnsidt•ring ORV designation needs to 

protC'ct his own particular r("source val ues h.v using tht· following minimum set of pla nni nir criteria: 

l. Damage ca ust>d hy OR\' ust· to soils. watt.•rsht·d and vegeta tion shall be minimized. 

:2 . Harassment of wildlife or significa nt disruption of habitat shall be minimized. 

:~ . Conflic ts hetween ORV use and other existing or proposed uses for the same or neighboring 

puhlic or pri vate lands shall he minimizt>d: e.g., wilderness. 

14 
Appendix I

Drought Policy

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.

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS I-1
I. Drought Policy

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-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
I. Drought Policy

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 

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS I-3
I. Drought Policy

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-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
I. Drought Policy

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 

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS I-5
I. Drought Policy

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-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
I. Drought Policy

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.

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS I-7
I. Drought Policy

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-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
I. Drought Policy

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.}

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 

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS I-9
I. Drought Policy

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.

Howery, Larry. 1999. Rangeland Management Before, During, and After 

Drought, AZ1136 University of Arizona Cooperative Extension, 6p. 

ag.arizona.edu/pubs/natresources/az1136.pdf.

I-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
I. Drought Policy

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.

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS I-11
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

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.

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS K-1 
K. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

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 Management Area (PHMA), 

General Habitat Management Area (GHMA), 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-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
K. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

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, PHMA, 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 PHMA, lek 

locations, and high burn probability.

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS K-3
K. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

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-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
K. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

• 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.

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS K-5
K. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

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-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
K. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

• 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.

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS K-7
K. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

– 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?

K-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015
Appendix L

Special Status Species Confirmed or Likely to 

Inhabit the Planning Area

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final 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
L. Special Status Species Confirmed or Likely to Inhabit the Planning Area

L-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table L-1

Special Status Species Confirmed or Likely to Inhabit the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Status1 General Habitat Likelihood of 

Occurrence

Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis FT Dense spruce-fir, Douglas fir, early seral lodgepole pine, mature 

lodgepole pine with developing understory of spruce-fir and aspen 

in subalpine zone and timberline, using caves, rock crevices, banks, 

logs for denning; closely associated with snowshoe hare.

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

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

Northern myotis Myotis 

septentrionalis

BLM S Summer day roosts are cavities or crevices behind tree bark, 

often in partially dead hardwoods. Caves and abandoned mines 

are also utilized.

Documented

Spotted bat Euderma 

maculatum

BLM S Roosting occurs in small cracks or crevices found in cliffs and rock 

outcrops. Foraging occurs in a variety of habitats, particularly 

ponderosa pine forest and marshlands. 

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
L. Special Status Species Confirmed or Likely to Inhabit the Planning Area

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final 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

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

Birds

American bittern Botaurus 

lentiginosus

BLM S Found in freshwater marshes and wetlands. Nesting occurs in the 

foundation of emergent vegetation in shallow water, often built on 

cattails, bulrushes, and sedges. 

Documented 

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-backed 

woodpecker

Picoides arcticus BLM S Found in boreal and montane coniferous forests, often in areas 

with burned trees. Nesting occurs in tree cavities.

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 Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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

Caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia BLM S Breeds along water sources such as freshwater lake islands and 

river islands. Nesting may occur in shallow scrapes in bare sand 

or gravel, or rimmed depressions.

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

Common tern Sterna hirundo BLM S Nests on islands, marshes, and beach lakes. Nest placement 

occurs on the ground. 

Documented

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis BLM S Mixed-grass prairie, shrub-grasslands, grasslands, grass-sagebrush 

complex, and sagebrush steppe.

Documented

Flammulated owl Psioscops 

flammeolus

BLM S Breeds in open pine forests, especially ponderosa pine stands. 

Nesting occurs in tree cavities. 

Documented 

Forster’s tern Sterna forsteria BLM S Breeds in marshes with abundant open water and large stands of 

vegetation. Nesting may occur in mud or sand, or floating 

vegetation.

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

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final 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

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

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BLM S Found in open landscapes with cliffs which serve as nesting sites. Documented 

Piping plover Charadrius 

melodus

FT Nests on sand or pebble beaches on freshwater and saline 

wetlands, lakes, reservoirs, and rivers. Only nests in areas with 

sparse to no vegetation. Summer range primarily in northeastern 

Montana with isolated population in Pondera County.

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 Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table L-1

Special Status Species Confirmed or Likely to Inhabit the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Status1 General Habitat Likelihood of 

Occurrence

Red knot Calidris canutus BLM S Breeds in drier tundra areas, often in sparsely vegetated hillsides. 

Nesting occurs in ground depressions.

Documented.

Sagebrush sparrow Artemisiospiza 

nevadensis

BLM S Found in chaparral, sagebrush, and other open habitats with shrub 

components.

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

Veery Catharus fuscescens BLM S Breeding occurs in deciduous woodlands and forest habitats with 

well-developed understory. Often found near water sources such 

as rivers, streams, and swampy areas. 

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

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
L. Special Status Species Confirmed or Likely to Inhabit the Planning Area

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final 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

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

Spiny softshell turtle Apalone spinifera BLM S Freshwater rivers, lakes, marshes, and farm ponds. Open habitats 

with small amounts of vegetation and sandy or mud bottoms are 

preferred.

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

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
L. Special Status Species Confirmed or Likely to Inhabit the Planning Area

L-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table L-1

Special Status Species Confirmed or Likely to Inhabit the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Status1 General Habitat Likelihood of 

Occurrence

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

Source:

• Montana/Dakotas Special Status Species List. Instruction Memorandum No. MT-2014-067.

• Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species Montana Counties. Ecological Services Montana Field Office. Internet website:

http://www.fws.gov/montanafieldoffice/Endangered_Species/Listed_Species.html. Accessed on August 21, 2012.

• Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species, Montana Counties. Updated October 2014. Internet website: 

http://www.fws.gov/montanafieldoffice/endangered_species/listed_species/countylist.pdf. Accessed on November 13, 2014.

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
Appendix M

Applying Lek Buffer-Distances When 

Approving Actions

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS M-1

APPENDIX M

APPLYING LEK BUFFER-DISTANCES WHEN 

APPROVING ACTIONS

BUFFER DISTANCES AND EVALUATION OF IMPACTS TO LEKS

Evaluate impacts to leks from actions requiring National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) analysis. In addition to any other relevant information determined 

to be appropriate (e.g. State wildlife agency plans), the BLM would assess and 

address impacts from the following activities using the lek buffer-distances as 

identified in the US Geological Survey (USGS) Report Conservation Buffer 

Distance Estimates for Greater Sage-Grouse – A Review (Open File Report 2014-

1239). The BLM would apply the lek buffer-distances specified as the lower end 

of the interpreted range in the report unless justifiable departures are 

determined to be appropriate (see below). The lower end of the interpreted 

range of the lek buffer-distances is as follows:

• linear features (roads) within 3.1 miles of leks

• infrastructure related to energy development within 3.1 miles of 

leks

• tall structures (e.g., communication or transmission towers, 

transmission lines) within 2 miles of leks

• low structures (e.g., fences, rangeland structures) within1.2 miles of 

leks

• surface disturbance (continuing human activities that alter or 

remove the natural vegetation) within 3.1 miles of leks

• noise and related disruptive activities including those that do not 

result in habitat loss (e.g., motorized recreational events) at least 

0.25 miles from leks.
M. Applying Lek Buffer-Distances When Approving Actions

M-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Justifiable departures to decrease or increase from these distances, based on 

local data, best available science, landscape features, and other existing 

protections (e.g., land use allocations, state regulations) may be appropriate for 

determining activity impacts. The USGS report recognized “that because of 

variation in populations, habitats, development patterns, social context, and 

other factors, for a particular disturbance type, there is no single distance that is

an appropriate buffer for all populations and habitats across the sage-grouse 

range”. The USGS report also states that “various protection measures have 

been developed and implemented... [which have] the ability (alone or in 

concert with others) to protect important habitats, sustain populations, and 

support multiple-use demands for public lands”. All variations in lek bufferdistances would require appropriate analysis and disclosure as part of activity 

authorization.

In determining lek locations, the BLM would use the most recent active or 

occupied lek data available from the state wildlife agency.

FOR ACTIONS IN GENERAL HABITAT MANAGEMENT AREA (GHMA)

The BLM would apply the lek buffer-distances identified above as required 

conservation measures to fully address the impacts to leks as identified in the 

NEPA analysis.

• Impacts should first be avoided by locating the action outside of the 

applicable lek buffer-distance(s) identified above

• The BLM may approve actions in GHMA that are within the 

applicable lek buffer distance identified above only if::

– Based on best available science, landscape features, and 

other existing protections, (e.g., land use allocations, state 

regulations), the BLM determines that a lek buffer-distance 

other than the applicable distance identified above offers the 

same or a greater level of protection to GRSG and its 

habitat, including conservation of seasonal habitat outside of 

the analyzed buffer area; or

– The BLM determines that impacts to GRSG and its habitat 

are minimized such that the project would cause minor or 

no new disturbance (ex. co-location with existing 

authorizations); and

– Any residual impacts within the lek buffer-distances are 

addressed through compensatory mitigation measures 

sufficient to ensure a net conservation gain, as outlined in 

the Mitigation Strategy (Appendix G of the Lewistown Field 

Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS).
M. Applying Lek Buffer-Distances When Approving Actions

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS M-3

FOR ACTIONS IN PRIORITY HABITAT MANAGEMENT AREA (PHMA)

The BLM would apply the lek buffer-distances identified above as required 

conservation measures to fully address the impacts to leks as identified in the 

NEPA analysis. Impacts should be avoided by locating the action outside of the 

applicable lek buffer-distance(s) identified above.

The BLM may approve actions in PHMA that are within the applicable lek buffer 

distance identified above only if:

• The BLM, with input from the state fish and wildlife agency, 

determines, based on best available science, landscape features, and 

other existing protections, that a buffer distance other than the 

distance identified above offers the same or greater level of 

protection to GRSG and its habitat, including conservation of 

seasonal habitat outside of the analyzed buffer area. 

Range improvements which do not impact GRSG, or, range improvements 

which provide a conservation benefit to GRSG such as fences for protecting 

important seasonal habitats, meet the lek buffer requirement.

The BLM would explain its justification for determining the approved buffer 

distances meet these conditions in its project decision.
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix N

Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Disturbance Caps

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS N-1

APPENDIX N

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE (GRSG)

DISTURBANCE CAPS

In the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) 2010 listing decision for Greater 

Sage-Grouse (GRSG), the USFWS identified 18 threats contributing to the 

destruction, modification, or curtailment of GRSG’s habitat or range (75 FR 

13910 2010). The 18 threats have been aggregated into three measures: 

• Sagebrush availability (percent of sagebrush per unit area)

• Habitat degradation (percent of human activity per unit area) 

• Density of energy and mining (facilities and locations per unit area)

Habitat degradation, and density of energy and mining will be evaluated under 

the disturbance cap and density cap respectively and are further described in 

this appendix. The three measures, in conjunction with other information, will 

be considered during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for 

projects authorized or undertaken by the BLM. 

DISTURBANCE CAP

This resource management plan (RMP) amendment has incorporated a 3 

percent anthropogenic disturbance cap within GRSG Priority Habitat 

Management Areas (PHMA) and the subsequent land use planning actions if the 

cap is met: 

If the 3 percent anthropogenic disturbance cap is exceeded on lands 

(regardless of land ownership) within GRSG Priority PHMA in any given 

Biologically Significant Unit (BSU), then no further discrete anthropogenic 

disturbances (subject to applicable laws and regulations, such as the 1872 

hard rock mining law, valid existing rights, etc.) will be permitted by BLM 

within GRSG PHMA in any given BSU until the disturbance has been reduced 

to less than the cap.
N. Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Disturbance Caps

N-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

If the 3 percent disturbance cap is exceeded on all lands (regardless of land 

ownership) or if anthropogenic disturbance and habitat loss associated with 

conversion to agricultural tillage or fire exceed 5 percent within a proposed 

project analysis area in PHMA, then no further anthropogenic disturbance will 

be permitted by BLM until disturbance in the proposed project analysis area 

has been reduced to maintain the area under the cap (subject to applicable 

laws and regulations, such as the 1872 hard rock Mining Law, valid existing 

rights, etc.). If the BLM determines that the State of Montana’s GRSG Habitat 

Conservation Program contains comparable components to those found in the 

State of Wyoming’s Density and Disturbance model (an all lands approach for 

calculating anthropogenic disturbances, a clear methodology for measuring the 

density of operations, and a fully operational Density Disturbance Calculation 

Tool), the 3 percent disturbance cap will be converted to a 5 percent cap.

The disturbance cap applies to the PHMA within both the BSU and at the 

project authorization scale. For the BSUs, west-wide habitat degradation 

(disturbance) data layers (Table N-1, Anthropogenic Disturbance Types for 

Disturbance Calculations) will be used at a minimum to calculate the amount of 

disturbance and to determine if the disturbance cap has been exceeded as the 

RMPs are being implemented. Locally collected disturbance data will be used to 

determine if the disturbance cap has been exceeded for project authorizations, 

and may also be used to calculate the amount of disturbance in the BSUs.

Although locatable mine sites are included in the degradation calculation, mining 

activities under the 1872 mining law may not be subject to the 3 percent 

disturbance cap. Details about locatable mining activities will be fully disclosed 

and analyzed in the NEPA process to assess impacts to GRSG and their habitat 

as well as to BLM goals and objectives, and other BLM programs and activities.

Formulas for calculations of the amount of disturbance in the PHMA in a BSU 

and or in a proposed project area are as follows:

• For the BSUs: 

% Degradation Disturbance = (combined acres of the 12 

degradation threats1) ÷ (acres of all lands within the PHMAs in a 

BSU) x 100. 

• For the Project Analysis Area: 

% Degradation Disturbance = (combined acres of the 12 

degradation threats1 plus the 7 site scale threats2 and acres of 

habitat loss1) ÷ (acres of all lands within the PHMA in the 

project analysis area) x 100. 

 1See Table N-1. 2See Table N-2, The Seven Site Scale Features Considered Threats to Sage-Grouse Included in the Disturbance Calculation 

for Project Authorizations
N. Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Disturbance Caps

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS N-3

The denominator in the disturbance calculation formula consists of all acres of 

lands classified as PHMA within the analysis area (BSU or project area). Areas 

that are not GRSG seasonal habitats, or are not currently supporting sagebrush 

cover (e.g., due to wildfire), are not excluded from the acres of PHMA in the 

denominator of the formula. Information regarding GRSG seasonal habitats, 

sagebrush availability, and areas with the potential to support GRSG populations 

will be considered along with other local conditions that may affect GRSG 

during the analysis of the proposed project area.

DENSITY CAP

This RMP amendment has also incorporated a cap on the density of energy and 

mining facilities at an average of one facility per 640 acres in the PHMA in a 

project authorization area. If the disturbance density in the PHMA in a proposed 

project area is on average less than one facility per 640 acres, the analysis will 

proceed through the NEPA process incorporating mitigation measures into an 

alternative. If the disturbance density is greater than an average of one facility 

per 640 acres, the proposed project will either be deferred until the density of 

energy and mining facilities is less than the cap or co-located it into existing 

disturbed area (subject to applicable laws and regulations, such as the 1872 

Mining Law, valid existing rights, etc.). Facilities included in the density 

calculation (Table N-3, Relationship Between the 18 Threats and the Three 

Habitat Disturbance Measures for Monitoring and Disturbance Calculations) 

are:

• Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities)

• Energy (coal mines)

• Energy (wind towers)

• Energy (solar fields)

• Energy (geothermal)

• Mining (active locatable, leasable, and saleable developments)

Project Analysis Area Method for Permitting Surface Disturbance Activities

• Determine potentially affected occupied leks by placing a four mile 

boundary around the proposed area of physical disturbance related 

to the project. All occupied leks located within the four mile project 

boundary and within PHMA will be considered affected by the 

project. 

• Next, place a four mile boundary around each of the affected 

occupied leks. 

• The PHMA within the four mile lek boundary and the four mile 

project boundary creates the project analysis area for each 

individual project. If there are no occupied leks within the four-mile 
N. Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Disturbance Caps

N-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

project boundary, the project analysis area will be that portion of 

the four-mile project boundary within the PHMA. 

• Digitize all existing anthropogenic disturbances identified in Table 

N-1, the seven additional features that are considered threats to 

GRSG (Table N-2), and areas of sagebrush loss. Using one meter 

resolution NAIP imagery is recommended. Use existing local data if 

available. 

• Calculate percent existing disturbance using the formula above. If 

existing disturbance is less than 3 percent anthropogenic 

disturbance or 5 percent total disturbance, proceed to next step. If 

existing disturbance is greater than 3 percent anthropogenic 

disturbance or 5 percent total disturbance, defer the project.

• Add proposed project disturbance footprint area and recalculate 

the percent disturbance. If disturbance is less than 3 percent 

anthropogenic disturbance or 5 percent total disturbance, proceed 

to next step. If disturbance is greater than 3 percent anthropogenic 

disturbance or 5 percent total disturbance, defer project.

• Calculate the disturbance density of energy and mining facilities 

(listed above). If the disturbance density is less than one facility per 

640 acres, averaged across project analysis area, proceed to the 

NEPA analysis incorporating mitigation measures into an alternative. 

If the disturbance density is greater than one facility per 640 acres, 

averaged across the project analysis area, either defer the proposed 

project or co-locate it into existing disturbed area.

• If a project that would exceed the degradation cap or density cap 

cannot be deferred due to valid existing rights or other existing laws 

and regulations, fully disclose the local and regional impacts of the 

proposed action in the associated NEPA.
N. Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Disturbance Caps

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS N-5

Table N-1

Anthropogenic Disturbance Types for Disturbance Calculations

Data Sources are Described for the West-Wide Habitat Degradation Estimates

Degradation Type Subcategory Data Source Direct Area 

of Influence 

Area 

Source

Energy (oil & gas) Wells IHS; BLM (AFMSS) 5.0ac (2.0ha) BLM WO300

Power Plants Platts (power plants) 5.0ac (2.0ha) BLM WO300

Energy (coal) Mines BLM; USFS; Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement; USGS Mineral 

Resources Data System

Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri/Google 

Imagery

Power Plants Platts (power plants) Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri Imagery

Energy (wind) Wind Turbines Federal Aviation 

Administration

3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM WO300

Power Plants Platts (power plants) 3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM WO300

Energy (solar) Fields/Power 

Plants

Platts (power plants) 7.3ac 

(3.0ha)/MW 

NREL

Energy 

(geothermal)

Wells IHS 3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM WO300

Power Plants Platts (power plants) Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri Imagery

Mining Locatable 

Developments

InfoMine Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri Imagery

Infrastructure 

(roads)

Surface Streets 

(Minor Roads)

Esri StreetMap Premium 40.7ft (12.4m) USGS

Major Roads Esri StreetMap Premium 84.0ft (25.6m) USGS

Interstate 

Highways

Esri StreetMap Premium 240.2ft 

(73.2m) 

USGS

Infrastructure 

(railroads)

Active Lines Federal Railroad

Administration

30.8ft (9.4m) USGS

Infrastructure 

(power lines)

1-199kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 100ft (30.5m) BLM WO300

200-399 kV 

Lines

Platts (transmission lines) 150ft (45.7m) BLM WO300

400-699kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 200ft (61.0m) BLM WO300

700+kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 250ft (76.2m) BLM WO300

Infrastructure 

(communication) 

Towers Federal Communications 

Commission

2.5ac (1.0ha) BLM WO300
N. Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Disturbance Caps

N-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table N-2

The Seven Site Scale Features Considered Threats to Sage-Grouse Included in the 

Disturbance Calculation for Project Authorizations

1. Coalbed Methane Ponds

2. Meteorological Towers

3. Nuclear Energy Facilities

4. Airport Facilities and Infrastructure

5. Military Range Facilities & Infrastructure

6. Hydroelectric Plants

7. Recreation Areas Facilities and Infrastructure

Definitions:

1. Coalbed Methane and other Energy-related Retention Ponds – The footprint boundary will 

follow the fenceline and includes the area within the fenceline surrounding the impoundment. If the 

pond is not fenced, the impoundment itself is the footprint. Other infrastructure associated with the 

containment ponds (roads, well pads, etc.) will be captured in other disturbance categories.

2. Meteorological Towers – This feature includes long-term weather monitoring and temporary 

meteorological towers associated with short-term wind testing. The footprint boundary includes the 

area underneath the guy wires.

3. Nuclear Energy Facilities – The footprint boundary includes visible facilities (fence, road, etc.) 

and undisturbed areas within the facility’s perimeter.

4. Airport Facilities and Infrastructure (public and private) – The footprint boundary will 

follow the boundary of the airport or heliport and includes mowed areas, parking lots, hangers, 

taxiways, driveways, terminals, maintenance facilities, beacons and related features. Indicators of the 

boundary, such as distinct land cover changes, fences and perimeter roads, will be used to 

encompass the entire airport or heliport.

5. Military Range Facilities & Infrastructure – The footprint boundary will follow the outer edge 

of the disturbed areas around buildings and includes undisturbed areas within the facility’s perimeter.

6. Hydroelectric Plants – The footprint boundary includes visible facilities (fence, road, etc.) and 

undisturbed areas within the facility’s perimeter.

7. Recreation Areas & Facilities – This feature includes all sites/facilities larger than 0.25 acres in 

size. The footprint boundary will include any undisturbed areas within the site/facility.
N. Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Disturbance Caps

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS N-7

Table N-3

Relationship Between the 18 Threats and the Three Habitat Disturbance Measures for 

Monitoring and Disturbance Calculations

USFWS Listing Decision Threat Sagebrush 

Availability

Habitat 

Degradation

Energy and 

Mining 

Density

Agriculture X

Urbanization X

Wildfire X

Conifer encroachment X

Treatments X

Invasive Species 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 saleable 

developments)

X X

Infrastructure (roads) X

Infrastructure (railroads) X

Infrastructure (power lines) X

Infrastructure (communication towers) X

Infrastructure (other vertical structures) X

Other developed rights-of-way X
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix O

Response to Comments on the Draft Resource 

Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact 

Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

O. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

AMENDMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT................................................ O-1

O.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. O-1

O.1.1 Campaign Letters......................................................................................................... O-4

O.1.2 How This Appendix is Organized............................................................................ O-4

O.2 Topics, Responses, and Comments........................................................................................ O-5

O.2.1 NEPA.............................................................................................................................. O-5

O.2.2 Federal Land Policy and Management Act........................................................... O-11

O.2.3 Greater Sage-Grouse................................................................................................ O-15

O.2.4 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ........................................................... O-26

O.2.5 Climate Change.......................................................................................................... O-27

O.2.6 Cultural and Heritage Resources........................................................................... O-28

O.2.7 Fire and Fuels.............................................................................................................. O-28

O.2.8 Fish and Wildlife......................................................................................................... O-30

O.2.9 Lands and Realty ........................................................................................................ O-31

O.2.10 Leasable Minerals....................................................................................................... O-32

O.2.11 Livestock Grazing ...................................................................................................... O-34

O.2.12 Locatable Minerals..................................................................................................... O-39

O.2.13 Recreation ................................................................................................................... O-41

O.2.14 Salable Minerals.......................................................................................................... O-42

O.2.15 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ........................................................ O-42

O.2.16 Soil Resources............................................................................................................ O-43

O.2.17 Travel Management................................................................................................... O-44

O.2.18 Vegetation.................................................................................................................... O-45

O.2.19 Water Resources....................................................................................................... O-45

O.2.20 Wilderness Areas/Wilderness Study Areas........................................................ O-46

O.2.21 Disturbance Cap ........................................................................................................ O-47

O.2.22 Predation...................................................................................................................... O-48

O.2.23 Noise ............................................................................................................................ O-49

O.2.24 Weeds/Invasive Plants .............................................................................................. O-49

O.3 Commenter List........................................................................................................................ O-50

TABLES Page 

O.1 Organizations and Others That Submitted Unique Comment Letters on Lewistown 

Field Office GRSG Draft RMPA/EIS .................................................................................................... O-50
This page intentionally left blank.
June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-1

APPENDIX O

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT/

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

O.1 INTRODUCTION

After publishing the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft 

Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA)/Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS), the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) conducted a public comment period from November 8, 

2013, to February 5, 2014. The BLM received written comments by mail, e-mail, 

and submission at the public meetings. Comments covered a spectrum of 

thoughts, opinions, ideas, and concerns. The BLM recognizes that commenters 

invested considerable time and effort to submit comments on the Draft 

RMPA/EIS and has developed a comment analysis methodology to ensure that all 

comments were considered as directed by the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) regulations.

According to NEPA, the BLM is required to identify and formally respond to all 

substantive public comments. The BLM developed a systematic process for 

responding to comments to ensure all substantive comments were tracked and 

considered. Upon receipt, each comment letter was assigned an identification 

number and logged into the BLM’s comment analysis database, 

CommentWorks, which allowed the BLM to organize, categorize, and respond 

to comments. Substantive comments from each letter were coded to 

appropriate categories based on the content of the comment, retaining the link 

to the commenter. The categories generally follow the sections presented in the 

Draft RMPA/EIS, though some relate to the planning process or editorial 

concerns.

Comments similar to each other were grouped under a topic heading, and the 

BLM drafted a statement summarizing the issues contained in the comments. 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

O-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

The responses were crafted to respond to the comments, and, if warranted, a 

change to the EIS was made in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS.

Although each comment letter was diligently considered, the comment analysis 

process involved determining whether a comment was substantive or 

nonsubstantive in nature. In performing this analysis, the BLM relied on the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal 

Regulations [CFR], Part 1503.4) to determine what constituted a substantive 

comment.

A substantive comment does one or more of the following:

• Questions, with a reasonable basis, the accuracy of the information 

and/or analysis in the Draft RMPA/EIS

• Questions, with a reasonable basis, the adequacy of the information

and/or analysis in the Draft RMPA/EIS

• Presents reasonable alternatives other than those presented in the 

Draft RMPA/EIS that meet the purpose and need of the proposed 

action and addresses significant issues

• Questions, with a reasonable basis, the merits of an alternative or 

alternatives

• Causes changes in or revisions to the proposed action

• Questions, with a reasonable basis, the adequacy of the planning 

process itself

Additionally, the BLM’s NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1) identifies the following 

types of substantive comments:

• Comments on the Adequacy of the Analysis: Comments that 

express a professional disagreement with the conclusions of the 

analysis or assert that the analysis is inadequate are substantive in 

nature but may or may not lead to changes in the Proposed 

RMPA/Final EIS. Interpretations of analyses should be based on 

professional expertise. Where there is disagreement within a 

professional discipline, a careful review of the various 

interpretations is warranted. In some cases, public comments may 

necessitate a reevaluation of analytical conclusions. If, after 

reevaluation, the manager responsible for preparing the EIS 

(Authorized Officer) does not think that a change is warranted, the 

response should provide the rationale for that conclusion.

• Comments That Identify New Impacts, Alternatives, or Mitigation 

Measures: Public comments on a Draft EIS that identify impacts, 

alternatives, or mitigation measures that were not addressed in the 

draft are substantive. This type of comment requires the Authorized 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-3

Officer to determine whether it warrants further consideration. If it 

does, the Authorized Officer must determine whether the new 

impacts, new alternatives, or new mitigation measures should be 

analyzed in the Final EIS, a supplement to the Draft EIS, or a 

completely revised and recirculated Draft EIS.

• Disagreements with Significance Determinations: Comments that 

directly or indirectly question, with a reasonable basis, 

determinations regarding the significance or severity of impacts are 

substantive. A reevaluation of these determinations may be 

warranted and may lead to changes in the Final EIS. If, after 

reevaluation, the Authorized Officer does not think that a change is 

warranted, the response should provide the rationale for that 

conclusion.

Comments that failed to meet the above description were considered 

nonsubstantive. Many comments received throughout the process expressed 

personal opinions or preferences, had little relevance to the adequacy or 

accuracy of the Draft RMPA/EIS, represented commentary regarding resource 

management and/or impacts without any real connection to the document being 

reviewed, or were considered out of scope because they dealt with existing law, 

rule, regulation, or policy. These comments did not provide specific information 

to assist the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse planning team in 

making changes to the alternatives or impact analysis in the Draft RMPA/EIS and 

are not addressed further in this document. Examples of nonsubstantive 

comments include the following:

• The best of the alternatives is Alternative D (or A, B, or C).

• The preferred alternative does not reflect balanced land 

management.

• The BLM needs to change the Taylor Grazing Act and charge higher 

grazing fees.

• I want the EIS to reflect the following for this area: no grazing, no 

drilling, no mining, and no off-highway vehicles (OHV).

• More areas should be made available for multiple uses (drilling, 

OHVs, right-of-ways [ROW)]) without severe restrictions.

Opinions, feelings, and preferences for one element or one alternative over 

another, and comments of a personal and/or philosophical nature, were all read, 

analyzed, and considered. However, because such comments are not substantive 

in nature, the BLM did not include them in the report and did not respond to 

them. While all comments were reviewed and considered, comments were not 

counted as “votes” that would determine what action BLM would take under 

the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. The NEPA public comment period is neither 

considered an election, nor does it result in a representative sampling of the 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

O-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

population. Therefore, public comments are not appropriate to be used as a 

democratic decision-making tool or as a scientific sampling mechanism.

Comments citing editorial changes to the document were reviewed and 

incorporated where appropriate.

Copies of all comment documents received on the Draft RMPA/EIS are available 

by request from the BLM’s Montana State Office. Comments received by mail, 

email, and at meetings, or delivered orally during the public meetings, are 

tracked by commenter name and submission number.

O.1.1 Campaign Letters

Several organizations and groups held standardized letter campaigns for the 

National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy through which their 

constituents were able to submit the standard letter or a modified version of 

the letter indicating support for the group’s position on the BLM RMPA actions. 

Individuals who submitted a modified standard letter generally added new 

comments or information to the letter or edited it to reflect their main 

concern(s). Modified letters with unique comments were given their own letter 

number and coded appropriately. All commenters who used an organization’s 

campaign letter were tracked in the BLM commenter list, and these letters are 

available from the BLM upon request.

O.1.2 How This Appendix is Organized

This appendix is divided into three main sections. The first section, Introduction, 

provides an overview of the comment response process. The second section, 

Topics, Responses, and Comments, is organized by the primary topic and then 

by specific issue subtopics that relate to an aspect of NEPA, the BLM planning 

process, or specific resources and resource uses. For example, all comments 

that relate to aspects of the National Environmental Policy Act fall under the 

heading O.2.1, NEPA. This includes subsections such as cooperating agencies, 

range of alternatives, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data and 

analysis. You can find the comments related to Greater Sage-Grouse under the 

heading O.2.3, Greater Sage-Grouse. Each topic or subtopic contains a 

summary statement, and the BLM’s response to the summary statement.

The third section, O.3, Commenter List, provides the names of individuals who 

submitted unique comment letters (not campaign letters) on the Draft 

RMPA/EIS. Comment submissions are indexed and listed alphabetically by the 

commenter’s last name.

Note: In the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS, 

Alternatives B, C, and D delineated priority habitat (PH) and general habitat 

(GH). In the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, PH has been changed to priority habitat 

management areas (PHMA), and GH has been changed to general habitat 

management areas (GHMA). The boundaries of these areas have not changed. 

Similar to the Draft RMPA/EIS, the areas delineated as PHMA and GHMA would 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-5

be the same under Alternatives B, C, and D and the Proposed Plan Amendment 

in the Final EIS. Because the public comments refer to the Draft RMPA/EIS, the 

terms PH and GH are used in comment summaries in Section O.2, Topics, 

Responses, and Comments. However, PH and GH have been replaced with 

PHMA and GHMA in the comment responses.

O.2 TOPICS, RESPONSES, AND COMMENTS

O.2.1 NEPA

Summary

The BLM has not provided consistency between all the sub-regional efforts; 

there are vastly different proposed management prescriptions to conserve the 

species.

Response

While there was consistent direction provided in alternative development, such 

as BLM Washington Office (WO) Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2012-044, 

variation across sub-regions was needed to accommodate the local issues and 

specific state requirements, as well as public comments provided on the 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS. The best 

available science will guide Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) objectives utilized for 

all sub-regions.

Cooperating Agency Relationships 

Summary

The BLM should work with local cooperating agencies if local field office 

objectives are developed in the future.

Response

As the decisions under consideration by the BLM are programmatic in nature 

and would not result in on-the-ground planning decision or actions, the scope of 

the management actions were considered at a broad, programmatic level. As 

specific actions come under consideration, such as future local management 

actions to implement the broad objectives and goals presented here, the BLM 

would conduct subsequent NEPA analyses that may include future coordination 

with local cooperating agencies. In addition, as required by NEPA, the public 

would be offered the opportunity to participate in the NEPA process for any 

site-specific actions.

Range of Alternatives

Summary

The comments focused on several issues related to the alternatives presented in 

the Draft RMPA/EIS:
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

O-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

1. Commenters believed that the stated purpose and need is overly 

narrow, and that the goals and objectives presented in the 

alternatives would not meet the purpose for the action, namely 

conservation of the GRSG.

2. The BLM should modify the alternatives several ways, including 

changing the conservation alternative (Alternative C) to include only 

those elements that were provided by the conservation 

organizations; include a reduced grazing alternative that includes a 

50 percent reduction in actual use; and an alternative that would 

not include universal closures and no surface occupancy (NSO) 

stipulations to areas available for leasing.

Response

1. CEQ regulations direct that an EIS “...shall briefly specify the 

underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in 

proposing the alternatives including the proposed action” (40 CFR, 

Part 1502.13). Also, under the CEQ regulations, the BLM is 

required to “study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives 

to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves 

unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available 

resources as provided by section 102(2)(E) of the Act [NEPA]” (40 

CFR, Part 1501.2(c)). The breadth or narrowness of the purpose 

and need statement has a substantial influence on the scope of the 

subsequent analysis. The purpose and need statement provides a 

framework for issue identification and will inform the rationale for 

alternative selection. The range of alternatives developed are 

intended to meet the purpose and need and address the issue,

thereby providing a basis for eventual selection of an alternative in a 

decision (BLM NEPA Handbook). An agency’s refusal to consider 

proposed alternatives does not mean that an alternatives analysis is 

deficient, as long as the agency provides an explanation for why the 

proposed alternative was not considered in depth. See Western 

Watershed Projects et al. vs. BLM (No. 2:10-CV-02896-KJM-KJN) and 

Earth Island Inst., 697 F.3d at 1022–23.

The BLM is preparing RMPAs with associated EISs for RMPs applied 

to lands with GRSG habitat (see Section 1.2 of the Proposed 

RMPA/Final EIS). This effort responds to the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s (USFWS) March 2010 ‘warranted, but precluded’ 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing petition decision, which stated

that existing regulatory mechanisms in BLM land use plans was 

inadequate to protect the species and its habitat.

The draft alternatives and Proposed Plan Amendment in the 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final 

EIS would focus on areas affected by threats to GRSG habitat 

identified by the USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision. The 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-7

primary threat to sagebrush habitat in Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Management Zone (MZ) 1 and 

specifically within the Yellowstone Watershed population as 

identified in the Conservation Objectives Team (COT) report is 

conversion of sagebrush to agricultural lands or other land uses. 

Infrastructure from energy development also represents a threat. 

To address the threats, BLM considered a range of changes in the 

draft alternatives and Proposed Plan Amendment for management 

of GRSG habitat to avoid the continued decline of populations and 

habitats across BLM-administered lands. This purpose and need 

provides the appropriate scope to allow the BLM to analyze a 

reasonable number of alternatives to cover the full spectrum of 

potential impacts.

2. The BLM considered a reasonable range of alternatives during the 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse planning process in full 

compliance with the NEPA. The CEQ regulations (40 CFR, Part

1502.1) require that the BLM consider reasonable alternatives that 

would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of 

the human environment. While there are many possible alternatives 

or actions to manage public lands and GRSG in the planning area, 

the BLM fully considered the planning issues and criteria developed 

during the scoping process to determine a reasonable range of 

alternatives. As a result, four alternatives were analyzed in detail in 

the Draft RMPA/EIS that best addressed the issues and concerns 

identified by the affected public. The range of alternatives in the 

Draft RMPA/EIS represented a full spectrum of options including a 

no action alternative (current management, Alternative A)

During scoping for the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse 

RMPA/EIS, conservation groups submitted management direction 

recommendations for protection and conservation of GSG and their 

habitat. These recommendations, in conjunction with resource 

allocation opportunities and internal sub-regional BLM input, were 

reviewed to develop the management direction for GRSG under 

Alternative C. In accordance with IM 2012-169 and BLM’s Land Use 

Planning Handbook, the BLM considered what range of alternatives 

was necessary to address unresolved conflicts among available 

resources. The WO IM states that BLM should analyze either a 

reduced or no-grazing alternative. The BLM chose to analyze no 

grazing alternative, instead of a reduced grazing alternative. The no 

grazing alternative was analyzed because of the number of

allotments in the planning area not meeting land health standards. 

Also, because of the intermingled land pattern, the BLM would need 

to install fencing where allotments are adjacent to non-BLMadministered lands for either a no grazing alternative or a reduced 

grazing alternative. The alternative submitted by the conservation 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

O-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

groups was revised to meet the needs of the Lewistown Field Office 

RMPA/EIS; therefore, all their suggestions were not included 

verbatim in Alternative C.

As stated in Section 1.3 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, 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 PH and GH, or PHMA and GHMA. Existing 

fluid mineral leases within GRSG habitat that expire can be renominated for leasing, but would be deferred as described above. 

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 is not be addressed in this 

RMPA/EIS.

Best Available Data

Summary

The BLM must clearly state in the Final EIS what information is not available for 

the analysis per NEPA regulations, 43 CFR, Part 1502.22(b).

Response

The CEQ established implementing regulations for NEPA, requiring that a 

Federal agency identify relevant information that may be incomplete or 

unavailable for evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts in 

an EIS (40 CFR, Part 1502.22). If the information is essential to a reasoned 

choice among alternatives, it must be included or addressed in an EIS. 

Knowledge and information is, and will 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 Lewistown RMPA/EIS. The BLM made considerable effort to 

acquire and convert resource data from the BLM and from outside sources, into 

digital format for use in the RMPA/EIS.

Under FLPMA, the inventory of public land resources is ongoing and 

continuously updated. However, certain information is sometimes unavailable 

for use in developing the RMPA/EIS because inventories either have not been 

conducted or are out of date, for example vegetation cover changes due to 

wildfire.

For these resources, estimates were made concerning the number, type, and 

significance of these resources based on previous surveys and existing 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-9

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 site-specific 

project-level analysis would provide the opportunity to collect and examine sitespecific inventory data to determine appropriate application of planning 

guidance. In addition, the BLM and other agencies in the planning area continue 

to update and refine information used to implement these plans. The BLM is not 

aware of any incomplete or unavailable information.

Cumulative Impacts

Summary

The Draft EIS failed to identify reasonably foreseeable future actions for 

renewable energy in the cumulative effects analysis.

Response

The BLM thoroughly explained its consideration and analysis of cumulative 

effects in the Draft RMPA/EIS in Section 5.1. The Lewistown Field Office

Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS considers the present effects of past actions, to 

the extent that they are relevant, and present and reasonably foreseeable (not 

highly speculative) federal and non-federal actions, taking into account the 

relationship between the proposed alternatives and these reasonably 

foreseeable actions. This discussion summarizes CEQ guidance from June 24, 

2005, stating that “[g]enerally, agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative 

effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions 

without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” This is 

because a description of the current state of the environment inherently 

includes the effects of past actions. Information on the current conditions is 

more comprehensive and more accurate for establishing a useful starting point 

for cumulative effects analysis. The CEQ interpretation was accepted by the 

Ninth Circuit Court in NW Envtl. Advoc. v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 460 F.3d 

1125, 1141 (9th Cir. 2006). The BLM explicitly described their assumptions 

regarding proposed projects and other reasonably foreseeable future actions.

The BLM has complied fully with the requirements of 40 CFR, Part 1508.7 and 

prepared a cumulative impact analysis to the extent possible based on the broad 

nature and scope of the proposed management options under consideration at 

the land use planning level.

As described in Section 5.2.2 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, projects and 

activities for consideration in the cumulative effects analysis 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. Based on this 

evaluation, no renewable energy projects were identified in the Lewistown Field 

Office planning area. The cumulative effects analysis in Section 5.3 was revised in 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

O-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS to include a cumulative effects analysis on GRSG 

at the WAFWA Management Zone level. One utility-scale wind development in 

Management Zone IV was considered in this analysis.

Mitigation Measures

Summary

The BLM should consider additional mitigation measures. Commenters also 

requested the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS clarify what type of development the 

RDFs in Appendix C and D apply to. Also, the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS should 

provide measurable objectives for mitigation, including “triggers” and measures 

of success.

Response

The BLM complied with the NEPA by including a discussion of measures that 

may mitigate adverse environmental impacts of the alternatives in the Draft 

RMPA/EIS. See 40 CFR, Parts 1502.14(f), 1502.16(h). Potential forms of 

mitigation include: 1) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain

action or parts of an action; 2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or 

magnitude of the action and its implementation; 3) rectifying the impact by 

repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 4) reducing or 

eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations 

during the life of the action; or 5) compensating for the impact by replacing or 

providing substitute resources or environments (40 CFR, Part 1508.20). The 

BLM must include mitigation measures in an EIS pursuant to the NEPA; yet the 

BLM has full discretion in selecting which mitigation measures are most 

appropriate, including which forms of mitigation are inappropriate.

Section 2.6.2 and Table 2-5 in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS identify what type 

of management actions the RDFs in Appendices C and D would apply to.

Mitigation would be applied to all implementation actions/decisions that take 

place on federal lands within GRSG habitat during the life of this plan. Mitigation 

is further defined in Appendix G of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. The Regional 

Mitigation Strategy was developed to follow the BLM’s Regional Mitigation 

Manual MS-1794, and CEQ 40 CFR, Part 1508.20.

The Regional Mitigation Strategy, through the mitigation hierarchy, guides the 

BLM. The hierarchy direction is to: 1) avoid impacts entirely by not taking a 

certain action or parts of an action; 2) if unable to avoid, minimize impacts by 

limiting the degree or magnitude of an action or parts of an action; and 3) if 

avoidance or minimizing is not possible, compensate impacts associated with 

future implementation actions. If residual impacts on GRSG from 

implementation-level actions remain after applying avoidance or minimization 

measures, then compensatory mitigation projects would be used to offset the 

residual impacts in an effort to achieve the land use plan goals and objectives. As 

articulated in Appendix G of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, compensatory 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-11

mitigation would occur on sites that have the potential to yield the greatest 

conservation benefit to the GRSG, regardless of land ownership. These sites 

should be sufficiently “durable.” According to BLM Manual Section 1794, 

durability is defined as “the administrative, legal, and financial assurances that 

secure and protect the conservation status of a compensatory mitigation site, 

and the ecological benefits of a compensatory mitigation project, for at least as 

long as the associated impacts persist.”

Specific mitigation strategies, based on the Regional Mitigation Strategy, would 

be developed by regional teams (at the WAFWA MZ level) within one year of 

the issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD). These strategies would guide the 

application of the mitigation hierarchy to address GRSG impacts in that 

WAFWA MZ. The WAFWA MZ Regional Mitigation Strategy would be 

applicable to BLM-administered lands within the zone’s boundaries. 

Subsequently, the BLM’s NEPA analysis for implementation-level decisions that 

might impact GRSG would include analysis of mitigation recommendations from 

the relevant WAFWA MZ Regional Mitigation Strategy(ies).

The Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework in Appendix B of the

Proposed RMPA/Final EIS outlines the methods that the BLM would use to 

monitor and evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the plan to 

conserve the species and their habitat. The regulations for the BLM (43 CFR, 

Part 1610.4-9) require that land use plans establish intervals and standards, as 

appropriate, for monitoring and evaluations, based on the sensitivity of the 

resource to the decisions involved.

Implementation monitoring results would provide information to allow the BLM 

to evaluate the implementation of decisions from the BLM RMPs to conserve 

GRSG and its habitat. Effectiveness monitoring would provide the information 

to evaluate whether BLM actions achieve the objective of the planning strategy 

(BLM IM 2012-044), which is to conserve GRSG populations and their habitats. 

Monitoring efforts would include data for measurable quantitative indicators of 

sagebrush availability, anthropogenic disturbance levels, and sagebrush 

conditions. This information would assist the BLM with identifying whether or 

not they are achieving their land use plan goals and objectives, reaching an 

adaptive management soft or hard trigger, as well as providing information 

relative to the density and disturbance caps.

O.2.2 Federal Land Policy and Management Act

Summary

The Draft RMPA/EIS was overly focused on protecting GRSG and does not 

meet Federal Land Policy and Management Act’s (FLPMA) multiple use mandate.
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

O-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Response

The BLM’s FLPMA (Section 103(c)) defines “multiple use” as the management of 

the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the 

combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American 

people. Accordingly, the BLM is responsible for the complicated task of striking 

a balance among the many competing uses to which public lands can be put. The 

BLM’s multiple-use mandate does not require that all uses be allowed on all 

areas of the public lands. The purpose of the mandate is to require the BLM to 

evaluate and choose an appropriate balance of resource uses, which involves 

tradeoffs between competing uses. The FLPMA also directs the BLM to develop 

and periodically revise or amend its RMPs, which guide management of BLMadministered lands, and provides an arena for making decisions regarding how 

public lands would be managed and used.

The Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA is a targeted 

amendment specifically addressing goals, objectives, and conservation measures 

to conserve GRSG and to respond to the potential of it being listed (see 

Proposed RMPA/Final EIS Section 1.2). The BLM’s planning processes allows for 

analysis and consideration of a range of alternatives in the Proposed RMPA/Final 

EIS that identify and incorporate appropriate regulatory mechanisms to 

conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG habitat and to eliminate, reduce, or 

minimize threats to this habitat to ensure that a balanced management approach 

was recommended. Section 3.4.2 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS provides an 

overview of current uses on public lands that may threaten GRSG habitat and 

populations. The Proposed RMPA/Final EIS includes alternatives that provide a 

greater and lesser degree of restrictions in various use programs, but would not 

eliminate or invalidate any valid existing development rights. Valid existing rights 

are discussed in Section 1.7 and several locations throughout Chapter 4 of the 

Proposed RMPA/Final EIS.

Additionally, the BLM developed the Lewistown Field Office Sage-Grouse Draft 

RMPA/EIS with involvement from 12 cooperating agencies (see Section 6.3 of 

the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS), including USFWS, Montana Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks (MFWP), Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 

US Forest Service, county commissioners, and Cooperative State Grazing 

Districts to ensure a balanced multiple-use management strategy to address the 

protection of GRSG while allowing for use of renewable and nonrenewable 

resources on the public lands.

Inventories

Summary

Commenters suggested that the Draft RMPA/EIS provide inventories of public 

lands, and their resources and values.
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-13

Response

The CEQ regulations require an environmental impact statement to “succinctly 

describe the environment of the area(s) to be affected or created by the 

alternatives under consideration. The description shall be no longer than is 

necessary to understand the effects of the alternatives. Data and analyses in an 

EIS shall be commensurate with the importance of the impact, with less 

important material summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Agencies 

shall avoid useless bulk in statements and shall concentrate effort and attention 

on important issues” (40 CFR, Part 1502.15). Additionally, the Lewistown Field 

Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA is a programmatic NEPA effort to conserve 

GRSG and its habitat across a broad geographic area. As such, the BLM 

described the current conditions and trends in the affected environment 

broadly, across a range of conditions, appropriate to program-level land use 

planning actions.

The BLM complied with these regulations in describing the affected 

environment. The requisite level of information necessary to make a reasoned 

choice among the alternatives in an EIS is based on the scope and nature of the 

proposed decision. The affected environment provided in Chapter 3 in the 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS is sufficient to support, 

at the general land use planning level of analysis, the environmental impact 

analysis resulting from management actions presented in the RMPA/EIS. For 

example, listing every water quality-impaired stream within the planning area by 

name would not provide useful information at this broad-scale analysis, 

particularly where the proposed plan alternatives did not vary the level of 

riparian protections to provide reduced levels for non-impaired streams. The 

riparian protections within each alternative were applied to all streams, whether 

or not they were water quality-impaired. However, understanding the miles of 

impaired BLM streams, as presented in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS at Section 

3.19.2, is useful in establishing a baseline by which the BLM may analyze the 

relative effects of each alternative’s broad-based approach.

As specific actions come under consideration, the BLM would conduct 

subsequent NEPA analyses that would include site-specific project and 

implementation-level actions. Site-specific concerns and more detailed 

environmental descriptions would be addressed when project-level reviews are 

tiered to the analysis in this EIS (40 CFR, Part 1502.20, 40 CFR, Part 1508.28). 

In addition, as required by NEPA, the public would be offered the opportunity 

to participate in the NEPA process for any site-specific actions.

Consistency with Other State, County, or Local Plans

Summary

Commenters state that the BLM’s actions considered in the alternatives conflict 

with local and state agency plans and policies, and that the BLM did not 

coordinate with agencies to ensure that conservation measures are as 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

O-14 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

consistent as possible with other planning jurisdictions. Commenters also state 

that in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS the BLM should disclose the implications of 

the 2013 Draft Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy 

(Montana Strategy); address Executive Order No. 2-2013, and explain how the 

document would correspond with the State of Montana GRSG population 

management objectives.

Response

The BLM land use plans and amendments must be consistent with officially 

approved or adopted resource-related plans of Indian tribes, other federal 

agencies, and state and local governments to the extent that these resourcerelated plans comport with FLPMA and other federal laws and regulations (see 

43 CFR, Part 1610). The BLM worked closely with state and local governments 

during preparation of the Draft RMPA/EIS. The Proposed RMPA/Final EIS lists

the cooperating agencies actively involved in the planning process in Section 6.3. 

As described in Section 6.3, 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. In addition, agencies 

were invited to attend public meetings for the Draft RMPA/EIS and encouraged 

to submit comments on the Draft RMPA/EIS. Since release of the Draft 

RMPA/EIS, the BLM has continued to work closely with a broad range of 

governmental partners, including governors, state fish and wildlife agencies, the 

USFWS, Indian tribes, and county commissioners. Through this coordination, 

the BLM has developed a Proposed Plan Amendment that is consistent with 

state, Tribal, and local strategies to the maximum extent possible and ensures 

the long-term conservation of the GRSG.

The BLM works to find a balance among uses and needs as reflected in these 

local government plans and has done so in the preparation of the RMPA/EIS; a 

list of these plans can be found in Section 1.8 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. 

Additional information on relationship to county land use plans has been added 

to the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS (Section 1.8.9). While the BLM is not obligated 

to seek consistency, the agency is required to document the inconsistencies 

between the proposed action and the other plans, policies, and/or controls in 

the decision record for the EIS. No known inconsistencies were identified.

The BLM coordinates with cooperating agencies commensurate with each 

agency’s recognized jurisdiction or expertise. In areas where the State of 

Montana has clear jurisdiction, such as wildlife populations, the BLM has worked 

closely with that state agency. In cases where a county or agency has expertise, 

such as local county socioeconomic information, the BLM has worked closely 

with the group to incorporate the information into the EIS.
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-15

The Governor of the State of Montana issued Executive Order 10-2014, which 

created the Montana Sage Grouse Oversight Team (MSGOT) and the Montana

Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Program. The executive order outlines a 

number of conservation strategies for state agencies to follow for land uses and 

activities in GRSG habitat in addition to establishing the MSGOT and habitat 

conservation program. The state conservation efforts are complimentary to the 

conservation measures proposed in the BLM land use plans and when combined 

would provide conservation efforts across land ownership boundaries.

Other Laws

Summary

Commenters requested the BLM to explain why the 2011 GRSG IMs, which add 

substantive requirements to the National Strategy, and the Notice of Intent do 

not require conformity with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 

Additionally, commenters stated that the BLM should have conducted NEPA 

analysis on the 2011 IMs. Commenters also state that the Draft EIS did not 

meet the USFWS Policy for Evaluating Conservation Efforts (PECE) policy 

standards.

Response

IMs are temporary directives that supplement the BLM’s permanent Manual 

sections, which provide direction for its programs. The 2011 GRSG IMs do not 

constitute legislative rules that require public notice and an opportunity for 

comment under the APA or require NEPA analysis.

The USFWS will evaluate the adequacy of the Lewistown Field Office Greater 

Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS with respect to its determination as to 

whether a listing of the GRSG under the ESA as threatened or endangered is 

warranted.

O.2.3 Greater Sage-Grouse 

NTT Report/Findings 

Summary

Commenters asserted that the National Technical Team (NTT) report is 

inconsistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and is biased 

against oil and gas development.

Response

An NTT was formed as an independent, science-based team to ensure that the 

best information about how to manage the GRSG is reviewed, evaluated, and 

provided to the BLM in the planning process. The group produced a report in 

December 2011 that identified science-based management considerations to 

promote sustainable GRSG populations. The NTT report (NTT 2011) used the 

best current scientific knowledge to guide the BLM planning efforts through 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

O-16 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

management considerations to ameliorate threats, focused primarily on priority 

GRSG habitats on public lands. The NTT report is a peer reviewed report 

compiled by recognized experts in their fields and uses accepted methodologies 

for programmatic broad-level planning analysis. The NTT is staying involved as 

the BLM works through the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy to 

make sure that relevant science is considered, reasonably interpreted, and 

accurately presented, and that uncertainties and risks are acknowledged and 

documented.

Under FACA, any time a federal agency intends to establish, control, or manage 

a group that gives advice as a group and has at least one member who is not a 

federal, Tribal, state, or local government employee, the agency must comply 

with FACA and the related administrative guidelines developed by the General 

Services Administration. The NTT was composed of only federal and state 

government employees; therefore, FACA does not apply.

COT Report 

Summary

Commenters had two distinct views regarding the COT report. One group 

considered the report lacking in scientific integrity, inconsistent with other laws 

and mandates, and not representative of the best available information. The 

other group suggested the Draft EIS was not fully consistent with and did not 

completely meet the COT report conservation objectives and therefore 

requires additional management actions or clarification to address those 

deficiencies.

Response

In March 2012, the USFWS initiated a collaborative approach to develop rangewide conservation objectives for the GRSG to inform the 2015 decision about 

the need to list the species and to inform the collective conservation efforts of 

the many partners working to conserve the species. In March 2013, this team of 

state and USFWS representatives released the COT report based upon the best 

scientific and commercial data available at the time that identifies key areas for 

GRSG conservation, key threats in those areas, and the extent to which they 

need to be reduced for the species to be conserved. The report serves as 

guidance to federal land management agencies, state GRSG teams, and others in 

focusing efforts to achieve effective conservation for this species. In addition to 

the COT report, the BLM used the NTT report and the Summary of Science, 

Activities, Programs, and Policies That Influence the Rangewide Conservation of 

Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) (referred to as the Baseline 

Environmental Report [BER]) as additional sources of baseline information and 

as a starting place for developing management objectives.

The BLM sought to develop a range of alternatives with management objectives 

and actions that are consistent with the conservation measures and objectives 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-17

outlined in the COT report. To conserve GRSG habitat, proposed management 

follows the basic principles of: 1) avoiding the impact of an activity; 2) minimizing 

impacts by limiting the degree of activity; and 3) mitigating for an impact by 

improving or enhancing GRSG habitat. Each of the alternatives considers 

different means for accomplishing this strategy. For example, some alternatives 

place greater emphasis on avoidance of impacts, whereas other alternatives 

place more emphasis on minimization and mitigation. The BLM met with 

partners during formulation of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS to meet the COT 

objectives to the extent possible.

The Proposed Plan Amendment would maintain and enhance GRSG populations 

and habitat. The Proposed Plan Amendment would apply management actions, 

subject to valid existing rights, to other uses and resources, such as:

• Providing a framework for prioritizing areas in PHMA and GHMA 

for wildfire, invasive annual grass, and conifer treatments; 

• Managing areas as ROW avoidance or exclusion for certain types of 

lands and realty uses, requiring specific design features, and limiting 

new development where a disturbance cap has been reached; 

• Adjusting grazing practices, including temporary livestock removal, 

where GRSG habitat objectives are not being met; and 

• Applying Conditions of Approval (COA) to existing fluid mineral 

leases in PHMA and GHMA, and closing PHMA to nonenergy 

leasable development and mineral material sales.

The Proposed Plan Amendment would also establish screening criteria and 

conditions for new anthropogenic activities in PHMA and GHMA to ensure a 

net conservation gain to GRSG. The Proposed Plan Amendment would reduce 

habitat disturbance and fragmentation through limitations on surface disturbing 

activities, while addressing changes in resource condition and use through 

monitoring and adaptive management.

Table 2-5 in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS demonstrates how the BLM 

addressed the threats to the populations in the Lewistown Field Office planning 

area. Alternatives may reduce threats to varying degrees, but the primary and 

driving threats for the Yellowstone Watershed Population and Belt Mountains 

populations (Agriculture Conversion of private land) would remain. The COT 

report (page 65) further explains expectations for Yellowstone Watershed 

Population despite BLM efforts/restrictions for GRSG habitat within the 

Lewistown Field Office. Responses to the USFWS comments on how the 

alternatives meet the COT objectives are provided separately in the 

administrative record for the RMPA/EIS.
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

O-18 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Range of Alternatives 

Summary

Commenters suggested changes to the alternatives related to GRSG, including: 

• Consideration for Important Bird Area boundaries and areas 

outside of GRSG habitat 

• Additional lek buffers 

• Changes to grazing management 

• Inclusion of West Nile virus management measures

• Providing more regulatory certainty 

• Including more guidance from the NTT report or public-proposed 

alternatives 

• Fully considering the NTT report and Sage-grouse Recovery 

Alternative as presented by conservation groups

Response

Section 1.5 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS describes how the Lewistown Field 

Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS planning team employed the BLM 

planning process 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 the development of alternatives for the Draft RMPA/EIS, 

including seeking public input and analyzing reasonable alternatives (see also 

Section O.2.1, NEPA—Range of Alternatives, of this report). The alternatives 

include management options for the planning area that would modify or amend 

decisions made in the field office RMPs to meet the planning criteria, address 

issues and comments from cooperating agencies and the public, and provide a 

reasonable range of alternatives. Alternatives for GRSG management were also 

developed using the recommendations of the NTT report and COT report to 

offer a range of management approaches to maintain or increase GRSG 

abundance and distribution of GRSG by conserving, enhancing, or restoring the 

sagebrush ecosystem upon which GRSG populations depend (see Section 

O.2.3, Greater Sage-Grouse, of this report for more details). Since this is a plan 

amendment to address GRSG conservation, many decisions from the field office 

RMPs are acceptable and reasonable. In these instances, there was no need to 

develop alternative management prescriptions. 

Suggested revisions have been reviewed and incorporated as appropriate to 

clarify alternatives (see Section 2.6.2 and Table 2-4 of the Proposed RMPA/Final 

EIS). Changes implemented in the Final EIS include the addition of SFAs, 

guidance for incorporating GRSG RMP decisions into grazing authorizations, 

vegetation objectives guidance, density and disturbance caps, mitigation 

guidance, and guidance for applying lek buffers when approving actions (see the 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-19

description of Changes from Draft RMPA to the Proposed RMPA in Section 1.9 

of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS).

Regulatory uncertainty would be addressed in subsequent site-specific NEPA, 

which would evaluate how proposed activities with applicable RDFs would 

impact GRSG, PHMA, and GHMA.

Best Available Information Baseline Data 

Summary

Commenters suggested new or additional literature for the BLM to consider in 

the Final EIS. Topics commenters were concerned about include impacts from:

• Grazing disturbance, including stubble height requirements 

• Energy development and disease

• Transmission lines

• Noise

Commenters were also concerned about GRSG habitat mapping, including 

suggesting clarifications or revisions to the habitat map and questioning how the 

map would be updated.

Response

Before beginning the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS 

and throughout the planning effort, the BLM considered the availability of data 

from all sources, adequacy of existing data, data gaps, and the type of data 

necessary to support informed management decisions at the land use plan level. 

The data needed to support broad-scale analysis of the planning area are 

substantially different than the data needed to support site-specific analysis of 

projects. The RMPA/EIS data and information are presented in map and table 

form and are sufficient to support the broad-scale analyses required for land use 

planning (see Section O.2.1, NEPA, of this report for more details).

The BLM used the most recent and best information available that was relevant 

to a land use planning-level analysis, including the Summary of Science, Activities, 

Programs, and Policies That Influence the Rangewide Conservation of Greater 

Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) (BER; Manier et al. 2013), NTT report 

(NTT 2011), and COT report (USFWS 2013). Additionally, the BLM consulted 

with, collected, and incorporated data from other agencies and sources, 

including but not limited to the USFWS and MFWP.

The BLM gathered the necessary data essential to make a reasoned choice 

among the alternatives analyzed in detail in the Draft RMPA/EIS and provided an 

adequate analysis that led to an adequate disclosure of the potential 

environmental consequences of the alternatives (Chapter 4). As a result, the 

BLM has taken a “hard look,” as required by the NEPA, at the environmental 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

O-20 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

consequences of the alternatives in the Lewistown Field Office Greater SageGrouse RMPA/EIS to enable the decision maker to make an informed decision. 

Finally, the BLM has made a reasonable effort to collect and analyze all available 

data.

A land use planning-level decision is broad in scope and, therefore, does not 

require an exhaustive gathering and monitoring of baseline data (BLM Land Use 

Planning Handbook H-1601-1, Chapter II, A-B at 11-13). Although the BLM 

realizes that more data could always be gathered, the baseline data provides the 

necessary basis to make informed land use plan-level decisions. Land use planlevel analyses are typically broad and qualitative rather than quantitative or 

focused on site-specific actions (BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1, 

Chapter II, A-B at 11-13). The BLM would conduct subsequent project-specific 

NEPA analyses for projects proposed for implementation under the land use 

plan, which may include but are not limited to fuels treatment and habitat 

restoration. The subsequent NEPA analyses for project-specific actions would 

tier to the land-use planning analysis and would evaluate project impacts at the 

appropriate site-specific level (40 CFR, Part 1502.20, 40 CFR, Part 1508.28). As 

required by NEPA, the public would have the opportunity to participate in the 

NEPA process for site-specific actions.

The BLM reviewed all of the literature submitted by commenters for relevance. 

Some of the literature was already cited in the document, some literature was 

applicable to the Great Basin (any local references were used in the Proposed 

RMPA/Final EIS where appropriate), and some literature was not applicable (e.g., 

outside the scope of this document).

The BLM met with MFWP representatives regarding active lek information and 

determined that numbers, methodology, and rationale in the Draft EIS were 

appropriate. The BLM also incorporated information from the USFWS memo 

dated October 27, 2014, “Greater Sage-Grouse: Additional Recommendation to 

Refine Land Use Allocations in Highly Important Landscapes.”

For stubble height requirements under the Proposed Plan Amendment, GRSG 

Habitat Objectives (see Section 2.6.2 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS) are to be 

used, at a minimum, to meet the applicable land health standard in GRSG 

habitats. As discussed in Section 3.6.1 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, a high 

potential for cheatgrass occurrence does not exist within the planning area. 

Management actions in the No Action Alternative emphasize grazing to reduce 

cheatgrass. Section 3.14.2 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS describes 

assessments completed to assess achievement of land health standards and 

describes the process of permit renewal.

Section 3.19, Water Resources, of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS describes the 

risk of spreading West Nile virus through developed water sources, such as 

dams and pits from mineral development. Section 4.18, Water Resources, 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-21

describes the potential risk of West Nile virus transmission to GRSG under the 

draft alternatives and the Proposed Plan Amendment.

Section 3.4.2, Conditions of the Planning Area, of the Proposed RMPA/ Final EIS, 

describes the human disturbances, including transmission lines, in the planning 

area that can have potential effects on GRSG. Section 3.5, Lands and Realty, in 

the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, describes the existing land use authorizations, 

including transmission lines, in the planning area. Section 4.3.2, Nature and Type 

of Effects, of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, describes the impacts on GRSG 

from infrastructure, including transmission lines.

Section 4.3.2, Nature and Type of Effects, of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, 

describes the impacts on GRSG from noise, including energy development (e.g., 

oil and gas and solid minerals) and infrastructure (e.g., motorized vehicle use on 

roads or trails and wind energy development). The RDFs for mitigating noise 

impacts (see Appendices C and D in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS) are based on 

the NTT report. See Section O.2.3, Greater Sage-Grouse—NTT 

Report/Findings, of this report for a discussion on how the NTT report was 

used in developing the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS.

Definitions of PH and GH in the planning area are provided in Section 3.4.1 of 

the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. A description of the habitat mapping process is

also presented in Section 3.4.1. In Montana, the BLM developed its PPH/PGH 

map 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. If minor changes to habitat delineations occur they would be dealt 

with through plan maintenance as required by NEPA. Major changes would 

require a plan amendment. The BLM Authorized Officer has the discretion to 

determine what minor and major changes are.

Regarding the Belt Mountain GRSG population, as stated in the Proposed 

RMPA/Final EIS (Section 3.4.2), only 0.1 percent of lands occupied by the Belt 

Mountain population are administered by the BLM; therefore, the BLM has 

limited authority to affect changes in management that may benefit this 

population. Additional text regarding BLM conservation activities that are 

planned for the Belt Mountain population has been provided for the cumulative 

effects analysis in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS.

Impact Analysis 

Summary

Commenters provided suggestions on how to improve or strengthen the impact 

analysis for GRSG in several areas, including:

• GRSG impact indicators 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

O-22 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

• Analysis of fences

• Impacts from livestock as compared to native ungulates

• Alternative A impacts analysis

• Roads associated with livestock grazing

• Vertical structures 

• Consideration for impacts outside priority habitat and Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)

Response

The Lewistown Field Office RMPA/EIS provides an adequate discussion of the 

environmental consequences, including the cumulative impacts, of the presented 

alternatives. As required by 40 CFR, Part 1502.16, the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 

provides a discussion of the environmental impacts of the alternatives, including 

the proposed action, any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided 

should the alternatives be implemented, the relationship between short-term 

uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources 

that would be involved in the proposal should it be implemented. The Proposed

RMPA/Final EIS provides sufficiently detailed information to aid in determining 

whether to proceed with the preferred alternative or make a reasoned choice 

among the other alternatives in a manner such that the public could have an 

understanding of the environmental consequences associated with the 

alternatives, in accordance with 40 CFR, Part 1502.1.

Land use plan-level analyses are typically broad and qualitative rather than 

quantitative or focused on site-specific actions (BLM Land Use Planning 

Handbook H-1601-1, Chapter II, A-B at 11-13). The Lewistown Field Office

RMPA/EIS contains only planning actions and does not include any 

implementation actions. A more quantified or detailed and specific analysis 

would be required only if the scope of the decision included implementation 

actions. As specific actions that may affect the area come under consideration, 

the BLM would conduct subsequent NEPA analyses that would include sitespecific project and implementation-level actions. The site-specific analyses 

would tier to the plan-level analysis and expand the environmental analysis when 

more specific information is known. In addition, as required by NEPA, the public 

would be offered the opportunity to participate in the NEPA process for 

implementation actions.

The BLM reviewed the literature submitted for relevance; some of it was 

already cited in the document, some of it was applicable to the Great Basin and 

local references were used where appropriate, and some literature was not 

applicable (e.g., outside the scope of this document).
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-23

To clarify current measures in place to protect GRSG, language in Section 4.3.4 

has been revised in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. It should be noted that BLM 

management actions are not the only factors impacting population trends under 

current conditions.

Regarding fence risks to GRSG, this represents an impact of grazing 

management on GRSG; information on general risk from fences is discussed in 

the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS under Section 4.3. Exact miles of BLM fences in 

relation to high collision risk areas is currently unknown; therefore, no 

quantitative information on collision risk is available.

Differences between impacts of native ungulates and livestock on GRSG are

discussed in Section 4.3.2 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS.

The nature and type of impacts on GRSG from vertical structures is provided in 

Section 4.3.2 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. Specific impacts of vertical 

structures under each alternative are provided in analysis of each alternative in 

Section 4.3. The nature and type of impacts from roads are provided in Section 

4.3.2 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. Specific impacts of roads under each 

alternative were provided in analysis of each alternative in Section 4.3 of the 

Proposed RMPA/Final EIS.

The Belt Mountains population is the only population within the planning area 

that only contains PGH. The Proposed RMPA/Final EIS (Section 4.3) discloses

impacts from each alternative on the Belt Mountains population. Impacts to 

habitat outside GRSG ACECs is provided under Alternatives A, B, and D, and 

the Proposed Plan Amendment, in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. Alternative C 

is the only alternative that has a GRSG ACEC.

Cumulative Impact Analysis 

Summary

The BLM has not fully considered cumulative impacts on GRSG, particularly 

actions on adjacent lands. The BLM should include the Montana Greater SageGrouse Habitat Conservation Strategy in the cumulative effects section.

Response

The BLM analyzed cumulative effects on GRSG in the Draft RMPA/EIS in Section 

5.2 and revised this analysis in Section 5.3 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. The 

Draft RMPA/EIS considered the present effects of past actions, to the extent 

that they are relevant, and present and reasonably foreseeable (not highly 

speculative) federal and non-federal actions, taking into account the relationship 

between the proposed alternatives and these reasonably foreseeable actions. 

This discussion summarizes CEQ guidance from June 24, 2005, stating that 

“[g]enerally, agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by 

focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the 

historical details of individual past actions.” This is because a description of the 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

O-24 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

current state of the environment inherently includes the effects of past actions. 

Information on the current conditions is more comprehensive and more 

accurate for establishing a useful starting point for cumulative effects analysis. 

The CEQ interpretation was accepted by the Ninth in NW Envtl. Advoc. v. Nat’l 

Marine Fisheries Serv., 460 F.3d 1125, 1141 (9th Cir. 2006). The BLM described 

their assumptions regarding proposed projects and other reasonably foreseeable 

future actions. The BLM has complied fully with the requirements of 40 CFR, 

Part 1508.7 and prepared a cumulative impact analysis to the extent possible 

based on the broad nature and scope of the proposed management options 

under consideration at the land use planning level.

Section 5.2.2 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS provides a discussion of the past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that comprise the cumulative 

impact scenario (see Table 1-1). Section 5.3.8 includes a summary of 

management zone-wide reasonably foreseeable future actions used in the 

analysis of cumulative impacts on GRSG (see Section 5.3 in the Proposed 

RMPA/Final EIS). 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.

The Draft RMPA/EIS contained a qualitative discussion of cumulative effects at 

the WAFWA MZ scale to set the stage for a more quantitative analysis that is 

contained in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. The MZ cumulative effects analysis 

has been revised for the Final EIS in Chapter 5. Additional quantitative 

cumulative analysis was added to the Final EIS in Section 5.3, Greater SageGrouse. 

Regarding the Belt Mountains GRSG population, as stated in the Proposed 

RMPA/Final EIS (Section 3.4.2) only 0.1 percent of lands occupied by the Belt 

Mountains population are administered by the BLM; therefore, the BLM has 

limited authority to affect changes in management that may benefit this 

population.
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-25

The Governor of the State of Montana issued Executive Order 10-2014, which 

created the MSGOT and the Montana Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation 

Program. The executive order outlines a number of conservation strategies for 

state agencies to follow for land uses and activities in GRSG habitat in addition 

to establishing the MSGOT and habitat conservation program. The state 

conservation efforts are complementary to the conservation measures 

proposed in the BLM land use plans and when combined would provide 

conservation efforts across land ownership boundaries. Montana Executive 

Order 10-2014 is considered in the GRSG cumulative effects analysis in Section 

5.3 of the Final EIS.

Mitigation Measures

Summary

Commenters provided recommendations to strengthen or clarify mitigation 

measures. The BLM should provide more details on their adaptive management 

strategy, monitoring, fire and invasive species management, and mitigation, 

including compensatory mitigation.

Response

The BLM has updated the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS with additional information 

for the draft mitigation, monitoring, and adaptive management strategies that 

were included in the Draft RMPA/EIS as discussed in the response to Section 

O.2.1, NEPA, of this report. Section 2.7.1 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 

provides the BLM’s adaptive management strategy for the Lewistown Field 

Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS. Section 2.7.2 and Appendix B provide 

the BLM’s finalized monitoring framework. Section 2.7.3 and Appendix G 

provide the BLM’s finalized regional mitigation strategy. Appendix K in the 

Proposed RMPA/Final EIS includes requirements that landscape scale fire and 

invasives assessments be completed and updated regularly to more accurately 

define specific areas to be treated to address threats to sagebrush steppe 

habitat.

The BLM complied with NEPA by including a discussion of measures that may 

mitigate adverse environmental impacts of the alternatives in the Lewistown 

Field Office RMPA/EIS. See 40 CFR, Part 1502.14(f), 1502.16(h). Potential forms 

of mitigation include: 1) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain 

action or parts of an action; 2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or 

magnitude of the action and its implementation; 3) rectifying the impact by 

repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 4) reducing or 

eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations 

during the life of the action; and 5) compensating for the impact by replacing or 

providing substitute resources or environments (40 CFR, Part 1508.20). Taking 

certain actions, such as sagebrush restoration, are only one of many potential 

forms of mitigation. The BLM must include mitigation measures in an EIS 

pursuant to the NEPA, yet the BLM has full discretion in selecting which 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

O-26 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

mitigation measures are most appropriate, including which forms of mitigation 

are inappropriate. In undertaking BLM management actions and in authorizing 

third-party actions that result in habitat loss and degradation, the BLM would,

consistent with valid existing rights and applicable law, require and ensure 

mitigation that provides a net conservation gain to the species, including 

accounting for any uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of such 

mitigation. This would be achieved by avoiding, minimizing, and compensating 

for impacts by applying beneficial mitigation actions.

The BLM would conduct subsequent project-specific NEPA analyses for projects 

proposed for implementation under the land use plan. The subsequent NEPA 

analyses for project-specific actions would tier to the land-use planning analysis 

and would evaluate project impacts at the appropriate site-specific level (40 

CFR, Part 1502.20, 40 CFR, Part 1508.28). RDFs would be identified during this 

process and applied to environmental assessment (EA)/EIS documents 

authorizing the activity on BLM-administered lands. As required by NEPA, the 

public would have the opportunity to participate in the NEPA process for sitespecific actions.

O.2.4 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Range of Alternatives

Summary

Commenters stated that the proposed GRSG ACEC does not meet the 

relevance and importance criteria required of an ACEC under 43 CFR, Part

1610.7.2.

Response

The process for determining whether a nominated ACEC meets the relevance 

and importance criteria is detailed in Appendix E of the Proposed RMPA/Final 

EIS.

According to BLM Manual 1613, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, an 

area must meet at least one relevance and one importance criterion to be 

considered as a potential ACEC and analyzed in resource management plan 

alternatives (see BLM Manual 1613.11, Identification Criteria). Through the 

evaluation process, the BLM determined that the nominated ACEC for GRSG 

met relevance criteria for a fish and wildlife resource and a natural process or 

system. The nominated GRSG ACEC also met the importance criteria because 

it warrants national priority/FLPMA protection (see Appendix E in the Proposed 

RMPA/Final EIS). The rationale for meeting the relevance and importance 

criteria are found in Appendix E.

BLM Manual 1613 directs that, “All areas which meet the relevance and 

importance criteria must be identified as potential ACECs and fully considered 

for designation and management in resource management planning” (see BLM 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-27

Manual 1613.21, Identifying Potential ACECs). Based on this direction, the BLM 

considered designation of the potential GRSG ACEC under Alternative C and 

identified special management attention for the area.

O.2.5 Climate Change

Impact Analysis

Summary

Commenters requested that the Final EIS include an analysis of the effects of 

climate change on the potential for cheatgrass and other invasive plants to 

spread in the future and affect GRSG habitat, as well as evaluate the 

contribution of livestock grazing on greenhouse gas emissions and the impacts 

of livestock grazing in conjunction with climate change on vegetation 

communities (as described in Beschta et al. 2012).

Response

Text stating that climate change has the potential to produce warmer and drier 

conditions that may increase the potential for the spread of cheatgrass and 

other invasive plants over current conditions has been added to Sections 3.6.3 

and 3.17.3 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. As described in the Proposed

RMPA/Final EIS, under all alternatives, integrated vegetation management would 

be used to control, suppress, and eradicate noxious and invasive species. Under 

Alternatives B, C, and D and the Proposed Plan Amendment, vegetation 

management and restoration would prioritize sagebrush re-establishment and 

weed control as part of habitat management. In addition, an adaptive 

management strategy has been incorporated in Section 2.7.1 of the Proposed 

RMPA/Final EIS and further outlines how the BLM would monitor changing 

vegetative conditions under the Proposed Plan Amendment, including changes 

that may result from drought and from climate change.

The reference cited, Beschta et al. 2012, reports that domestic livestock and 

other ungulates alter vegetation, soils, hydrology, and wildlife species 

composition and abundances that exacerbate the effects of climate change on 

western landscapes, and that removing or reducing livestock grazing across large 

areas of public land would alleviate a widely recognized and long-term stressor 

and make ecosystems less susceptible to the effects of climate change. Assessing 

the impacts of grazing on vegetative resilience on public lands in light of climate 

change is outside the scope of this document, except as it pertains to reducing 

impacts on GRSG and GRSG habitat within the Lewistown Field Office planning 

area, and in consideration of valid existing rights and the BLM’s multiple-use 

mandate under FLPMA. The Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse

RMPA/Final EIS evaluates alternatives that would incorporate GRSG habitat 

objectives into BLM grazing allotments and permit renewals (Alternatives B and 

D and the Proposed Plan Amendment) and that would remove livestock grazing 

from all allotments in PHMA and GHMA (Alternative C), and the associated 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

O-28 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

effects these alternatives would have on GRSG and GRSG habitat (see Sections 

4.3.4 through 4.3.8).

In addition, Table 4-3, Climate Change subsection, of the Proposed RMPA/Final 

EIS states, “[t]here is no specific resource program in this RMPA for addressing 

this threat [climate change] to GRSG and its habitat. However, actions under 

several resources listed below do address climate change and drought impacts 

on GRSG habitat.” These actions include efforts to manage public rangelands 

under drought conditions.

O.2.6 Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impact Analysis

Summary

Commenters stated that the BLM must consider the impacts of livestock grazing 

on cultural and historic resources.

Response

While cultural and historic resources may be impacted by on-going livestock 

grazing activities, the BLM determined that management actions in the 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS would not directly 

impact cultural and historic resources (Section 3.3 of the Proposed RMPA/Final 

EIS). Implementation of any of the alternatives would result in general and 

unquantifiable indirect beneficial effects for cultural and historic resources 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 environmental 

consequences on cultural and historic resources from livestock grazing, please 

refer to the Environmental Consequence 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.

O.2.7 Fire and Fuels 

Range of Alternatives 

Summary

Commenters requested the following alternative modifications: no prescribed 

burning be allowed in PH and GH, or if allowed, that it should only be allowed 

on a case-by-case basis if it can be shown that impacts are neutral or beneficial 

to GRSG; treatment of sagebrush habitat be a last alternative for fuels 

management; and that the Final EIS explain why prescribed burning in GRSG 

habitat is included in the preferred alternative if it is not currently practiced.
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-29

Commenters also stated that appropriate grazing should be recognized in the 

RMPA as a primary tool in the prevention of wildfire and reduction of invasive 

weeds—two of the primary threats to GRSG habitat.

Response

Section 1.5 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS describes how the Lewistown Field 

Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS planning team employed the BLM 

planning process 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 the development of alternatives for the Draft RMPA/EIS, 

including seeking public input and analyzing reasonable alternatives (see also 

Section O.2.1, NEPA—Range of Alternatives, of this report).

The Proposed Plan Amendment would allow management actions, including 

prescribed fire, to occur where they are most beneficial to GRSG as detailed in 

site-specific analysis. If site-specific NEPA analysis shows that a prescribed burn 

would benefit GRSG, then a plan amendment would not be required to allow 

the project.

Grazing is just one of the tools available in the prevention of wildfire and 

reduction of invasive weeds. As described in Section 4.5.2 of the Proposed 

RMPA/Final EIS, 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. Section 4.6.2 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS also states, “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; the voluntarily relinquishment of grazing allotments and allocation of 

those lands to other uses may lead to increased fuels in site-specific locations. 

Conversely, increasing AUMs could reduce fuel loads.” The effect of grazing on 

wildland fire risk for each alternative was included in Sections 4.6.6 through 

4.6.9 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS.

Mitigation Measures

Summary

Commenters requested that mitigation and monitoring for post-fire 

management be clearly listed and discussed in the Final EIS.
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

O-30 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Response

The BLM has developed a Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework that is 

included in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS as Appendix B. The appendix describes 

the process that the BLM would use to monitor implementation and 

effectiveness of RMP decisions, including post fire-management. The monitoring 

framework includes monitoring at various scales specific to GRSG habitat, 

consistent indicators to measure and metric descriptions for each of the scales, 

analysis and reporting methods, and the incorporation of monitoring results into 

adaptive management. The need for fine- and site-scale-specific habitat 

monitoring would vary by area depending on existing conditions, habitat 

variability, threats, and land health. To accomplish effectiveness monitoring, the 

BLM would analyze the monitoring data to characterize the relationship among 

disturbance, implementation actions, and habitat condition at the appropriate 

and applicable geographic scale or boundary. When available from WAFWA 

and/or state wildlife agencies, effectiveness monitoring can be supplemented 

with population trend information, taking into consideration the lag effect 

response of populations to habitat changes. See also response for Section 

O.2.1, NEPA—Mitigation Measures, in this appendix for additional information 

on the mitigation approach.

The RDFs for fire and fuels management are provided in Appendices C and D of 

the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. The RDFs establish the minimum specifications 

for certain activities to help mitigate adverse impacts for fuels management and 

fire operations.

O.2.8 Fish and Wildlife

Range of Alternatives

Summary

The BLM should provide additional references to support the impact 

conclusions for other special status species.

Response

As described in Section O.2.1, NEPA—Best Available Data, the best available 

information pertinent to the decisions to be made was used in developing the 

Lewistown RMPA/EIS. The BLM made considerable effort to acquire and 

convert resource data from the BLM and from outside sources, into digital 

format for use in the RMPA/EIS.

The BLM reviewed the literature submitted by commenters for relevance. Some 

of the literature was already cited in the document, some literature was 

applicable to the Great Basin (any local references were used in the Final EIS 

where appropriate), and some literature was not applicable (e.g., outside the 

scope of this document).
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-31

O.2.9 Lands and Realty 

Range of Alternatives

Summary

Commenters requested BLM consider suggested management actions, including 

changing PH in Alternative D from ROW avoidance areas to ROW exclusion 

areas for oil and gas development, power lines, and wind energy development. 

In addition, the Final EIS should reference the USFWS 2012 Land-based Wind 

Energy Guidelines where such development may ultimately be considered in 

ROW avoidance or other areas.

Response

The BLM complied with NEPA and the CEQ implementing regulations at 40 

CFR, Part 1500 in the development of alternatives for the Lewistown Field 

Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS, including seeking public input and 

analyzing reasonable alternatives (see also response to Section O.2.1, 

NEPA—Range of Alternatives, in this report). Additional site-specific impacts 

analysis and application of necessary mitigation measures as determined 

appropriate would be required prior to approval of ROW permits in avoidance 

areas.

The Proposed Plan Amendment in the Final EIS makes PHMA exclusion areas 

for solar and wind developments and avoidance areas for high-voltage 

transmission lines and large pipeline ROWs and minor ROWs. GHMA are 

avoidance areas for solar, wind, and high-voltage transmission lines and large 

pipeline ROWs, and open for minor ROWs.

Best Available Information Baseline Data 

Summary

The Final EIS should explain the rationale for determining ROW avoidance and 

exclusion areas, and how avoidance would be implemented. The Draft EIS failed 

to include information on wind farms on non-BLM-administered lands in the 

planning area and did not adequately represent the potential for wind farms to 

be developed given the high wind potential of 42,000 acres.

Response

ROW avoidance and exclusion area determination and implementation are 

described in response for Section O.2.9, Lands and Realty—Range of 

Alternatives, of this report, and text has been updated in the Final EIS in Section 

2.6.2 to clarify.

The BLM used the most recent and best information available that was relevant 

to a land use planning-level analysis, and the BLM consulted with, collected, and 

incorporated data from other agencies and sources. Information has been added 

to Section 3.22.1 in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS to further describe active 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

O-32 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

wind energy developments in and adjacent to the planning area. Section 3.22.3 in 

the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS describes the trends in wind energy development.

Impact Analysis

Summary

Given the infrastructure and miles of road and power lines already authorized, 

commenters requested clarification from BLM for how the continued alteration 

of habitat would maintain or improve conditions for GRSG.

Response

The analysis in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS focuses on the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts that could potentially result from on-the-ground changes. 

This analysis identifies impacts that may result in some level of change to the 

resources, regardless of whether that change is beneficial or adverse. The 

requisite level of information necessary to provide an adequate discussion of the 

environmental consequences, including the cumulative impacts, of the presented 

alternatives is to provide the public and the decision maker with the 

environmental impacts of the alternatives, including the proposed action, any 

adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the alternatives be 

implemented, the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment 

and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any 

irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved 

in the proposal should it be implemented (40 CFR, Part 1502.16). The 

cumulative impacts associated with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions, including roads and power lines, on GRSG and GRSG habitat are

described in Section 5.3 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. Cumulative effects 

analysis in Section 5.3 was revised in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS to include a 

cumulative effects analysis on GRSG at the WAFWA MZ level. The cumulative 

effects analysis on GRSG includes the analysis of reasonably foreseeable future 

actions (see Table 5-11 in Chapter 5 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS).

O.2.10 Leasable Minerals 

Range of Alternatives

Summary

The BLM needs to consider additional actions or clarifications to existing 

actions within the range of alternatives, including RDFs, BMPs, and well pad 

density. Also, commenters requested clarification on the life span of the existing 

protest resolution decision that does not allow oil and gas leasing of nominated 

parcels that would require a special stipulation that would protect important 

wildlife values.

Response

The BLM complied with NEPA and the CEQ implementing regulations at 40 

CFR, Part 1500 in the development of alternatives for the Lewistown Field 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-33

Office RMPA/EIS, including seeking public input and analyzing reasonable 

alternatives (see also response to Section O.2.1, NEPA—Range of 

Alternatives, in this report). Also as previously noted, 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. Meaningful differences among the draft

alternatives and Proposed Plan Amendment are described in Table 2-3 of the 

Proposed RMPA/Final EIS.

Suggested revisions have been reviewed and incorporated as appropriate to 

clarify alternatives (see Chapter 2 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS). Changes 

implemented in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS include the addition of SFAs, 

guidance for incorporating GRSG RMP decisions into grazing authorizations, 

vegetation objectives guidance, density and disturbance caps, mitigation 

guidance, and guidance for applying lek buffers when approving actions (see the 

description of Changes from Draft RMPA to the Proposed RMPA in Section 1.9 

of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS).

As discussed in Sections 1.3 and 1.6.4 in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, there is 

an existing protest resolution decision affecting lands managed within the 

Lewistown Field Office 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 PHMA and GHMA. 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, this RMPA/EIS would not satisfy the requirements of 

the protest stipulation. The Lewistown Field Office RMP revision process, which 

began in 2013, will address oil and gas leasing for the entire Lewistown Field 

Office planning area boundary. The revision process is scheduled to be 

completed in 2017.

Impact Analysis 

Summary

The Draft RMPA/EIS failed to clarify how RDFs would be applied to valid 

existing rights.

Response

As stated in Section 1.7 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, the RMPA would 

recognize valid existing rights. Valid existing rights would be honored, which 

include any leases, claims, or other authorizations established before a new or 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

O-34 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

modified authorization, change in land designation, or new or modified 

regulation is approved. 

When an oil and gas lease is issued, it constitutes a valid existing right; the BLM 

cannot unilaterally change the terms and conditions of the lease or place 

additional stipulations on a lease. Existing leases would not be terminated until 

the lease expires. However, based on site- or project-specific environmental 

analysis, RDFs could be applied as COAs at the application for permit to drill 

(APD) and Sundry Notice stage and at subsequent development stages to 

mitigate potential impacts from oil and gas operations within existing lease 

areas, providing the leaseholder’s right to develop the lease remains intact 

(Section 2.6.2 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS). Where a proposed fluid mineral 

development project on an existing lease could adversely affect GRSG 

populations or habitat, the BLM will work with the lessees, operators, or other 

project proponents to avoid, reduce, and mitigate adverse impacts to the extent 

compatible with lessees’ rights to drill and produce fluid mineral resources. The 

BLM will work with the lessee, operator, or project proponent in developing an 

APD for the lease to avoid and minimize impacts on GRSG or its habitat and 

will ensure that the best information about the GRSG and its habitat informs 

and helps to guide development of such federal leases.

Mitigation Measures

Summary

Commenters requested that mitigation for prospecting permits for nonenergy 

leasable mineral development be described or defined.

Response

Appendix C and Appendix D of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS contain RDFs 

designed to protect GRSG habitat that could be applied to nonenergy leasables. 

The use and application of specific RDFs would be made during the 

environmental analysis process for individual proposals on a case-by-case basis. 

See the response in Section O.2.1, NEPA—Mitigation Measures, in this report 

for more details on mitigation measures proposed.

O.2.11 Livestock Grazing 

Summary

Commenters stated that the Draft RMPA/EIS is contrary to the Taylor Grazing 

Act (TGA) because proposed permit termination would violate the TGA and 

FLPMA mandate that forage resources on grazing districts are to be made 

available for livestock grazing. Commenters also stated the BLM should conduct 

an assessment to determine if lands in the project area are still “chiefly valuable” 

for grazing.
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-35

Response

FLPMA grants the Interior Secretary the authority to make land use planning 

decisions, taking into consideration multiple use and sustained yield, ACECs, 

present and potential uses of the land, relative scarcity of values, and long-term 

and short-term benefits, among other resource values (43 US Code (USC) 1711 

Sec 201 (a)). 43 CFR, Part 4100.0-8 provides that the BLM shall manage 

livestock grazing on public lands in accordance with applicable land use plans. 

Further, the BLM may designate lands as “available” or “unavailable” for 

livestock grazing through the land use planning process (H-1601, Land Use 

Planning Handbook, Appendix C).

The TGA requires that the Secretary “make such rules and regulations ... [and] 

do any and all things necessary ... to insure the objects of ... grazing districts, 

namely, to regulate their occupancy and use, to preserve the land and its 

resources from destruction or unnecessary injury [and] to provide for the 

orderly use, improvement and development of the range” (43 USC 315a).

A “chiefly-valuable-for-grazing” determination made under the TGA is required 

only when the Secretary is considering creating or changing grazing district 

boundaries. Such a determination is neither required nor appropriate when 

establishing grazing levels within a district (see US Department of the Interior, 

Solicitor Memorandum Clarification of M-37008 [May 13, 2003]). This RMPA is 

not considering creating or changing grazing district boundaries. Although lands 

have been identified as “chiefly-valuable-for-grazing” per the TGA for purposes 

of establishing grazing districts within the public domain (see 43 USC 315), this 

does not negate the BLM’s authority or responsibility to manage those lands to 

achieve resource condition goals and objectives under the principals of multiple 

use and sustained yield as required by FLPMA and its implementing regulations.

The Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS is a targeted 

amendment specifically addressing goals, objectives, and conservation measures 

to conserve GRSG and to respond to the potential of it being listed (see Section 

1.2 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS). The Lewistown Field Office RMPA/EIS 

included alternatives that provide a greater and lesser degree of restrictions in 

various use programs, but would not eliminate or invalidate any valid existing 

rights.

Range of Alternatives 

Summary

Many commenters noted an apparent contradiction in the Draft RMPA/EIS, 

focused on the question of whether grazing in the Lewistown Field Office has an 

adverse effect on GRSG and habitat. Chapter 5 states that grazing does not 

constitute a substantial threat to GRSG because there are ongoing management 

actions in Lewistown Field Office intended to preserve GRSG habitat; however 

Alternatives B and D include further constraints on grazing, and Alternative C 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

O-36 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

closes all habitat to grazing entirely. Commenters also requested more evidence 

from BLM supporting the assertion that grazing does, or does not, damage 

GRSG or GRSG habitat. More specific comments included prioritizing habitat 

assessments and fence removals; the suggestion that grazing restrictions be 

limited to timing or intensity rather than reductions in AUMs; and several 

citations in support of the assertion that leaving grazing areas fallow in the long 

term results in re-establishment of native forbs and grasses.

Response

The BLM considered a reasonable range of alternatives during the GRSG 

planning process in full compliance with NEPA (see response in Section O.2.1, 

NEPA—Range of Alternatives, for details of the development of the range of 

alternatives).

Livestock grazing was identified by USFWS as a threat to GRSG in the March 

23, 2010, Federal Register notice; therefore, it is addressed in this RMPA. 

Existing regulatory mechanisms, including the fundamentals for rangeland health, 

would continue to provide the basis for managing grazing in GRSG habitat.

Alternatives B and D and the Proposed Plan Amendment are not intended to 

eliminate grazing in the planning area altogether, but to provide District 

Managers the tools to further preserve GRSG habitat if it is determined that the 

current strategies are not sufficient. Habitat objectives would be incorporated 

into standards and guidelines for rangeland health under Alternatives B, C, and 

D and the Proposed Plan Amendment. Standards and guidelines would be based 

on the most current science (including Connelly and Hagen’s GRSG habitat 

standards), would be tailored to local conditions, and would be used to assess 

rangeland health of allotments prior to granting or renewing grazing permits. A 

toolbox of permit conditions and conservation measures such as RDFs 

(Appendix C and Appendix D of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS) would be 

available to District Managers to choose from when granting or renewing 

grazing permits, as applicable for each individual allotment within PHMA. 

Blanket, one-size-fits-all standards and objectives would not be imposed on 

permittees under the amended RMPs. The Proposed RMPA/Final EIS also 

includes additional guidance as to how the BLM will incorporate GRSG 

decisions from the amendment into grazing permits and leases.

Land use plan-level analyses are typically broad and qualitative rather than 

quantitative or focused on site-specific actions (BLM Land Use Planning 

Handbook H-1601-1, Chapter II, A-B at 11-13 and Chapter IV, B at 29). The 

BLM would conduct subsequent project-specific NEPA analyses for projects 

proposed for implementation under the land use plan, which may include, but 

are not limited to, fuels treatment and habitat restoration. The subsequent 

NEPA analyses for project-specific actions would tier to the land-use planning 

analysis and would evaluate project impacts at the appropriate site-specific level 

(40 CFR, Part 1502.20, 40 CFR, Part 1508.28). As required by NEPA, the public 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-37

would have the opportunity to participate in the NEPA process for site-specific 

actions.

In accordance with IM 2012-169 and BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook, the 

BLM considered what range of alternatives was necessary for livestock grazing

to address unresolved conflicts among available resources. The WO IM states 

that BLM should analyze either a reduced or no-grazing alternative. The BLM 

chose to analyze no grazing alternative, instead of a reduced grazing alternative. 

The no grazing alternative was analyzed because of the number of allotments in 

the planning area not meeting land health standards. Also, because of the 

intermingled land pattern, the BLM would need to install fencing where 

allotments are adjacent to non-BLM-administered lands for either a no grazing 

alternative or a reduced grazing alternative. The alternative submitted by the 

conservation groups was revised to meet the needs of the Lewistown Field 

Office RMPA/EIS; therefore, all their suggestions were not included verbatim in 

Alternative C.

The Proposed RMPA/Final EIS acknowledges that grazing is just one of the tools 

available in the treatment of vegetation. As described in Section 4.5.2 of the 

Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, 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.

Removal and marking of specific fences is an implementation-level action and is 

not addressed in the Final EIS. However, fences within PHMA and GHMA are 

currently being evaluated, mapped, and marked with the priority on fences with 

high and moderate collision risks as determined by using the National Resource 

Conservation Service (NRCS)-developed Fence Collision Risk Tool GIS 

application. These efforts have been incorporated into the cumulative effects 

analysis found in Chapter 5 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS.

Under the Proposed Plan Amendment, at the time a permittee or lessee 

voluntarily relinquishes a permit or lease, the BLM would consider whether the 

public lands where that permitted use was authorized should remain available 

for livestock grazing or be used for other resource management objectives, such 

as reserve common allotments. A reserve common allotment is an area which is 

designated in the land use plan as available for livestock grazing but reserved as 

an area available for use as an alternative to grazing in another allotment in 

order to facilitate rangeland restoration treatments and recovery from natural 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

O-38 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

disturbances such as drought or wildfire. The reserve common allotment would 

provide needed flexibility that would help the agency apply temporary rest from 

grazing where vegetation treatments and/or management would be most 

effective.

Best Available Information Baseline Data

Summary

Multiple commenters requested that the Draft RMPA/EIS be amended to include 

allotment-level rangeland health data, allotment-level analyses of standards and 

guidelines implementation, and detailed descriptions of current grazing and 

habitat conditions in the planning area. Multiple commenters asserted that 

appropriately managed grazing is beneficial to GRSG and GRSG habitat.

Response

As noted in the response to Section O.2.1, NEPA—Best Available Data, of 

this report, a land use planning-level decision is broad in scope and, therefore, 

does not require an exhaustive gathering and monitoring of baseline data.

All grazing allotments within the planning area, including those in GRSG habitat, 

that were determined to not be meeting land health standards due to livestock 

grazing have had management changes implemented, as demonstrated in Table 

3-46 and discussed in Section 3.14.2 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. Previously 

completed site-specific EAs to renew grazing authorizations are discussed 

Section 3.14.2 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. Watershed areas in PHMA that 

contain expired or expiring grazing authorizations would be prioritized for 

renewal. Section 3.14.2 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS lists the order for 

grazing permit renewals.

The Proposed RMPA/Final EIS (Section 3.14.2) has been updated to include 

additional information on existing site-specific EAs and corresponding land 

health determinations for clarity.

The BLM reviewed the literature submitted by commenters for relevance. Some 

of the literature was already cited in the document, some literature was 

applicable to the Great Basin (any local references were used in the Proposed 

RMPA/Final EIS where appropriate), and some literature was not applicable (e.g., 

outside the scope of this document).

Impact Analysis 

Summary

Commenters suggested the Draft RMPA/EIS be amended to include more 

detailed analysis on the following issues: grazing as a surface-disturbing activity; 

and the difficulty of setting guidelines when grazing utilization is averaged across 

pastures, species, and seasons.
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-39

Response

These types of impacts would occur from implementing grazing permit 

renewals. As discussed in detail in the response to Section O.2.3, Greater

Sage-Grouse—Impact Analysis, the Lewistown Field Office RMPA/EIS contains

only planning actions and does not include any implementation actions. A more 

quantified or detailed and specific analysis would be required only if the scope of 

the decision included implementation actions.

Mitigation Measures

Summary

Commenters suggested that the relative success of standards and guidelines 

established to protect GRSG habitat be assessed more frequently than at tenyear intervals. Also, commenters suggested that the Draft RMPA/EIS be revised 

to draw a clear connection between studies identifying healthy GRSG habitat 

and the standards and guidelines intended to achieve such habitat.

Response

Funding and scheduling of field office-level assessment efforts is outside the 

scope of this planning-level NEPA process. Habitat assessments may be 

conducted on a schedule determined by the Field Office Manager, depending on 

resource availability, and could include evaluations more frequently than once 

every ten years. However the imposition of new or modified standards and 

guidelines would necessarily be tied to grazing permit renewals, which come 

only at ten-year intervals, and thus assessing the success of the conditions more 

frequently than that would not add much value. 

Habitat objectives would be incorporated into standards and guidelines for 

rangeland health under Alternatives B, C, and D and the Proposed Plan 

Amendment. Whether or not standards are being met will be determined prior 

to renewing grazing authorizations. A toolbox of permit conditions and 

conservation measures would be available to managers to choose from when 

granting or renewing grazing authorizations, as applicable for each individual 

allotment within PHMA.

O.2.12 Locatable Minerals

Range of Alternatives 

Summary

The BLM needs to consider additional withdrawals from mineral entry in order 

to protect GRSG.

Response

Section 1.5 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS describes how the Lewistown Field 

Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS planning team employed the BLM 

planning process to develop a reasonable range of alternatives for the RMPA. 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

O-40 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

See response under Section O.2.1, NEPA—Range of Alternatives. 

Withdrawals of PHMA and GHMA have been considered within the range of 

alternatives; as shown in Table 2-3 in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, there are 

2,538 acres of existing withdrawal within the planning area. A total of 279,097 

acres and 453,969 acres of withdrawal are analyzed under Alternatives B and C, 

respectively. The Proposed RMPA/Final EIS includes SFAs that would be 

recommended for withdrawal from the General Mining Act of 1872, subject to 

valid existing rights. Mining claim validity examinations would not be initiated in 

areas not withdrawn and/or without proposed exploration or development.

Mitigation Measures

Summary

Commenters stated that additional mitigation, including BMPs for locatable 

mineral development should be required, not recommended (e.g., applied as 

RDFs) in compliance with RMPA GRSG goals and objectives and compensatory 

mitigation. 

Response

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. The 

BLM can only apply mitigation measures to prevent unnecessary or undue 

degradation, which means conditions, activities, or practices that (43 CFR, Part

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.

A Plan of Operations is not a BLM plan; rather it is submitted by the project 

applicant wanting to develop the minerals. Appendix C and Appendix D of the 

Proposed RMPA/Final EIS contain RDFs that could be applied to locatable 

minerals to the extent consistent with applicable law. The RDFs are designed to 

protect GRSG habitat. Before Plans of Operations are approved, a projectspecific environmental review document would be prepared to assess impacts. 

RDFs would be applied as COAs or mitigation measures to the authorizing 

document as determined by site specific project level NEPA analysis as to 

prevent undue and unnecessary environmental degradation.
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-41

Mitigation has been further defined as a Regional Mitigation Strategy and is 

detailed in Appendix G of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. The strategy is 

incorporated in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS and was developed to achieve a 

net conservation gain to the species by implementing conservation actions. 

Regional mitigation is a landscape-scale approach to mitigating impacts to 

resources. This involves anticipating future mitigation needs and strategically 

identifying mitigation sites and measures that can help achieve the greatest 

conservation benefit for GRSG and its habitats.

If impacts on GRSG or its habitat from authorized land uses remain after 

applying avoidance and minimization measures, then compensatory mitigation 

projects would be used to fully offset impacts to achieve conservation benefits. 

Any compensatory mitigation would be durable, timely, and in addition to that 

which would have resulted without the compensatory mitigation.

Specific mitigation strategies, based on the strategy in Appendix G of the 

Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, will be developed by regional teams within one year 

of the issuance of the ROD and be consistent with the BLM’s Regional 

Mitigation Manual MS-1794 and CEQ regulations at 40 CFR, Part 1508.20.

O.2.13 Recreation

Range of Alternatives

Summary

The BLM needs to consider additional actions or clarifications to existing 

actions within the range of alternatives, including expanding protections or 

buffers beyond GRSG habitat.

Response

As discussed in the response to Section O.2.1, NEPA—Range of Alternatives, 

the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS planning team 

employed the BLM planning process to develop a reasonable range of 

alternatives for the RMPA. Meaningful differences among the draft alternatives 

and Proposed Plan Amendment are described in Table 2-3 of the Proposed 

RMPA/Final EIS. In terms of recreation, Alternative B is similar to Alternative D

and the Proposed Plan Amendment since they would only allow 

neutral/beneficial special recreation permits (SRPs) in PHMA.

During the development of the Final EIS, the BLM met with the USFWS to 

determine changes to the management actions and mitigation measures. The 

outcome from these meetings resulted in noted clarifications and edits to the 

alternatives (see Section 2.6.2 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS). In undertaking 

BLM management actions in PHMA and GHMA, and consistent with valid and 

existing rights and applicable law in authorizing third-party actions, the BLM 

would apply the lek buffer-distances identified in the USGS Report Conservation 

Buffer Distance Estimates for Greater Sage-Grouse—A Review (Open File 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

O-42 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Report 2014-1239) in accordance with Appendix M of the Proposed RMPA/Final 

EIS.

O.2.14 Salable Minerals

Range of Alternatives 

Summary

Commenters requested clarifications in the Final EIS, including defining “public 

interest” when referring to “where disposal is deemed to be in the public 

interest” and if RDFs will be required for existing salable mineral operations. 

Commenters also requested that PH/GH be considered as such “key wildlife 

areas” in the selected alternative.

Response

As discussed in the response to Section O.2.1, NEPA—Range of Alternatives, 

of this report, the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS 

planning team employed the BLM planning process to develop a reasonable 

range of alternatives for the RMPA. Meaningful differences among the draft 

alternatives and Proposed Plan Amendment are described in Table 2-3 of the 

Proposed RMPA/Final EIS.

With a generally public-initiated program like mineral materials, “public interest” 

would include a wide variety of demand, needs, resource availability, and 

potential impacts that would be determined and analyzed at a site-specific level.

As discussed in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS under Alternatives B, C, and D

and the Proposed Plan Amendment, if an area is open to salable minerals, 

mineral material sales or permits are analyzed on a case-by-case basis with sitespecific NEPA. Based on this analysis, the field manager would issue sales or 

permits with RDFs or deny the proposal if impacts cannot be mitigated.

“Key wildlife areas” would apply to GRSG habitat, including both PHMA and 

GHMA under current management direction.

O.2.15 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Impacts Analysis

Summary

Commenters state that the Final EIS should address the local, regional, and 

national socioeconomic effects related to wind energy in the cumulative effects 

analysis. Commenters also requested a thorough economic calculation in the 

Final EIS of the value lost from negative environmental impacts from grazing.
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-43

Response

The Lewistown Field Office RMPA/EIS provides an adequate discussion of the 

environmental consequences, including the cumulative impacts, of the presented 

alternatives for a broad land use plan-level analyses. See response to Section 

O.2.3, Greater Sage-Grouse—Impact Analysis, of this report for more detailed 

response.

The Proposed RMPA/Final EIS describes the methodology and assumptions used 

for conducting the impact analysis (see Sections 4.22.1 and 5.2.1 of the 

Proposed RMPA/Final EIS). The methodology and assumptions provides an 

adequate starting point for discussion of the environmental consequences, 

including the cumulative impacts, of the presented alternatives. As required by 

40 CFR, Part 1502.24, the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse 

RMPA/EIS identifies methodologies used and made reference to the scientific 

and other sources relied upon for conclusions in the analysis. Based on these 

methodologies and assumptions, the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS provides 

sufficiently detailed information to aid in determining whether to proceed with 

the preferred alternative or make a reasoned choice among the other 

alternatives in a manner such that the public could have an understanding of the 

environmental consequences associated with the alternatives, in accordance 

with 40 CFR, Part 1502.1.

Socioeconomic impacts from the proposed actions in the project area were

considered on numerous resources, resource uses, and socioeconomic 

conditions, which included grazing and ROW energy development. See Sections 

4.22 and 5.22 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. Analyzing the federal grazing 

program is outside the scope for the purpose and need of this project. As stated 

in Section 5.21 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, 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. 

However, as noted in Section 5.22, the five-county impact area can be 

considered specialized with respect to the grazing sector; therefore, the 

socioeconomic cumulative effects analysis focused on impacts on livestock 

grazing.

O.2.16 Soil Resources

Impact Analysis

Summary

The Draft RMPA/EIS did not adequately analyze the impacts of livestock on soils.

Response

The Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS provides an 

adequate discussion of the environmental consequences, including the 

cumulative impacts, of the presented alternatives for a broad land use plan-level 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

O-44 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

analyses. See response to Section O.2.3, Greater Sage-Grouse—Impact 

Analysis for more detailed response.

Section 4.17 in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS discusses the effects of livestock 

grazing on vegetation (ground cover) and the elevated potential for soil erosion. 

Also as stated in Section 4.17, achieving or maintaining Standards for Rangeland 

Health and Guidelines for Livestock Management generally is effective in 

managing 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.

O.2.17 Travel Management 

Range of Alternatives 

Summary

Commenters requested the Final EIS clarify that ranching activities are among 

authorized off-road uses. Commenters also recommended that a timeframe for 

travel management planning completion under Alternative D be specified and 

compensatory mitigation should be included in Alternative D.

Response

As discussed previously under Section O.2.1, NEPA—Range of Alternatives, 

the BLM complied with CEQ regulations in developing the range of alternatives,

and the spectrum of actions considered all meet BLM regulations, policy, and 

guidance.

It should be noted that restrictions in place for travel have exclusions for 

administrative purposes; for example, cross-country OHV travel is prohibited 

and must remain on existing travel routes except for administrative purposes 

(see Sections 1.8.7, Off-Highway Vehicle Record of Decision and Proposed Plan 

Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota, and 

3.12.1 in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS). As stated in Section 3.12.1, OHVs 

must remain on existing travel routes at all times unless travel is administrative 

use or an exception as described in the OHV ROD (BLM 2003b). The definition 

of “administrative access” has been added to the Glossary in the Proposed 

RMPA/Final EIS.

Under the Proposed Plan Amendment, all travel management planning would be 

completed within five years of signing the ROD. The Proposed Plan Amendment 

would incorporate the regional mitigation strategy (see Section 2.7.3 and 

Appendix G of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. The mitigation strategy would 

include compensatory mitigation to provide a conservation gain to GRSG.
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-45

O.2.18 Vegetation

Range of Alternatives

Summary

The BLM should include additional measures to target conifer encroachment 

and ensure no net conifer gain in the Final EIS.

Response

The BLM and NRCS are presently undertaking a conifer removal project in the 

North Fork of the Belt Mountains to improve GRSG habitat conditions in this 

area. The Proposed RMPA/Final EIS has been updated to discuss current 

conditions regarding conifer encroachment in the planning area, including these 

planned conifer treatments (Section 3.6.3). Section 4.3 of the Proposed 

RMPA/Final EIS has been revised to discuss the impacts related to these planned 

projects. As noted in Section 3.4.3 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, the Belt 

Mountains Population inhabits approximately 300,000 acres of PGH, of which 

BLM administers 439 acres (0.1 percent). Authority for management decisions 

for vegetation treatments, including conifer reduction, for this population is 

therefore limited.

O.2.19 Water Resources

Range of Alternatives

Summary

The Final EIS should use measurable benchmarks, such as Ecological Site 

Descriptions, for riparian areas. The Final EIS should clarify if allotments in PPH 

and PGH, and stream proper functioning condition (PFC) ratings are a priority 

for improvement.

Response

The Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS planning team 

employed the BLM planning process to develop a reasonable range of 

alternatives for the RMPA, as discussed in further detail in the response to 

Section O.2.1, NEPA—Range of Alternatives.

Under the Proposed Plan Amendment, watershed areas in PHMA that contain 

expired or expiring grazing authorizations would be prioritized for renewal. 

Table 3-46 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS summarizes the BLM-administered 

acres in PPH and PGH not meeting land health standards because of livestock 

grazing management. Table 3-22 summarizes the stream and riparian conditions 

in PPH and PGH.

PFC is the BLM-required protocol for assessment of streams and riparianwetland areas, and it is the minimum standard for achievement of BLM land 

health standards. The Proposed Plan Amendment goes beyond PFC by requiring 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

O-46 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

that land health evaluations and determinations 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 of the 

Proposed RMPA/Final EIS addresses mid-scale and fine-scale monitoring.

Ecological site descriptions, riparian 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.

Cumulative Impact Analysis

Summary

Commenters requested the cumulative impacts analysis discuss the benefits to 

water developments and include information on compliance with Montana 

water quality standards.

Response

The BLM understands the potential beneficial cumulative impacts on water 

resources from water developments and has revised the cumulative impacts 

analysis in Section 5.18 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. The potential impact of 

livestock grazing on water quality is described in Section 4.18.2 of the Proposed 

RMPA/Final EIS. All BLM management actions would be in compliance with state 

water quality standards, as required by law.

O.2.20 Wilderness Areas/Wilderness Study Areas

Range of Alternatives

Summary

The BLM should employ additional management measures to protect lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The existing lands with wilderness characteristics 

inventories are out of date, and the BLM failed to conduct updated inventories 

for lands with wilderness characteristics.

Response

BLM Manual 6320, Considering Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the 

BLM Land Use Planning Process, states that, “In some circumstances, 

consideration of management alternatives for lands with wilderness 

characteristics may be outside the scope of a particular planning process (as 

dictated by the statement of purpose and need for the planning effort). For 

example, a targeted amendment to address a specific project or proposal may 

not in all circumstances require consideration of an alternative that would 

protect wilderness characteristics. In these situations, the NEPA document 
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-47

associated with the plan amendment must still analyze effects of the alternatives 

on lands with wilderness characteristics” (BLM Manual 6320.06, Policy).

As noted in Section 1.2 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, the purpose of and 

need for 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 would be made as part of this planning effort; therefore, 

management of lands with wilderness characteristics is considered outside the 

scope of this plan amendment process. 

As part of the original FLPMA Section 603-mandated inventories, inventories 

were conducted for the Lewistown Field Office in 1979. The intensive 

inventories published in the early 1980s resulted in the designation of two 

Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) that are 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, which began in 2013 and is scheduled to be complete in 2017. Lands 

with wilderness characteristics inventories would be updated for any sitespecific project NEPA analyses that are conducted in the planning area to 

determine if a project would have impacts on lands with wilderness 

characteristics identified through previous or updated inventory efforts.

O.2.21 Disturbance Cap

Summary

Commenters believed that the Draft RMPA/EIS needed additional explanation 

for the methodology for establishing the disturbance cap in the alternatives, as 

well as better explanation for how the actions would be implemented. The BLM 

needs to show the differences between disturbance cap amounts presented in 

the alternatives. Fire should be added as a contributing factor in accounting for 

the disturbance cap.

Response

The three percent disturbance cap in the Draft RMPA/EIS was based on 

recommendations from the NTT report. As part of the Proposed RMPA/Final 

EIS, the BLM has provided additional clarification on the disturbance caps,

guidance for how they would be implemented and accounted for, and what data 

is appropriate for determining disturbance (see Appendix N). If the 3 percent 

anthropogenic disturbance cap is exceeded on lands (regardless of land 

ownership) within GRSG Priority PHMA in any given Biologically Significant Unit 

(BSU), then no further discrete anthropogenic disturbances (subject to 

applicable laws and regulations, such as the 1872 hard rock mining law, valid 

existing rights, etc.) will be permitted by BLM within GRSG PHMAs in any given 

BSU until the disturbance has been reduced to less than the cap.
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

O-48 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

If the 3 percent disturbance cap is exceeded on all lands (regardless of land 

ownership) or if anthropogenic disturbance and habitat loss associated with 

conversion to agricultural tillage or fire exceed 5 percent within a proposed 

project analysis area in PHMA, then no further anthropogenic disturbance will 

be permitted by BLM until disturbance in the proposed project analysis area has 

been reduced to maintain the area under the cap (subject to applicable laws and 

regulations, such as the 1872 hard rock Mining Law, valid existing rights, etc.). If 

the BLM determines that the State of Montana’s GRSG Habitat Conservation 

Program contains comparable components to those found in the State of 

Wyoming’s Density and Disturbance model (an all lands approach for calculating 

anthropogenic disturbances, a clear methodology for measuring the density of 

operations, and a fully operational Density Disturbance Calculation Tool), the 3 

percent disturbance cap will be converted to a 5 percent cap.

O.2.22 Predation 

Summary

The BLM failed to adequately address impacts on GRSG from predation.

Response

As stated in Section 1.6.4 in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, predator control is 

outside the scope of RMPA. The State of Montana possesses primary authority 

and responsibility for managing wildlife within the state. The BLM has authority 

to manage GRSG habitat and has provided analysis to describe how the 

numerous management actions across the range of alternatives could affect the 

habitat and indirectly the effects of predation. The Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 

calls for measures that would substantially reduce disturbances in GRSG habitat, 

thus reducing predation risk. The Proposed RMPA/Final EIS also calls for careful 

monitoring of grazing allotments within GRSG nesting habitat to ensure suitable 

grass and forb cover is reserved so the associated predation risks can be 

minimized.

Predation is one of five specific ESA listing criteria; however, the USFWS did not 

identify predation as a significant threat to GRSG populations in their 2010 

decision to list the species as warranted for protection under the ESA. The 

USFWS acknowledged that increasing patterns of landscape fragmentation are 

likely contributing to increased predation on the species, and identified two 

areas, neither of which are in Montana, where predators may be limiting GRSG 

populations because of intense habitat alteration and fragmentation. The BLM 

has updated the discussion of predation in Section 3.4.1 of the Proposed 

RMPA/Final EIS. Section 4.3 has been revised to more clearly state the 

connection between the direct effects to habitat management and indirect 

effects of predation.
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-49

O.2.23 Noise

Summary

Commenters were concerned with the ambient noise levels presented in the 

Draft EIS and would like clarification on the noise restrictions provided in the 

alternatives.

Response

Greater sage-grouse conservation measures in A Report on National Greater 

Sage-grouse Conservation Measures (NTT 2011) were used to form BLM 

management direction under at least one alternative (Alternative B), which is 

consistent with the direction provided in BLM WO IM 2012-044 (the BLM must 

consider all applicable conservation measures developed by the NTT in at least 

one alternative in the land use planning process).

Ambient noise is assumed to be 22 (may be a range of 20-24) dBA, using 

Patricelli et al. unless the project proponent documents ambient is higher using 

specific measuring parameters/methodology. RDFs in Appendices C and D of 

the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS have been established for noise for all activities, 

including at the lek and other important seasonal habitats. RDFs establish the 

minimum specifications for certain activities to help mitigate adverse impacts. 

However, the applicability and overall effectiveness of each RDF cannot be fully 

assessed until the project level when the project location and design are known. 

Because of site-specific circumstances, some RDFs 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).

O.2.24 Weeds/Invasive Plants

Summary

Commenters requested a description of integrated vegetation management, 

inclusion of the handbook in the Final EIS, and details on how BLM would 

address invasive trees in riparian habitats. Commenters also state that the BLM 

failed to provide adequate analysis of the impacts of weeds related to livestock 

grazing.

Response

As noted previously in Section O.2.3, Greater Sage-Grouse—COT Report, all 

alternatives considered within this planning process are consistent with 

conservation measures and objectives outlined in the COT report and follow 

the basic principles of: 1) avoiding the impact of an activity; 2) minimizing 

impacts by limiting the degree of activity; and 3) mitigating for an impact by 

improving or enhancing GRSG habitat. As stated in Section 2.6.2 and Table 2-4

in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, all of the alternatives would include 

implementing integrated vegetation management to control, suppress, and 

eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive species, in accordance with BLM 

Handbook H-1740-2.
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

O-50 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

The Proposed RMPA/Final EIS provides an adequate discussion of the 

environmental consequences, including the cumulative impacts, of the presented 

alternatives for a land use plan-level effort (see response to Section O.2.3, 

Greater Sage-Grouse—COT Report, for additional details). The impacts from 

livestock grazing on vegetation (including noxious weeds) are discussed in 

Section 4.5 of the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. 

BLM Handbook 1740-2 is incorporated by reference in the Proposed 

RMPA/Final EIS.

Regarding Tamarisk and Russian olive, these species have limited presence 

within PPH and PGH covered under the Lewistown Field Office RMPA/EIS. The 

Lewistown Field Office currently has assistance agreements in place to provide 

funding for control measures to the respective county weed agencies should 

either species be found on BLM-administered lands within the Lewistown Field 

Office.

Regarding control of invasive weeds through removal of grazing, the noxious 

weeds found in the area (as defined in Table 3-17 of the Proposed RMPA/Final

EIS) are perennial invasive plants that reproduce vegetatively more than they do 

by seed. Removal of permitted livestock use would do little to prevent spread of 

such species and eliminate the opportunity for Weed Control Cooperative 

Agreements with permittees/lessees for the control agreements.

References suggested were reviewed and found to not be relevant for inclusion. 

The Proposed RMPA/Final EIS also includes additional clarification for vegetation 

objectives, such as stating that the desired future condition in SFAs and PHMA is 

to maintain a minimum of 70 percent of lands capable of producing sagebrush,

with 10 to 30 percent sagebrush canopy cover.

O.3 COMMENTER LIST

Table O.1 provides the names of organizations and individuals who submitted 

unique comment letters (not campaign letters) on the Draft RMPA/EIS.

Table O.1

Organizations and Others That Submitted Unique Comment Letters on Lewistown 

Field Office GRSG Draft RMPA/EIS

Organization

Alberta Wilderness Association

American Motorcyclist Association

American Wind Energy Association

AWEA

Center for Biological Diversity

Defenders of Wildlife

EPA Region 8

EPA, NEPA Compliance and Review Program
O. Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS O-51

Table O.1

Organizations and Others That Submitted Unique Comment Letters on Lewistown 

Field Office GRSG Draft RMPA/EIS

Organization

MOM & POP PRODUCTS CO.

Montana Audubon

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks

Montana Stockgrowers Association

Montana Wilderness Association

Petroleum County

Petroleum County Commissioner

Public Lands Advocacy

Public Lands Council/ National Cattlemen's Beef Association

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Western Watersheds Project

WildEarth Guardians

World Wildlife Fund

Individuals

Ahlegren, Larry

Ahlgren, Diane

Bailey, Joan

Forehand, Dick

Fronczak, David

Gilpatrick, John

Hamann, Betsy

Hohenberger, Kirk

King, Chris

Knapp, Ralph

Kopec, Len

Peters, D’Jeane

Roe, Teddy

Sachau, Barbara

Schultz, John

Sentz, Gene

Sentz, Linda

Steitz, Jim

Tighe, Dennis

Van Hyning, Dyrick

Whirry, Gordon
This page intentionally left blank.