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 I: Executive Summary and Chapters 1- 4
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 
Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse

Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment and

Final Environmental Impact Statement

BLM/MT/PL-15/009+1610

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

1. Responsible Agency: United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

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

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

4. Abstract: The Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA) and Final Environmental 

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

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

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

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

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

State Grazing District (CSGD); Winnett CSGD; and Chain Buttes CSGD. The Final EIS considers 

and analyzes four alternatives that address future management of approximately 345,560 acres of 

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

administered by the BLM’s Lewistown Field Office (LFO).

Alternative A is a continuation of current management (No Action Alternative). Under this 

alternative, use of BLM-administered lands and resources would continue to be managed under the 

Judith Resource Area and Headwaters RMPs, as amended. Alternative B describes management 

actions taken directly from the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team (NTT) A Report on National 

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures. Alternative C describes management actions submitted by 

various citizen groups. Alternative D describes management actions developed by adapting the NTT 

measures to Lewistown Field Office and was the BLM’s preferred alternative in the Draft EIS. The 

Proposed RMPA is largely based on Alternative D, the preferred alternative in the Draft EIS. The 

Proposed RMPA is not a final agency decision but instead an indication of the agencies’ preference 

that reflects the best combination of decisions to achieve BLM goals and policies, meets the purpose 

and need, addresses the key planning issues, and considers public comments and the 

recommendations of cooperating agencies and BLM specialists. The alternatives present a range of 

management actions to achieve the goal of Greater Sage-Grouse conservation for the Lewistown

Field Office. Major planning issues addressed include realty actions, oil and gas, minerals, travel 

management, grazing, and fuels management.

5. Protests: Protests must be postmarked or received no later than 30 days after publication of the US 

Environmental Protection Agency Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. Refer to the 

instructions in the letter preceding this abstract for additional information on how to protest. The 

close of the protest period will be announced in news releases and on the Lewistown Field Office

website: http://blm.gov/f9kd.
6. For further information contact: 

Adam Carr, Team Leader

Bureau of Land Management, 

Lewistown Field Office

920 NE Main Street

Lewistown, MT 59457

(406) 538-1900
United States Department ofthe Interior 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 


Montana State Office 


500 I Southgate Drive 


In Reply Refer To: Billings, Montana 59 101 -4669 

www.blm.gov/mt 

1610 (MT930) 

June 2015 

Dear Reader: 

Enclosed is the Lewistown Field Office Sub-regional Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Proposed 

Resource Management Plan Amendment (PRMPA) and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS), one of fifteen sub-regional efforts being conducted as part of the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) National Greater-Sage Planning Strategy. The BLM prepared the 

PRMPA/FEIS in consultation with cooperating agencies, taking into account public comments 

received during this planning effort. The purpose ofthe PRMPA is to amend the Judith 

Resource Area and Headwaters RMPs to identify and incorporate appropriate conservation 

measures to conserve, enhance and/or restore GRSG habitat by reducing, eliminating, or 

minimizing threats to that habitat. The need for action is in response to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service's (USFWS) March 2010 "warranted, but precluded" Endangered Species Act 

listing petition. The USFWS found that the inadequacy ofregulatory mechanisms was identified 

as a significant threat to GRSG in their finding on the petition to list the GRSG. RMP 

conservation measures were identified as the BLM's principal regulatory mechanism. 

This PRMPA and FEIS have been developed in accordance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as 

amended. The PRMPA is largely based on Alternative D, the preferred alternative in the Draft 

Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement (DRMP A/DEIS), 

which was released on November 8, 2013. The PRMP A/FE IS contains the Proposed Plan, a 

summary of changes made between the DRMPA/DEIS and PRMPA/FEIS, impacts ofthe 

Proposed Plan, a summary ofthe written and verbal comments received during the public review 

period for the DRMP A/DEIS, and responses to the comments. 

Pursuant to BLM's planning regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2, any person who participated in the 

planning process for this PRMP and has an interest which is or may be adversely affected by the 

planning decisions may protest approval of the planning decisions within 30 days from date the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes the Notice of Availability of the FEIS in the 

Federal Register. For further information on filing a protest, please see the accompanying 

protest regulations in the pages that follow (labeled as Enclosure 1 ). The regulations specify the 

required elements of your protest. Take care to document all relevant facts. As much as 

possible, reference or cite the planning documents or available planning records (e.g., meeting 

minutes or summaries, correspondence, etc.). 
2 

Emailed protests will not be accepted as valid protests unless the protesting party also provides 

the original letter by either regular mail or overnight delivery postmarked by the close ofthe 

protest period. Under these conditions, the BLM will consider the emailed protest as an advance 

copy and will afford it full consideration. If you wish to provide the BLM with such advance 

notification, please direct emailed protests to: protest@blm.gov. 

All protests must be in writing and mailed to one ofthe following addresses: 

Regular Mail: Overnight Delivery: 


Director (21 0) Director (21 0) 


Attn: Protest Coordinator Attn: Protest Coordinator 


P.O. Box 71383 20M Street SE, Room 2134LM 


Washington, D.C. 20024-1383 Washington, D.C. 20003 


Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying 

information in your protest, be advised that your entire protest - including your personal 

identifying information- may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in 

your protest to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

The BLM Director will make every attempt to promptly render a decision on each protest. The 

decision will be in writing and will be sent to the protesting party by certified mail, return receipt 

requested. The decision of the BLM Director shall be the final decision ofthe Department of the 

Interior on each protest. Responses to protest issues will be compiled and formalized in a 

Director's Protest Resolution Report made available following issuance ofthe decisions. 

Upon resolution of all land use plan protests, the BLM will issue an Approved RMPA and 

Record of Decision (ROD). The Approved RMPA and ROD will be mailed or made available 

electronically to all who participated in the planning process and will be available on the BLM 

website at http://blm.gov/f9kd. 

Sincerely, 

Jamie E. Connell 

State Director 

1 Enclosure 

1-Protest Regulations 
Protest Regulations 

[CITE: 43CFR1610.5-2] 

TITLE 43--PUBLIC LANDS: INTERIOR 


CHAPTER II--BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 


PART 1600--PLANNING, PROGRAMMING, BUDGETING--Table ofContents 


Subpart 161 0--Resource Management Planning 


Sec. 1610.5-2 Protest procedures. 


(a) Any person who participated in the planning process and has an interest which is or may be 

adversely affected by the approval or amendment of a resource management plan may protest 

such approval or amendment. A protest may raise only those issues which were submitted for 

the record during the planning process. 

(1) The protest shall be in writing and shall be filed with the Director. The protest shall be 

filed within 30 days of the date the Environmental Protection Agency published the 

notice of receipt ofthe final enviromnental impact statement containing the plan or 

amendment in the Federal Register. For an amendment not requiring the preparation of an 

enviromnental impact statement, the protest shall be filed within 30 days of the 

publication of the notice ofits effective date. 

(2) The protest shall contain: 

(i) The name, mailing address, telephone number and interest ofthe person filing 

the protest; 

(ii) A statement ofthe issue or issues being protested; 

(iii) A statement ofthe part or parts ofthe plan or amendment being protested; 

(iv) A copy ofall documents addressing the issue or issues that were submitted 

during the planning process by the protesting party or an indication ofthe date 

the issue or issues were discussed for the record; and 

(v) A concise statement explaining why the State Director's decision is believed to 

be wrong. 

(3) The Director shall promptly render a decision on the protest. 

(b) The decision shall be in writing and shall set forth the reasons for the decision. The decision 

shall be sent to the protesting party by certified mail, return receipt requested. The decision 

of the Director shall be the final decision of the Department of the Interior. 

Enclosure 1 

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 INTRODUCTION

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

United States (US) Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) to develop and periodically revise or amend its resource 

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

The BLM Lewistown Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Proposed Plan provides a 

layered management approach that offers the highest level of protection for

GRSG in the most valuable habitat. Land use allocations in the Proposed Plan 

would limit or eliminate new surface disturbance in Priority Habitat 

Management Areas (PHMA), while minimizing disturbance in General Habitat 

Management Areas (GHMA). In addition to establishing protective land use 

allocations, the Proposed Plan would implement a suite of management tools, 

such as disturbance limits, GRSG habitat objectives and monitoring, mitigation 

approaches, adaptive management triggers and responses, and other protective 

measures throughout the range. These overlapping and reinforcing conservation 

measures would work in concert to improve and restore GRSG habitat 

condition and provide consistency in how the BLM would manage activities in 

GRSG habitat in the planning area.

ES.1.1 Rationale for the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy and Resource 

Management Plan Amendment

This land use plan amendment is the result of the March 2010 US Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) 12-Month Finding for Petitions to List the Greater 

Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered (75 

Federal Register 13910, March 23, 2010). In that finding, the USFWS concluded 

that GRSG was “warranted, but precluded” for listing as a threatened or 

endangered species. A warranted, but precluded determination is one of three 

results that may occur after a petition is filed by the public to list a species 

under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This finding indicates that immediate 
Executive Summary

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

publication of a proposed rule to list the species is precluded by higher-priority 

listing proposals; that is, a species should be listed based on the available 

science, but listing other species takes priority because they are more in need of 

protection. 

The USFWS reviewed the status of and threats to the GRSG in relation to the 

five listing factors provided in Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Of the five listing 

factors reviewed, the USFWS determined that Factor A, “the present or 

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

the GRSG,” and Factor D, “the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms,” 

posed “a significant threat to the GRSG now and in the foreseeable future” 

(USFWS 2010a 75 Federal Register 13910, March 23, 2010). The USFWS 

identified the principal regulatory mechanisms for the BLM as conservation 

measures in RMPs.

Consistent with the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy (BLM 

2011),1 the BLM as the lead agency, together with the US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) as a cooperating agency, is preparing 

15 environmental impact statements (EISs), with associated plan amendments 

and revisions. Although the Forest Service is a cooperating agency, the 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan 

Amendment (RMPA)/EIS does not address National Forest System lands. These 

documents provide a set of management alternatives focused on specific 

conservation measures across the range of the GRSG (see Figure ES-1, 

Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Boundaries).

Science-based decision-making and collaboration with state and local partners 

are fundamental to the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy. The 15 GRSG

plan amendments or revisions/EISs address threats to GRSG identified by state 

fish and wildlife agencies, the BLM National Technical Team, and the USFWS in 

the context of its listing decision and the Conservation Objectives Team (COT) 

report. The COT report was prepared by wildlife biologists from state and 

federal agencies and provides a blueprint for the overall conservation approach 

set forth in the BLM and Forest Service GRSG plan amendments or 

revisions/EISs (USFWS 2013).2 Where consistent with conservation objectives, 

the GRSG LUP/EISs adopt unique state- and stakeholder-developed approaches 

and priorities. Additional science-based reviews by the US Geological Survey 

and related scientific literature provided further guidance on specific issues that 

arose in developing the final BLM and Forest Service GRSG LUP/EISs. In 

addition, regular meetings with the Western Governors Association Sage-

 

1 BLM (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 2011. Instruction Memorandum 2012-044, 

BLM National. Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy. Washington, DC. December 27, 2011.

2 USFWS (US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. USFWS, Denver, Colorado. February 2013.
Executive Summary 

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

Grouse Task Force provided additional opportunities for coordination with 

member states.3

ES.1.2 Description of the Planning Area and Habitat Management Areas 

The planning area is the geographic area within which the BLM will make 

decisions during this planning effort. The planning area boundary includes all 

lands regardless of jurisdiction. The Lewistown Field Office sub-regional GRSG 

planning area covers all or a portion of Chouteau, Fergus, Judith Basin, Meagher, 

and Petroleum counties in central Montana. While the planning area consists of 

all lands regardless of ownership, decisions resulting from this land use plan 

RMPA would apply only to BLM-administered lands in GRSG habitats (“decision 

area”), including surface and split-estate lands with BLM-administered subsurface 

mineral rights. Chapter 3, Affected Environment, describes the current 

resource and resource use conditions in the planning area. 

 

3

 The Western Governors Association Sage-Grouse Task Force works to identify and implement high priority 

conservation actions and integrate ongoing actions necessary to preclude the need for the GRSG to be listed 

under the ESA. The Task Force includes designees from the 11 western states where GRSG is found as well as 

representatives from USFWS, BLM, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Forest Service, US Geological 

Survey, and Department of the Interior. 

Figure ES-1
Executive Summary

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

GRSG habitat management areas on BLM-administered lands in the decision 

area consist of lands allocated as PHMA and GHMA (Table ES-1, Habitat 

Management Areas in the Lewistown Field Office Planning Area, Figure ES-2, 

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas - Lewistown GRSG 

RMPA/EIS). PHMA and GHMA are defined as follows: 

 PHMA (233,200 acres)—BLM-administered lands identified as having 

the highest value to maintaining sustainable GRSG populations. The 

boundaries and management strategies for PHMA are derived from 

and generally follow the Preliminary Priority Habitat boundaries (see 

Chapter 3) identified in the Draft RMPA/EIS. Areas of PHMA 

largely coincide with areas identified as Priority Areas for 

Conservation in the COT report.

 GHMA (112,300 acres)—BLM-administered lands that require some 

special management to sustain GRSG populations. The boundaries 

and management strategies for GHMA are derived from and 

generally follow the Preliminary General Habitat boundaries (see 

Chapter 3) identified in the Draft RMPA/EIS.

The planning area includes other BLM-administered lands that are not allocated 

as habitat management areas for GRSG. The Lewistown Field Office Greater 

Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS does not establish any additional management for these 

lands; they would be managed according to the existing, underlying land use plan 

for the area. 

The Proposed Plan also identifies specific Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFA; 53,400

acres), which are a subset of PHMA. The SFA were derived from Greater SageGrouse “stronghold” areas described in a USFWS memorandum to the BLM 

titled Greater Sage-Grouse: Additional Recommendations to Refine Land Use 

Allocations in Highly Important Landscapes (USFWS 2014).4 The memorandum and 

associated maps provided by the USFWS identify areas that represent 

recognized strongholds for GRSG that have been noted and referenced as 

having the highest densities of GRSG and other criteria important for the 

persistence of the species. 

ES.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of this RMPA is to identify and incorporate appropriate 

conservation measures to conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG habitat by 

reducing, minimizing, or eliminating threats to that habitat. The BLM would 

consider such measures in the context of the multiple-use and sustained yield

 

4 USFWS (US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014. Memorandum: Greater Sage-Grouse: 

Additional Recommendations to Refine Land Use Allocations in Highly Important Landscapes. October 27, 2014.
Executive Summary

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

Figure ES-2
Executive Summary

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

Table ES-1

Habitat Management Areas in the Lewistown Field Office Planning Area

Habitat Management Area Acres of BLMAdministered LandsPercent of BLMAdministered Lands in 

Planning Area

PHMA 233,200 40

GHMA 112,300 19

Other BLM-administered lands 248,400 41

mandates of FLPMA. The major threats identified by the USFWS in the March 

2010 listing decision that apply to the Lewistown Field Office Sub-region include:

 Oil and gas development—This amendment would not make any 

decisions regarding new fluid mineral leases as described in 

Chapter 1, Section 1.3, Proposed Action, and Section 1.6.4, 

Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed.

 Infrastructure—Fragmentation of GRSG habitat due to human 

development activities such as right-of-way (ROW) and renewable 

energy development 

 Infrastructure—Fragmentation of GRSG habitat due to range 

improvements

 Invasive species—Conversion of GRSG habitat to invasive annual

grass- (e.g., cheatgrass) dominated plant communities

 Wildfire—Loss of large areas of GRSG habitat due to wildfire 

 Grazing—Loss of habitat components due to livestock and large 

wildlife use

 Agriculture and urbanization—Fragmentation of GRSG habitat or 

modification of GRSG behavior due to conversion of land to 

agricultural and urban uses 

 Prescribed fire—Loss of GRSG sagebrush habitat

 Human uses—Fragmentation of GRSG habitat or modification of 

GRSG behavior due to human uses 

 Conifer encroachment—Encroachment of pinyon and/or juniper 

into GRSG habitat

 Hard rock mining—Fragmentation of GRSG habitat due to mineral 

exploration and development

This RMPA with associated EIS is needed to respond to the USFWS’s March 

2010 “warranted, but precluded” ESA listing petition decision (75 Federal 

Register 13910, March 23, 2010). The USFWS identified inadequacy of regulatory 

mechanisms as a significant factor in its finding on the petition to list the GRSG. 
Executive Summary

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

In its listing decision, the USFWS noted that changes in management of GRSG 

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

Changes in land allocations and conservation measures in the BLM and Forest 

Service plan amendments/revisions provide a means to implement regulatory 

mechanisms to address the inadequacy identified by the USFWS.

ES.3 PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed federal action is the Proposed Plan, which identifies resource 

management actions in accordance with the multiple-use and sustained yield 

mandates of FLPMA. The proposed action is intended to provide a consistent 

framework for managing GRSG and its habitat on BLM-administered lands. The 

alternatives, including the Proposed Plan, comprise desired future outcomes and 

a range of management actions, allowable uses, and land use allocations that

guide management on BLM-administered lands to conserve, restore, and 

enhance GRSG habitat.

There is an existing protest resolution decision affecting lands managed within 

the Lewistown Field Office. It 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. Areas within GRSG habitat that are 

nominated for leasing would be deferred. New leasing of areas with important 

wildlife values cannot occur until the BLM completes a plan amendment/EIS or a 

new/revised RMP/EIS, including oil and gas leasing decisions identified in a 

Record of Decision. Because this RMPA considers only management actions for 

GRSG and does not address oil and gas leasing options for other wildlife 

resource values, oil and gas leasing are not addressed in this RMPA/EIS. (The 

Lewistown Field Office is preparing an RMP revision, which will address oil and 

gas leasing for the entire Lewistown Field Office planning area boundary.)

The Proposed Plan (see Section ES.6, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Proposed Plan and Environmental Effects, and Section 2.6.2, 

Proposed Plan Amendment) represents the BLM’s approach for addressing the 

purpose and need.

ES.4 DEVELOPMENT OF THE RMPA/EIS

ES.4.1 Scoping 

The BLM initiated the RMPA/EIS process on December 9, 2011, with the 

publication in the Federal Register of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to begin a planning 

effort. A public scoping process began in January 2012 and included one public

open house in Lewistown on January 10. Scoping is an early and open process 

for determining the scope, or range, of issues to be addressed and for 

identifying the significant issues to consider in the planning process. The scoping 

process included soliciting input from interested state and local governments, 

tribal governments, other federal agencies and organizations, and individuals. Its 

purpose is to identify the scope of issues to be addressed in the plan 
Executive Summary

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

amendment, and to assist in the formulation of a reasonable range of 

alternatives (See Section 6.5.1, Scoping Process).

The final Scoping Summary Report, available online at 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse.html, was prepared in 

conjunction with all the GRSG plan amendments and revisions. It summarizes 

the scoping and issue-identification process and describes 13 broad issue 

categories identified during the scoping process. Ten of the range-wide planning 

issues identified in the Scoping Summary Report are applicable for the 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS (see Section 1.6.3,

Issues Identified).

ES.4.2 Cooperating Agency Collaboration

Throughout this planning effort, the BLM has engaged with multiple federal, 

state, and local government agencies as well as Native American tribes. 

Consistent with the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601), cooperating 

agencies share knowledge and resources to achieve desired outcomes for public 

lands and communities within statutory and regulatory frameworks. A total of 

12 agencies signed Memoranda of Understanding to formalize their cooperating 

agency relationship. The BLM met with and provided relevant information to 

cooperating agencies throughout the planning process. For more information, 

see Chapter 6, Consultation and Coordination.

ES.4.3 Development of the Draft RMPA/EIS

Development of Management Alternatives

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the 

Council on Environmental Quality implementing regulations (40 CFR, Part

1500), the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS planning 

team considered public input and developed a reasonable range of alternatives 

for the Draft RMPA/EIS. 

The planning team developed four unique alternatives, including one No Action 

Alternative and three action alternatives, which were subsequently analyzed in 

the Draft RMPA/EIS. Each of the preliminary action alternatives was designed to:

 Respond to USFWS-identified issues and threats to GRSG and its 

habitat, including specific threats identified in the COT report

 Address the 10 planning issues 

 Fulfill the purpose and need for the RMPA 

 Meet the mandates of the FLPMA 

Collectively, the three action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, and D) analyzed in 

the Draft RMPA/EIS offer a range of possible management approaches for 

responding to the purpose and need as well as the planning issues and concerns 
Executive Summary

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

identified through public scoping. While the overarching goal of the long-term 

conservation of GRSG and its habitat is the same across alternatives, each 

alternative contains a discrete set of objectives and management actions, which,

if selected as the final plan, would constitute a unique RMPA. 

Publication of Draft RMPA/EIS 

Public Comment Period

A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft RMPA/EIS was published in the 

Federal Register on November 8, 2013. The NOA initiated a 90-day public 

comment period, which ended on February 6, 2014. The BLM also held two

public comment open houses for the Draft RMPA/EIS in December 2013.

Comment Analysis 

During the Draft RMPA/EIS 90-day public comment period, the BLM received

written comments by mail, e-mail, and submissions at the public meetings. 

Comments covered a wide spectrum of thoughts, opinions, ideas, and concerns. 

Upon receipt, the BLM reviewed the comments, grouped similar substantive 

comments under an appropriate topic heading, and evaluated and wrote

summary responses addressing the comment topics. The response indicated 

whether the commenters’ points would result in new information or changes

being included in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. Section 6.5.3, Summary of 

Comments Received on the Draft RMPA/EIS, provides a detailed description of 

the comment analysis methodology and an overview of the public comments 

received on the Draft RMPA/EIS. Complete comment summaries and responses, 

including rationale and any associated changes made in the Proposed

RMPA/Final EIS, can be found in Appendix O, Response to Comments on the 

Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement.

ES.5 RMPA/EIS ALTERNATIVES AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

ES.5.1 Alternative A: No Action

Under Alternative A, the BLM would not develop new management actions to 

protect GRSG habitat. Management of existing threats to GRSG populations and 

habitat, such as infrastructure, invasive species, grazing, mineral development, 

and wildfire, would continue in accordance with existing land use planning 

documents.

ES.5.2 Alternative B

Alternative B would apply management actions to PHMA and GHMA, including 

actions that would exclude ROW development in PHMA and would avoid 

development in GHMA, would close PHMA to mineral material sales and 

nonenergy leasable minerals, and would recommend proposed withdrawal from 

locatable mineral entry in PHMA. These management actions would reduce 

surface disturbance in PHMA and would minimize disturbance in GHMA, 

thereby maintaining GRSG habitat.
Executive Summary

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

Management actions for wildfire would focus on suppression in PHMA, while 

limiting certain types of fuels treatments. Vegetation management would 

emphasize sagebrush restoration. The BLM would prioritize completion of land 

health assessments in PHMA and would implement actions to modify grazing 

management to meet GRSG habitat requirements. Collectively, range 

management, vegetation, and wildfire management would conserve GRSG 

habitat.

ES.5.3 Alternative C

Alternative C is the most restrictive approach to GRSG conservation.

Alternative C would eliminate all future ROWs, nonenergy leasable mineral 

development, and mineral material sales on GRSG habitat. Alternative C would 

also recommend proposed withdrawal from locatable mineral entry for all

GRSG habitat. This alternative would substantially reduce surface disturbance in 

all GRSG habitat.

Management actions for wildfire would focus on suppression in PHMA and 

GHMA, while limiting certain types of fuels treatments. Under Alternative C,

the BLM would prioritize implementing restoration projects based on 

environmental variables that improve chances for project success in areas most 

likely to benefit GRSG. Additionally, all GRSG habitat would be unavailable for 

livestock grazing.

ES.5.4 Alternative D

Alternative D, the BLM’s preferred alternative from the Draft RMPA/EIS, 

presents a balanced approach to maintaining and enhancing GRSG populations 

and habitat. 

Alternative D would limit disturbance in GRSG habitat by avoiding all ROW 

development in PHMA and GHMA and applying appropriate mitigation 

measures on nonenergy leasable mineral development and mineral material 

sales. These management actions would protect GRSG habitat while allowing

other activities, subject to conditions.

Management actions for wildfire would be similar to Alternative B. Under 

Alternative D, the BLM would make meeting GRSG habitat restoration 

objectives in PHMA and GHMA a high priority, while considering other species.

Range management would be similar to Alternative B.

ES.6 GREATER SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PROPOSED PLAN AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

In consideration of public comments, best available science, cooperating agency 

coordination, and internal review of the Draft RMPA/EIS, the BLM developed 

this Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed Plan (Proposed 

Plan). The Proposed Plan represents the BLM’s proposed approach for meeting 

the purpose and need consistent with the agencies’ legal and policy mandates.
Executive Summary

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

The BLM Proposed Plan addresses threats to GRSG and its habitat identified by 

the USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision that apply to the Lewistown 

planning area as well as threats described in the COT report. The Proposed 

Plan seeks to provide greater regulatory certainty for management actions 

intended to conserve the GRSG (Table ES-2, Key Components of the 

Lewistown Field Office Proposed Plan Addressing COT Report Threats). In 

making its determination of whether the GRSG is warranted to be listed as 

threatened or endangered under the ESA, the USFWS will evaluate the degree 

to which the land use planning decisions proposed in this RMPA/EIS address 

threats to GRSG and its habitat.

The Proposed Plan would maintain and enhance GRSG populations and habitat. 

The Proposed Plan 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 as necessary based on GRSG habitat 

objectives, Land Health Standards, and ecological site potential

 Applying Conditions of Approval (COAs) to existing fluid mineral 

leases in PHMA and GHMA and closing PHMA to nonenergy 

leasable development and mineral material sales

The Proposed Plan 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 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.

The Proposed Plan adopts key elements of the State of Montana Greater SageGrouse Habitat Conservation Strategy by establishing conservation measures 

and focusing restoration efforts in the same key areas most valuable to the 

GRSG. 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.

If the BLM finds that the State of Montana is implementing a GRSG Habitat 

Conservation Program that is effectively conserving the GRSG, the BLM will 
Executive Summary

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

review the management goals and objectives to determine if they are being met 

and whether amending the BLM Proposed Plan is appropriate to achieve 

consistent and effective conservation and GRSG management across all lands 

regardless of ownership. 

For a full description of the BLM Proposed Plan, see Section 2.6.2.

Table ES-2

Key Components of the Lewistown Field Office Proposed Plan Addressing COT Report Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and its Habitat 

(from COT Report)

Key Component of the Lewistown Field Office Proposed Plan 

All threats  Implement the Adaptive Management Plan, which allows for more restrictive 

land use allocations and management actions to be implemented if habitat or 

population hard triggers are met.

 Require and ensure mitigation that provides a net conservation gain to GRSG.

 Monitor implementation and effectiveness of conservation measures in GRSG 

habitats according to the Habitat Assessment Framework.

 Apply buffers necessary based on project type and location to address 

impacts on leks when authorizing actions in GRSG habitat.

 Apply Required Design Features (RDF) when authorizing actions in GRSG 

habitat.

All development 

threats, including 

mining, infrastructure, 

and energy 

development

 PHMA: Implement an anthropogenic disturbance cap of 3% within the 

Biologically Significant Unit (BSU) and proposed project analysis areas.

 PHMA: Implement a density cap of an average of 1 energy and mining facility 

per 640 acres.

Energy development—

fluid minerals

 Note: oil and gas leasing will not be addressed in this RMPA/EIS.

 PHMA and GHMA: Apply COAs to existing fluid mineral leases.

Energy development—

wind energy

 PHMA: Exclusion area (not available for wind energy development under any 

conditions)

 GHMA: Avoidance area (may be available for wind energy development with 

special stipulations).

Energy development—

solar energy

 PHMA: Exclusion area (not available for solar energy development under any 

conditions).

 GHMA: Avoidance area (may be available for wind energy development with 

special stipulations).

Infrastructure—major 

ROWs

 PHMA: Avoidance area (may be available for major ROWs with special 

stipulations).

 GHMA: Avoidance area (may be available for major ROWs with special 

stipulations).

Infrastructure—minor 

ROWs

 PHMA: Avoidance area (may be available for minor ROWs with special 

stipulations).

Mining—locatable 

minerals

 SFA: Recommend withdrawal from the Mining Law of 1872.
Executive Summary

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

Table ES-2

Key Components of the Lewistown Field Office Proposed Plan Addressing COT Report Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and its Habitat 

(from COT Report)

Key Component of the Lewistown Field Office Proposed Plan 

Mining—nonenergy 

leasable minerals

 PHMA: Closed area (not available for nonenergy leasable minerals).

Mining—salable 

minerals

 PHMA: Closed area (not available for salable minerals) with a limited 

exception (may remain open to free use permits and expansion of existing 

active pits if criteria are met).

Mining—coal  PHMA is essential habitat for GRSG for purposes of the suitability criteria set 

forth at 43 CFR 3461.5(o)(1).

Livestock grazing  Prioritize the review and processing of grazing permits/leases in SFA followed 

by PHMA.

 The NEPA analysis for renewals and modifications of grazing permits/leases 

would include specific management thresholds, based on the GRSG Habitat 

Objectives Table, Land Health Standards and ecological site potential, to allow 

adjustments to grazing that have already been subjected to NEPA analysis.

 Prioritize field checks in SFAs followed by PHMA to ensure compliance with 

the terms and conditions of grazing permits.

Free-roaming equid 

management

 Not Applicable; Free-Roaming equids do not occur within the planning area.

Range management 

structures

 Allow range improvements which do not impact GRSG, or which provide a 

conservation benefit to GRSG such as fences for protecting important 

seasonal habitats.

Recreation  PHMA: Do not construct new recreation facilities.

 Allow special recreation permits in PHMA only if their effects on GRSG and 

its habitat are neutral or beneficial for GRSG habitat.

Fire  Identify and prioritize areas that are vulnerable to wildfires and prescribe 

actions important for GRSG protection.

 Prioritize post-fire treatments in PHMA.

Nonnative, invasive 

plant species

 Improve GRSG habitat by restoring native (or desirable) plants and create 

landscape patterns that most benefit GRSG.

 PHMA and GHMA: Monitor for and treat invasive and noxious weed species 

associated with existing range improvement projects.

 Integrated vegetation management would be used to control, suppress, and 

eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive species.

Sagebrush removal  PHMA: Maintain a minimum of 70 percent of lands capable of producing 

sagebrush with 10 to 30 percent sagebrush canopy cover.

 All BLM use authorizations would contain terms and conditions regarding the 

actions needed to meet or progress toward meeting the habitat objectives for 

GRSG.

Pinyon and/or juniper 

expansion

 Remove conifers encroaching into sagebrush habitats, prioritizing occupied 

GRSG habitat.
Executive Summary

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

Table ES-2

Key Components of the Lewistown Field Office Proposed Plan Addressing COT Report Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and its Habitat 

(from COT Report)

Key Component of the Lewistown Field Office Proposed Plan 

Agricultural conversion 

and exurban 

development

 GRSG habitat would be retained in federal management.

ES.7 SUMMARY

Since the release of the Draft RMPA/EIS, the BLM has continued to work closely 

with a broad range of governmental partners, including the United States 

Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, the 

USFWS and US Geological Survey in DOI, Indian tribes, governors, state 

agencies, and county commissioners. Through this cooperation, the BLM has

developed the Proposed Plan that, in accordance with applicable law, achieves 

the long-term conservation of GRSG and its habitat.

Conservation of the GRSG is a large-scale challenge that requires a landscapescale solution that spans 11 western states. The Lewistown Field Office Greater 

Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS achieves consistent, range-wide conservation objectives,

as outlined below. Additionally, the Lewistown Field Office Greater SageGrouse RMPA/EIS aligns with the State of Montana’s priorities and land 

management approaches consistent with conservation of GRSG. 

Minimize additional surface disturbance. The most effective way to 

conserve the GRSG is to protect existing, intact habitat. The BLM aims to 

reduce habitat fragmentation and protect key habitat areas. The Lewistown 

Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS minimizes surface disturbance on 

over 300,000 acres of BLM-administered lands by allocating lands as SFA, 

PHMA, and GHMA with decisions that aim to conserve GRSG habitat.

The implementation of a disturbance cap, lek buffers, and management on BLMadministered lands and federal mineral estate would act in concert to promote 

GRSG conservation and reduce disturbance. The Proposed Plan prioritizes oil 

and gas development outside of GRSG habitat and focuses on a landscape-scale 

approach to conserving GRSG habitat. In the context of the planning area, land 

use allocations in the Proposed Plan would limit or eliminate new surface 

disturbances in PHMA, while minimizing disturbance in GHMA.

Improve habitat condition. While restoring sagebrush habitat can be very 

difficult in the short term, particularly in the most arid areas, it is often possible 

to enhance habitat quality through purposeful management. The Lewistown 

Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS commits to management actions 
Executive Summary

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

necessary to achieve science-based vegetation and GRSG habitat management 

objectives established in the Proposed Plan.

Habitat restoration and vegetation management actions would improve GRSG 

habitat and prioritize restoration to benefit PHMA. The Proposed Plan would 

require the use of native seeds, designing post-restoration management to 

ensure the long-term persistence of restoration, considering changes in climate, 

and monitoring and controlling invasive species.

Reduce threat of rangeland fire to sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat.

Rangeland fire can destroy sagebrush habitat and lead to the conversion of 

previously healthy habitat into nonnative cheatgrass-dominated landscapes. 

While energy development has been identified as the primary threat to the 

GRSG within its eastern range, this area is not immune to the threat of wildfire.

The Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS includes 

requirements (referred to as GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat 

Assessment) 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. Additionally, Secretarial Order 

3336 includes prioritization and allocation of fire resources and the integration 

of emerging science, enhancing existing tools to implement the RMPA and 

improving the BLM’s ability to protect sagebrush-steppe from damaging 

wildfires.
Executive Summary

ES-16 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
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 1

Introduction

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

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

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

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

1.3 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................... 1-5

1.4 Description of the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Area ..................................................... 1-6

1.4.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 1-6

1.5 BLM Planning Process .................................................................................................................. 1-8

1.5.1 Implementation of Land Use Plans ............................................................................ 1-8

1.5.2 Monitoring ..................................................................................................................... 1-10

1.6 Scoping and Identification of Issues ........................................................................................ 1-10

1.6.1 The Scoping Process ................................................................................................... 1-10

1.6.2 Scoping Comments ..................................................................................................... 1-11

1.6.3 Issues Identified ............................................................................................................ 1-12

1.6.4 Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed ...................................................... 1-13

1.6.5 Issues Beyond the Scope of the Plan ....................................................................... 1-15

1.7 Development of Planning Criteria .......................................................................................... 1-16

1.8 Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs ......................................................... 1-19

1.8.1 National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy ................................................ 1-19

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

Management Policies and Procedures ......................................................................... 1-21

1.8.3 Greater Sage‐Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation 

Objectives Final Report .............................................................................................. 1-21

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

the Rangewide Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) ................................................................................................................. 1-22

1.8.5 Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy ........................................ 1-22

1.8.6 National Level Programmatic EISs and Agreements ........................................... 1-22

1.8.7 Relevant Plan Amendments ....................................................................................... 1-23

1.8.8 Off-Highway Vehicle Record of Decision and Proposed Plan 

Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota .... 1-23

1.8.9 County Land Use Plans .............................................................................................. 1-23

1.9 Description of the Public Comment Process and Development of the 

Proposed RMPA/Final EIS ......................................................................................................... 1-24

1.10 Changes Between the Draft RMPA/EIS to the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS .................... 1-24

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
Table of Contents 

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

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

FIGURES (see Appendix A)

1-1 Project Planning Area 
June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 1-1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

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

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

(BLM) to develop and periodically revise or amend its resource management 

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

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

decision for the Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) as “warranted but precluded”

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

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

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

has identified conservation measures in RMPs as the principal regulatory 

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

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

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

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

listing as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA. In response to the 

USFWS findings, the BLM will evaluate the adequacy of its RMPs and will 

address, as necessary, amendments and revisions to RMPs throughout the range 

of the GRSG.

Consistent with its national policy, the BLM is preparing several environmental 

impact statements (EISs), with associated plan amendments. These documents 

will address a range of alternatives focused on specific conservation measures 

across the range of the GRSG. Several on-going RMP revisions will also be 

addressing specific conservation measures. The plan amendments and revisions

will be coordinated under two administrative planning regions across the entire 

range of the GRSG. The Rocky Mountain Region and the Great Basin Region

boundaries are drawn roughly to correspond with the threats identified by the 

USFWS in the 2010 listing decision, along with the Western Association of Fish
1. Introduction (Introduction)

1-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) management zones framework (Stiver et al. 

2006). The management zones reflect ecological and biological issues and 

similarities. In addition, management challenges within management zones are 

similar, and GRSG and their habitats are likely responding similarly to 

environmental factors and management actions. The Rocky Mountain Region 

consists of land use plans in North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, 

and portions of Montana and Utah. The Great Basin Region consists of land use 

plans in California, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, and portions of Utah and Montana.

As identified above, this effort is the result of the March 2010 publication of the 

USFWS 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered. In that document, the 

agency concluded that the GRSG is warranted for listing as a threatened or 

endangered species. The USFWS reviewed the status and threats to the GRSG

in relation to the five listing factors provided in Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. The 

USFWS determined that Factor A, “the present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the habitat or range of the Greater SageGrouse,” and Factor D, “the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms,”

both posed “a significant threat to the Greater Sage-Grouse now and in the 

foreseeable future” (75 Federal Register 13910, March 23, 2010). This plan 

amendment, along with the other plan amendments and revisions referenced

above, propose to address both Listing Factors A and D and proposes to

provide consistency in the management of GRSG habitat.

This plan amendment addresses GRSG habitat within the Lewistown Field Office

(LFO). This habitat has been preliminarily mapped by the BLM Montana State 

Office in coordination with Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP). GRSG

habitat falls into one of the two following categories:

 Priority habitat (PH)—Areas that have been identified as having 

the highest conservation value to maintaining sustainable GRSG

populations. These areas include breeding, late brood-rearing, and 

winter concentration areas

 General habitat (GH)—Areas of seasonal or year-round habitat 

outside of priority habitat

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

PH and GH data to (1) delineate priority habitat management areas (PHMA) and

analyze actions within PHMA to conserve GRSG habitat functionality, or where 

possible, improve habitat functionality; and (2) identify general habitat

management areas (GHMA) and analyze actions within GHMA that provide for 

major life history function (e.g., breeding, migration, or winter survival) in order 

to maintain genetic diversity needed for sustainable GRSG populations.

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

management zones is BLM-administered land; within the LFO, approximately 16 
1. Introduction (Introduction)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 1-3

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

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

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

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

affected by threats. Examples of these threats are wildfire, energy development, 

disease, and infrastructure development, depending on the threats identified for 

each sub-region within the Rocky Mountain and Great Basin regions. The BLM 

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

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

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

On October 27, 2014, the USFWS provided the BLM a memorandum titled 

“Greater Sage-Grouse: Additional Recommendations to Refine Land Use 

Allocations in Highly Important Landscapes” 

(http://www.fws.gov/greatersagegrouse/documents/ESA%20Process/GRSG%20St

rongholds%20memo%20to%20BLM%20and%20USFS%20102714.pdf). The 

memorandum and associated maps provided by the USFWS identify areas that 

represent recognized “strongholds” for GRSG that have been noted and 

referenced as having the highest densities of GRSG and other criteria important 

for the persistence of the species. The USFWS did recognize areas within the 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse planning area as “strongholds” for 

GRSG.

On November 21, 2014 the US Geological Survey (USGS) published 

“Conservation Buffer Distance Estimates for Greater Sage-Grouse—A Review” 

(Manier et. al. 2014). The USGS review provided a compilation and summary of 

published scientific studies that evaluate the influence of anthropogenic activities 

and infrastructure on GRSG populations. The BLM has reviewed this 

information and examined how lek buffer-distances were addressed through 

land use allocations and other management actions in the Lewistown Field 

Office Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA)/EIS. Based on this 

review, in undertaking BLM management actions, and consistent with valid and 

existing rights and applicable law in authorizing third party actions, the BLM 

would apply the lek buffer-distances in the USGS Report “Conservation Buffer 

Distance Estimates for Greater Sage Grouse-A Review (Open File Report 2014-

1239)” in both GHMA and PHMA as detailed in Appendix M, Applying Lek 

Buffer Distances When Approving Actions.

While energy development has been identified as the primary threat to the 

GRSG within its eastern range, this area is not immune to the threat of wildfire.

Within the Rocky Mountain Region, wildfire was identified by the Conservation 

Objectives Team (COT) Final Report (2013) as a present and widespread threat 

in seven of thirteen priority areas of conservation (PACs) and as a present but 

localized threat in the remaining PACs. While fire is a naturally occurring 

disturbance in the sagebrush steppe, the incursion of non-native annual grasses 

is facilitating an increase in mean fire frequency, which can preclude the 
1. Introduction (Introduction)

1-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

opportunity for sagebrush to become re-established. As such, the RMPA

includes requirements (referred to as GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species 

Habitat Assessment in Appendix K) 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. 

Within the Rocky Mountain region, assessments have not yet been completed 

but will be scheduled based on the need to identify and address potential 

threats. Additionally, the Secretary of Interior issued Secretarial Order 3336 on 

January 5, 2015, which establishes the protection, conservation and restoration 

of “the health of the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem and, in particular, greater 

sage-grouse habitat, while maintaining safe and efficient operations as a critical 

fire management priority for the Department.” The Secretarial Order will result 

in a final report of activities to be implemented prior to the 2016 Western fire 

season. This will include prioritization and allocation of fire resources and the 

integration of emerging science, enhancing existing tools to implement the 

RMPA and improve our ability to protect sagebrush-steppe from damaging 

wildfires.

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The BLM is preparing RMPAs and revisions with associated EISs for RMPs 

containing GRSG habitat. This effort responds to the USFWS’s March 2010 

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

regulatory mechanisms was identified as a significant threat in the USFWS 

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

regulatory mechanism for the BLM as conservation measures embedded in 

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

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

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

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

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

threats cross-walk table is included in Section 2.5, BLM Resource Programs for 

Addressing GRSG Threats, to show what threats are being addressed in the 

range of alternatives for this RMPA/EIS.

The purpose for the RMPAs and revisions is to identify and incorporate 

appropriate conservation measures to conserve, enhance and/or restore GRSG 

habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to that habitat.

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

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

considerable beneficial impact on present and future GRSG populations and 

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

the ESA.
1. Introduction (Proposed Action)

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

1.3 PROPOSED ACTION

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

future management direction to maintain or increase GRSG abundance and 

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

which populations depend throughout the LFO portion of WAFWA 

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

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

northeastern Wyoming. Additionally, a small portion of MZ 4 is within the LFO

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

as part of this RMPA/EIS.

The planning area is currently managed under the Judith Resource Area 

Resource Management Plan (BLM 1994) and the Headwaters Resource 

Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision (ROD; 

BLM 1984). There is an existing protest resolution decision affecting lands 

managed within the LFO that does not allow oil and gas leasing of nominated 

parcels that would require a special stipulation to protect important wildlife 

values, which includes PH and GH, or PHMA and GHMA. Existing fluid mineral 

leases within GRSG habitat that expire can be re-nominated 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 will not be addressed in this RMPA/EIS. (The LFO is in the process of 

preparing a RMP revision, which will address oil and gas leasing for the entire LFO

planning area boundary.)

The Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS would amend both 

the Judith Resource Area and Headwaters RMPs. Proposed amendments include 

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

Allowable uses indicate which uses are allowed, restricted, or prohibited and 

may include stipulations. Allowable uses also identify lands where specific uses 

are excluded to protect resource values. Management actions include 

management measures that will guide future and day-to-day activities to 

conserve GRSG and GRSG habitat. In addition, this RMPA would include 

identifying required design features (RDFs). Implementation decisions generally

constitute site-specific on-the-ground actions and are not addressed in the 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS.

The decisions to be made in this document are (1) to delineate PHMA and 

GHMA and (2) to identify the management actions, restrictions, and constraints 

that would be placed on allowable uses on BLM-administered lands to conserve, 

restore, and enhance GRSG habitat.
1. Introduction (Description of the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Area)

1-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

1.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE GREATER SAGE-GROUSE PLANNING AREA

1.4.1 Overview

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

RMPA/EIS is in Chouteau, Fergus, Judith Basin, Meagher, and Petroleum counties

in central Montana. These lands are either private or are administered by the 

BLM; the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service (Forest 

Service); the USFWS; the US Department of Defense; or the State of Montana

(Table 1-1). Figure 1-1, in Appendix A, is a map of the planning area.

The planning area incorporates the PH, GH and additional lands not considered 

GRSG habitat. Though the planning area includes private lands, decisions in this 

Proposed RMPA/Final EIS are made only for BLM-administered federal surface 

and federal minerals. Management direction and actions outlined in this 

Proposed RMPA/Final EIS apply only to these BLM-administered lands in the 

planning area and to federal mineral estate under BLM jurisdiction that may lie 

beneath other surface ownership. Unlike other RMPAs or revisions that are 

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

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

alternatives for Forest Service-managed surface/federal minerals. The Lewis & 

Clark National Forest is a cooperating agency; however, it has had minimal 

involvement in the planning process as the planning area does not include any 

Forest Service land that is considered GRSG habitat.

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

233,219 acres of PH (19 percent of all PH in the planning area) and 112,341 

acres of GH (11 percent of all GH in the planning area). PH and GH were 

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

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

and GH.
1. Introduction (Description of the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Area)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 1-7

Table 1-1

Land Ownership within the Planning Area

Chouteau 

County Fergus County Judith Basin County

Meagher 

County

Petroleum 

County Planning Area

PH

Acres

GH

Acres

PH

Acres

GH

Acres

PH

Acres

GH

Acres

PH

Acres

GH

Acres

PH

Acres

GH

Acres

Planning 

Area 

Acres1

PH Acres GH Acres

NonHabitat 

Acres

Surface Ownership

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

Other 

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

State 

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

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

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

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

Federal Mineral Estate3

All 

Minerals 0 30,202 98,885 79,412 0 6,679 0 11,910 163,178 43,795 88,417 262,063 171,998 448,356

Other 0 3,058 12,310 8,375 0 260 0 4,417 20,561 7,060 85,615 32,871 23,170 29,474

Total 0 34,433 111,195 87,788 0 6,939 0 16,327 183,739 50,855 968,032 294,935 195,168 477,930

Source: BLM 2012a

1

Planning area acres include PH, GH, and non-habitat.

2

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

3These terms are derived primarily from master title plats and indicate what minerals are reserved by the federal government.
1. Introduction (BLM Planning Process)

1-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

1.5 BLM PLANNING PROCESS

FLPMA requires the BLM to use RMPs as tools by which “present and future 

use is projected” (43 United States Code [USC], Section 1701 [a][2]). FLPMA’s 

implementing regulations for planning, 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),

Part 1600, state that land use plans are a preliminary step in the overall process 

of managing BLM-administered lands. The regulations state that the plans are 

“designed to guide and control future management actions and the development 

of subsequent, more detailed and limited scope plans for resources and uses” 

(43 CFR, Part 1601.0-2). Public participation and input are important 

components of land use planning. This EIS analyzes the impacts of the Proposed 

Plan Amendment and four draft alternatives for the RMPA planning area, 

including the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative reflects current 

management (the existing plans). The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

requires analysis of a No Action Alternative.

The BLM uses a nine-step planning process (Diagram 1-1) when developing or 

revising RMPs, as required by 43 CFR, Part 1600, and planning program guidance 

in the BLM Handbook H-1601-1, Land Use Planning Handbook (BLM 2005a). The

planning process is designed to help the BLM identify the uses of BLMadministered lands desired by the public and to consider these uses to the 

extent they are consistent with the laws established by Congress and the 

policies of the executive branch of the federal government.

Once an RMP is approved, the RMP may be changed through an amendment. An 

amendment is initiated by the need to consider monitoring and evaluation 

findings, new data, new or revised policy, a change in circumstances or a 

proposed action that may result in a change in the scope of resource uses or a 

change in the terms, conditions, and decisions of the approved plan. If a decision 

is made to prepare a NEPA document, the amending process would follow the 

same procedure required for preparing and approving the plan, but the focus 

would be limited to that portion of the plan being amended (43 CFR, Part 

1610.5-5).

The planning process is issue driven and is undertaken to resolve management 

issues and problems, as well as to take advantage of management opportunities. 

The BLM uses the public scoping process to identify planning issues to revise or 

modify an existing plan. The scoping process (see Section 1.6.1, The Scoping 

Process) is also used to introduce the public to preliminary planning criteria, 

which set the parameters for conducting the planning process.

1.5.1 Implementation of Land Use Plans

When an approved land use plan or land use plan amendment decision 

document is signed, the land use plan decisions in the plan generally are effective 

immediately and require no additional planning or NEPA analysis. Upon approval 

of the land use plan, subsequent implementation decisions are put into effect by 
1. Introduction (BLM Planning Process)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 1-9

Diagram 1-1

Nine-Step Planning Process

developing activity-level or project-specific implementation plans. An activitylevel plan typically describes multiple projects in detail that will lead to on-theground action. These plans traditionally focused on single resource programs 

(e.g., habitat management plans, allotment management plans (AMPs), and 

recreation management plans). Implementation decisions are made with the 

appropriate level of NEPA analysis along with any procedural and regulatory 

requirements for individual programs.

The BLM develops strategies to facilitate implementation of land use plans. An 

implementation strategy lists prioritized decisions that will help achieve the 

desired outcomes of one or more land use plans and can be implemented given 

existing or anticipated resources. Developing implementation strategies enables 

the BLM to prioritize the preparation of implementation decisions. 

Implementation strategies can include such steps as: (1) developing a framework 

to portray the work; (2) identifying priorities for a given timeframe; (3) 

developing a budget for a given timeframe; (4) and developing an outreach 

strategy to support implementation.

Future proposed actions that need a level of analysis beyond that contained in 

this Proposed RMPA/Final EIS would undergo their own NEPA review before 

they could be approved or implemented. Also, all proposed actions in the future 
1. Introduction (BLM Planning Process)

1-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

must conform to the Judith Resource Area RMP and the Headwaters RMP (as 

amended by this GRSG amendment) and ROD when completed (43 CFR, Part

1601.0-5(b)).

1.5.2 Monitoring

The regulations in 43 CFR, Part 1610.4-9 require that land use plans establish 

intervals and standards for monitoring, based on the sensitivity of the resource 

decisions involved. Land use plan monitoring is the process of tracking the 

implementation of land use planning decisions (implementation monitoring) and 

collecting data/information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of land use 

planning decisions (effectiveness monitoring). The level and intensity of 

monitoring will vary, depending on the sensitivity of the resource or area and 

the scope of the proposed management activity. See Section 2.7.2, Monitoring 

for the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy, and Appendix B, The Greater 

Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework, for more information related to 

monitoring in Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS.

1.6 SCOPING AND IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES

1.6.1 The Scoping Process

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

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

planning process. Scoping is designed to meet the public involvement 

requirements of FLPMA and NEPA. It identifies the affected public and agency 

concerns and defines the relevant issues and alternatives that will be examined 

in detail in the RMPA. A planning issue is defined as a major controversy or 

dispute regarding management or uses on BLM-administered lands that can be 

addressed through a range of alternatives.

A 60-day public scoping period for the purpose of developing this document 

was initiated on December 9, 2011, with the publication in the Federal Register

of a notice of intent to begin planning. The scoping period was extended 

through a notice of extension published February 10, 2012; the period ended on 

March 23, 2012. This cooperative process included soliciting input from 

interested state and local governments, tribal governments, other federal 

agencies and organizations, and individuals to identify the scope of issues to be 

addressed in the RMPA and to assist in the formulation of reasonable 

alternatives.

The scoping process opened dialogue between the BLM and the public about 

managing GRSG and its habitats on BLM-administered lands. The process also 

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

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

public submit nominations for potential Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACECs) for GRSG and their habitat.
1. Introduction (Scoping and Identification of Issues)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 1-11

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

2012. In addition, news releases were used to notify the public regarding the 

scoping period and to invite the public to provide written comments. Public 

comments obtained during the scoping period were used to define the relevant 

issues that would be addressed by a reasonable range of alternatives in the 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS.

The National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Scoping Summary Report (BLM 

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

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

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

eastern Montana.

1.6.2 Scoping Comments

During the public scoping period, the BLM received 272 unique written 

submissions for the Rocky Mountain Region (which includes eastern Montana)

and 585 unique written submissions for the Great Basin Region. Submissions 

resulted in 7,472 unique comments; in addition, 30,397 form letters were 

received.

In the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Scoping Summary Report

(BLM 2012b), the comments that pertain to the LFO are listed in the eastern 

Montana section. Out of the 7,472 unique comments received, only 67 were 

specific to eastern Montana.

Commenter Affiliation

For comments specific to eastern Montana, individual members of the public 

submitted 50 percent of the comments; representatives from the commercial 

sector accounted for eight percent of the commenters and nonprofit or citizen 

groups represented 33 percent. Local government agencies represented eight 

percent of comments; federal and state agencies submitted no comments.

Number of Comments by Process Category

Of the 67 comments received specific to eastern Montana, 52 (85 percent) 

were related to a planning issues that are addressed in the RMPA. These issues

are summarized below (Section 1.6.3, Issues Identified) and are discussed in

Chapter 3, Issue Summary, of the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy 

Scoping Summary Report (BLM 2012b). It should be noted that some comments 

addressed multiple planning issues. In addition, nine comments (15 percent) 

were related to issues that will be addressed in the EISs but do not fall within a 

specific planning issue category. These were general comments on the BLM 

planning process, alternatives development, collaboration, and requirements of 

NEPA and other regulations. The remaining 5 comments were on issues that 

are beyond the scope of the EISs (four comments, 67 percent) and issues that 

will be resolved through national policy or administrative action (two

comments, 33 percent).
1. Introduction (Scoping and Identification of Issues)

1-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

1.6.3 Issues Identified 

Issues to be addressed in the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse 

RMPA/EIS were identified by the public and the agencies during the scoping 

process for the range-wide planning effort. The issues identified in the National 

Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Scoping Summary Report (BLM 2012b) and 

other resource and use issues identified in the BLM Planning Handbook and 

Manual (H-1610-1) were considered in developing the alternatives brought 

forward for analysis. Range-wide issues identified in the National Greater SageGrouse Planning Strategy Scoping Summary Report (BLM 2012b) that are applicable 

for the LFO are included in Table 1-2.

Table 1-2

Range-Wide Planning Issues for the Lewistown Field Office

Issue Planning Issue 

Category Planning Issue

1. Greater Sage-Grouse 

and habitat

How would the BLM use the best available science to designate 

PH, GH, and no-habitat categories and accurately monitor the 

impact of land uses on GRSG?

2. Energy and mineral 

development

How would energy and mineral development, including renewable 

energy, be managed within GRSG habitat, while recognizing valid 

existing rights?

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

improve GRSG habitat while maintaining permitted grazing use?

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

such as sagebrush communities, and minimize or prevent the 

introduction or spread of noxious weeds and invasive species?

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

would increase management efficiency for GRSG and habitat?

6. Social, economic, and 

environmental justice

How could the BLM promote or maintain activities that provide 

social and economic benefit to local communities, while providing 

protection for GRSG habitat?

7. Recreation and travel 

management

How would motorized, nonmotorized, and mechanized travel be 

managed to provide access to federal lands and a variety of 

recreation opportunities, while protecting GRSG habitat?

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

fires, while protecting GRSG habitat?

9. Special management 

areas

What special management areas would the BLM designate to 

benefit the conservation, enhancement, and restoration of GRSG

and habitat?

10. Drought/climate change How would the BLM incorporate the impacts of a changing 

climate on GRSG habitat?
1. Introduction (Scoping and Identification of Issues)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 1-13

Issues Specific to Lewistown Field Office

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

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

economic concerns, vegetation management, recreation and travel management, 

and special management areas. No additional unique comment themes were 

identified outside of the issues identified in the range-wide analysis (Table 1-2).

1.6.4 Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed

National Policy or Administrative Action 

Policy or administrative actions are those that the BLM implements because 

they are standard operating procedure, because federal law requires them, or 

because they are BLM policy. They are, therefore, issues that are eliminated 

from detailed analysis in this planning effort. Administrative actions do not 

require a planning decision to implement (BLM 2005a).

The following issues were determined to be outside the scope of the rangewide planning effort, including the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse 

RMPA/EIS:

 Hunting sage-grouse—Many commenters questioned why GRSG

hunting is allowed if the bird is in need of protection. Hunting is an 

allowed use on BLM-administered lands and is regulated by MFWP; 

these comments therefore relate to state-regulated actions and are 

outside the scope of the RMPA.

 Predator control—Many commenters stated that predator 

control was needed to protect GRSG from predation. The State of 

Montana possesses primary authority and responsibility for 

managing wildlife within the state, while the BLM is responsible for 

managing habitat. Consistent with a memorandum of understanding 

(MOU) between the BLM and the USDA, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service-Wildlife Services, the BLM would continue to 

work with the MFWP and USDA Wildlife Services to meet state 

wildlife population objectives. Predator control is allowed on BLMadministered lands and is regulated by MFWP; these comments 

therefore relate to state-regulated actions and are outside the 

scope of the RMPA. The BLM will continue to work with agencies, 

such as MFWP, to address current predation of GRSG. The BLMadministered lands in the planning area will remain open to predator 

control under state laws. However, for the purpose of this 

document, the indirect effects on GRSG from predators are 

analyzed in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, and 

Chapter 5, Cumulative Effects.

 Warranted but precluded decision—Commenters questioned 

population levels and the need to incorporate range-wide 
1. Introduction (Scoping and Identification of Issues)

1-14 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

conservation measures. Others questioned the effectiveness of ESA

listing as a method of species conservation. These comments relate 

to decisions under the purview of the USFWS and are not

addressed in this RMPA.

 Elimination of livestock grazing—Commenters asked that 

grazing be limited or completely stopped on all National System of 

Public Lands administered by the BLM due to detrimental ecosystem 

effects. Others stated that national grazing policies should be 

reformed as the requirements are too limiting and impact ranchers’

livelihoods. In addition, some commenters state that grazing 

provides habitat enhancements for certain sensitive species.

Decisions about livestock grazing national policies are outside the 

scope of this RMPA and are not made in this planning effort.

However, for the purposes of this document, the removal of 

livestock in all PHMA and GHMA within the planning area (i.e., no 

authorized livestock grazing) is considered in Alternative C. This is 

consistent with Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2012-169, RMP 

Alternative Development for Livestock Grazing (BLM 2012c). Note that 

this document is specific to PH and GH, not an entire planning area.

Additionally, IM MT-2012-042, Guidance to Address Alternative 

Development in Livestock Grazing Permit Renewals, directs the BLM in 

Montana to analyze a no grazing alternative as part of the grazing 

permit renewal process (BLM 2012d).

 Renewable energy policies—Commenters stated concerns 

about renewable energy development, including economic instability 

due to government subsidies and risk of wildlife deaths, specifically 

bats and birds. General policy decisions about renewable energy 

management on BLM-administered lands will be determined by 

national policy and are not addressed in this RMPA.

Range-Wide Issues not Carried Forward in the Lewistown Field Office

Amendment

The following range-wide issues are not being carried forward in the Lewistown 

Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS:

 Fluid mineral leasing—As discussed in Section 1.3, Proposed 

Action, an existing protest resolution decision affecting lands 

managed within the LFO does not allow oil and gas leasing of 

nominated parcels that would require a special stipulation to 

protect important wildlife values, which includes PH and GH. 

Existing fluid mineral leases within GRSG habitat that expire can be 

re-nominated 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. 
1. Introduction (Scoping and Identification of Issues)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 1-15

This RMPA is only considering management actions for GRSG and it 

will not include consideration of oil and gas leasing options for lands 

with other important wildlife resource values. Therefore, oil and gas 

leasing will not be addressed in this RMPA/EIS. (The LFO is in the 

process of preparing a RMP revision, which will address oil and gas 

leasing for the entire LFO planning area boundary.)

 Fish and wildlife—Fish and wildlife management is not a main 

issue that would drive alternatives design for this RMPA; however, 

management activities that impact these resources, such as oil and 

gas and grazing, are addressed in this EIS.

 Water and soil—Soil and water management is not a main issue 

that would drive alternatives design for this RMPA; however, 

management activities that impact these resources, such as oil and 

gas and grazing, are addressed in this EIS.

 Wild horse and burros—As there are no wild horse and burros, 

or wild horse and burro herd management areas in the LFO, this 

issue is not relevant to this RMPA.

1.6.5 Issues Beyond the Scope of the Plan 

Issues beyond the scope of the RMP planning process are those not related to 

decisions that would occur as a result of the planning process. Such issues

include decisions that are not under the jurisdiction of the BLM or that are 

beyond BLM’s capability to resolve as part of the RMPA. Issues identified in this 

category are the following:

 New wilderness or Wilderness Study Area (WSA) proposals

 Elimination of grazing, mineral development, and off-highway vehicle

(OHV) use on all public lands

 Activities and uses beyond the jurisdiction of the BLM

 Compensation of private landowners for conservation efforts and 

off-site mitigation

 Changing existing laws, policies, and regulations

 Availability of funding and personnel for managing programs, and for 

NEPA procedures and costs

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

The purpose and need of the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy is 

limited to making land use planning decisions specific to the conservation of 

GRSG habitats. No decisions related to the management of lands with 

wilderness characteristics will be made as part of this planning effort; therefore, 

management of lands with wilderness characteristics is considered outside the 

scope of this RMPA process. As part of the original FLPMA Section 603-

mandated inventories, inventories were conducted for the LFO beginning in 
1. Introduction (Scoping and Identification of Issues)

1-16 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

1979. The intensive inventories published in the early 1980's resulted in the 

designation of two WSAs that are located outside of this planning area. No 

other inventories have been completed for lands with wilderness characteristics 

since then; however, inventories are currently underway as part of the RMP 

revision process.

National Historic Trails

The purpose and need of the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy is 

limited to making land use planning decisions specific to the conservation of 

GRSG habitats. No decisions related to the management of National 

Scenic/Historic Trails (NSHT) will be made as part of this planning effort; 

therefore, management of NSHT is considered outside the scope of this RMPA 

process. The Nez Perce National Historic Trail is the only NSHT within the 

planning area. The portion of the trail on BLM-administered lands in the planning

area consists of three segments of trail in LFO, totaling two miles of trail route, 

none being a High Potential Route segment. Management of the trail will 

continue to be consistent with the Forest Service’s Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo) 

National Historic Trail Comprehensive Plan (Forest Service 1990) and BLM’s 

Manual direction for administration and management of National Scenic and 

Historic Trails (6250; BLM 2012e/6280; BLM 2012f). As part of the LFO RMP 

revision, a trail corridor will be defined to assist in resource identification and 

management.

1.7 DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNING CRITERIA

Planning criteria are based on appropriate laws, regulations, BLM Manual 

sections, and policy directives. Criteria are also based on public participation 

and coordination with cooperating agencies, other federal agencies, state and 

local governments, and Indian tribes. Planning criteria are the standards, rules, 

and factors used as the parameters to resolve issues and develop alternatives. 

Planning criteria have been developed to guide the development of the 

Proposed Plan Amendment and draft alternatives. The planning criteria to be 

considered in the development of the RMPA are as follows:

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

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

WAFWA’s Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-Grouse and 

Sagebrush Habitats (Connelly et al. 2004), USGS Summary of Science, 

Activities, Programs and Policies that Influence the Rangewide 

Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

(Manier et al 2013), Management Plan and Conservation Strategies 

for Sage-Grouse in Montana (MFWP 2005), and any other 

appropriate resources to identify GRSG habitat requirements and 

best management practices (BMP)s.

 The approved RMPA will be consistent with the BLM’s National 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy.
1. Introduction (Development of Planning Criteria)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 1-17

 The approved RMPA will comply with FLPMA, NEPA, and Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR, Parts 1500-

1508, and DOI regulations at 43 CFR, Part 46, and 43 CFR, Part 

1600; the BLM H-1601-1 Land Use Planning Handbook, “Appendix 

C: Program-Specific and Resource-Specific Decision Guidance 

Requirements” (as amended) for affected resource programs (BLM 

2005a); the 2008 BLM NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1; BLM 2008a); 

and all other applicable BLM policies and guidance.

 The RMPA will be limited to making land use planning decisions 

specific to the conservation of GRSG habitat.

 The BLM will consider allocations and prescriptive standards to 

conserve GRSG habitat, as well as objectives and management 

actions to restore, enhance, and improve GRSG habitat.

 The RMPA will recognize valid existing rights.

 Lands addressed in the RMPA will be BLM-administered lands 

(including surface-estate/split-estate lands) managed by the BLM in 

GRSG habitats. Any decisions in the RMPA will apply only to BLMadministered lands.

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

where appropriate, to determine the desired future condition of 

BLM-administered lands for the conservation of GRSG and their

habitats.

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

conservation measures are as consistent as possible with other 

planning jurisdictions within the planning area boundaries.

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

appropriate management prescriptions that focus on the relative 

values of resources, while contributing to the conservation of the 

GRSG and its habitat.

 The BLM will analyze socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives

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

 The BLM will endeavor to use current scientific information, 

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

coordination to determine appropriate local and regional 

management strategies that will enhance or restore GRSG habitats.

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

habitats will follow existing land health standards. Guidelines for 

livestock grazing and other programs will be applicable to all 

alternatives for BLM-administered lands.
1. Introduction (Development of Planning Criteria)

1-18 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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

areas, and objects important to their cultural and religious heritage 

within GRSG habitats.

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

ensure that it considers provisions of pertinent plans; it will seek to 

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

provide ample opportunities for state, local, and tribal governments 

to comment on the development of the RMPA.

 The BLM will develop vegetation management objectives, including 

objectives for managing noxious weeds and invasive species and

identifying the desired future condition for specific areas, within 

GRSG habitat.

 The RMPA will be based on the principles of adaptive management.

 The RMPA will be developed using an interdisciplinary approach to 

identify alternatives and to analyze resource impacts, including 

cumulative impacts on natural and cultural resources and the social 

and economic environment.

 The most current, approved, BLM corporate spatial data will be 

supported by current metadata and will be used to ascertain GRSG

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

of the Information Quality Act of 2000 (Data Quality Act).

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

to the fullest extent practicable in making management 

determinations on federal lands. State game and fish agencies have 

the responsibility and authority to manage wildlife.

 Analysis of impacts in the plan amendments will address the 

resources and resource programs identified in the National 

Technical Team (NTT) report (A Report on National Greater SageGrouse Conservation Measures; NTT 2011) and alternatives; these

contain specific management measures for conservation of GRSG

habitat.

 Resources and resource programs that do not contain specific 

management direction for GRSG that may be indirectly affected by 

proposed management actions will be identified and discussed only 

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

the proposed management actions.

 Where more restrictive land use allocations or decisions are made 

in the Judith Resource Area RMP and the Headwaters RMP for 

other resources (e.g., cultural and riparian), those more restrictive 

land use allocations or decisions will remain in effect and will not be 

amended by this RMPA.
1. Introduction (Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 1-19

1.8 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER POLICIES, PLANS, AND PROGRAMS

Currently, lands within the planning area are managed according to the Judith 

Resource Area RMP (BLM 1994), as amended, and the Headwaters RMP/EIS

(BLM 1984), as amended. This RMPA is a necessary step in the overall process 

of managing BLM-administered lands, specifically to include new policy for

conservation of GRSG habitat. As a result, this planning process must recognize 

the many ongoing programs, plans, and policies that are being implemented in 

the planning area by other land managers and government agencies. While the 

BLM is not obligated to seek consistency related to the programs, plans, and 

policies, the agency is required to describe the inconsistencies between the 

proposed action and the other plans, policies, and/or controls in the decision 

record for the EIS. The BLM will seek to be consistent with other management 

actions whenever possible. Plans that need to be considered during GRSG

planning are listed below.

The BLM is aware that there are specific state laws and local plans relevant to 

aspects of public land management that are discrete from, and independent of, 

federal law. However, BLM is bound by federal law. As a consequence, there 

may be inconsistencies that cannot be reconciled. The FLPMA and its 

implementing regulations require that BLM's land use plans be consistent with 

officially-approved state and local plans only if those plans are consistent with 

the purposes, policies, and programs of federal laws and regulations applicable 

to public lands. Where officially-approved state and local plans or policies and 

programs conflict with the purposes, policies, and programs of federal law 

applicable to public lands, there will be an inconsistency that cannot be resolved. 

With respect to officially-approved state and local policies and programs (as 

opposed to plans), this consistency provision only applies to the maximum 

extent practical. While county and federal planning processes, under FLPMA, 

are required to as integrated and consistent as practical, the federal agency 

planning process is not bound by or subject to state or county plans, planning 

processes, policies, or planning stipulations. The Lewistown Field Office Greater 

Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS has not identified any inconsistencies with state or local 

plans in the planning area.

1.8.1 National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy 

On December 9, 2011, a Notice of Availability was published in the Federal 

Register to initiate the GRSG Planning Strategy across nine western states, 

including northeast California, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, Utah, and southwest 

Montana in the Great Basin Region and northwest Colorado, Wyoming, 

Montana, South Dakota, and North Dakota in the Rocky Mountain Region (see 

Diagram 1-2). The BLM is the lead agency for this planning effort. On February 

10, 2012, the BLM published a Notice of Correction that changed the names of 

the regions that are coordinating the EISs, extended the scoping period, and 

added 11 Forest Service land management plans to this process. This Lewistown 

Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS is one of 15 separate EISs that are
1. Introduction (Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs)

1-20 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Diagram 1-2

BLM and Forest Service GRSG Planning Strategy Sub-region/EIS Boundaries

currently being conducted to analyze and incorporate specific conservation 

measures across the range of the GRSG, consistent with National BLM policy.

On December 27, 2011, the BLM Washington Office released IM No. 2012-044, 

which directed all of the planning efforts across the GRSG range to consider all 

applicable conservation measures when revising or amending its RMPs in GRSG 

habitat, including the measures developed by the NTT that were presented in 

their December 2011 document—A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures. The BLM’s IM-2012-044 directs all planning efforts 

associated with the national strategy to consider and analyze (as appropriate) 

the conservation measures presented in the NTT report (BLM 2011a).

Along with the applicable measures that were outlined in the NTT report, 

planning efforts associated with this National GRSG Planning Strategy will also 

analyze applicable conservation measures that were submitted to the BLM from

various state governments and from citizens during the public scoping process.
1. Introduction (Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 1-21

It is the goal of the BLM to make a final decision on these plans so that adequate 

regulatory mechanisms are integrated into the land use plans before the USFWS 

makes a listing decision in 2015.

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

Management Policies and Procedures

This IM provides interim conservation policies and procedures to the BLM field 

officials to be applied to ongoing and proposed authorizations and activities that 

affect the GRSG and its habitat (BLM 2012g). This direction ensures that interim 

conservation policies and procedures are implemented when field offices 

authorize or carry out activities on BLM-administered land while the BLM 

develops and decides how to best incorporate long-term conservation measures 

for GRSG into applicable RMPs. This direction promotes sustainable GRSG 

populations and conservation of its habitat while not closing any future options 

in the LFO before the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS 

can be completed.

1.8.3 Greater Sage‐Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation 

Objectives Final Report

In 2012, the Director of the USFWS asked the COT, consisting of state and 

USFWS representatives, to produce recommendations regarding the degree to 

which threats need to be reduced or ameliorated to conserve GRSG so that it 

would no longer be in danger of extinction or likely to become in danger of 

extinction in the foreseeable future. The COT report (USFWS 2013) provides 

objectives based upon the best scientific and commercial data available at the 

time of its release. The BLM planning decisions analyzed in the RMP/EIS are 

intended to ameliorate threats identified in the COT report and to reverse the

trends in habitat condition. The COT report can be viewed online at the 

following address: 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/birds/sagegrouse/COT/COTReport-with-Dear-Interested-Reader-Letter.pdf

The highest level objective in the COT report is identified as meeting the 

objectives of WAFWA’s 2006 GRSG Comprehensive Strategy of “reversing 

negative population trends and achieving a neutral or positive population trend.”

The COT report provides a WAFWA Management Zone and Population Risk 

Assessment. The report identifies localized threats from sagebrush elimination, 

fire, conifer encroachment, weed and annual grass invasion, mining, free-roaming 

wild horses and burros, urbanization, and widespread threats from energy 

development, infrastructure, grazing, and recreation (USFWS 2013, p. 18).

Key areas across the landscape that are considered “necessary to maintain 

redundant, representative, and resilient populations” are identified within the 

COT report. The USFWS in concert with the respective state wildlife 

management agencies identified these key areas as PACs.
1. Introduction (Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs)

1-22 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Within the Lewistown Field Office RMPA planning area, the PACs consist of 

1,207,994 acres. Under the Proposed Plan Amendment, the PACs are 

comprised of 233,219 acres of PHMA managed by the BLM, 0 acres of GHMA 

managed by the BLM, and 0 acres of non-habitat managed by the BLM. 

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

the Rangewide Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus)

To augment this planning document at a biologically meaningful scale for GRSG, 

a Summary of Science, Activities, Programs, and Policies that Influence the Range-Wide 

Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)( also referred 

to as a baseline environmental report (BER) was produced by the USGS for 

BLM (Manier et. al. 2013). The BER is a science support document that provides 

information to put planning units and issues into the context of the larger 

WAFWA Sage-Grouse management zones. The BER examines each threat 

identified in the USFWS’s listing decision published on March 15, 2010. For each 

threat, the BER summarizes the current, scientific understanding of various 

impacts to GRSG populations and habitats. When available, the BER also reports 

patterns, thresholds, indicators, metrics, and measured responses that quantify 

the impacts of each specific threat.

1.8.5 Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy

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.

1.8.6 National Level Programmatic EISs and Agreements

 Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatment on BLM 

Lands in Thirteen Western States (BLM 1991; common to the 

Proposed Plan Amendment and draft alternatives)

 Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 

Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and 

Associated Record of Decision (BLM 2007a)

 Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of Decision

for Designation of Energy Corridors on Bureau of Land ManagementAdministered Lands in the 11 Western States (BLM 2009a)

 Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendments for 

Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (BLM 2008b)
1. Introduction (Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 1-23

 Implementation of a Wind Energy Development Program and Associated 

Land Use Plan Amendments Record of Decision (BLM 2005b)

 National-level MOUs

1.8.7 Relevant Plan Amendments 

 Fire/Fuels Management Plan Environmental Assessment/Plan Amendment 

for Montana and the Dakotas (BLM 2003a)

 Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management for Montana and the Dakotas Record of Decision (BLM 

1997)

1.8.8 Off-Highway Vehicle Record of Decision and Proposed Plan 

Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and Portions of South 

Dakota

In the Montana-Dakotas region, the BLM has limited travel to existing roads and 

trails since the Off-Highway Vehicle Record of Decision and Proposed Plan 

Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota was 

signed in 2003 (BLM 2003b). Therefore, travel in the LFO planning area is 

already managed as limited, and this designation will remain the same among all 

alternatives in the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS. The 

following provides an explanation of the BLM’s travel management process and 

the next steps for travel management once a ROD is signed:

1. Although travel has been limited (e.g., no cross-country travel 

allowed), additional detailed route inventory information still needs 

to be collected in order to complete site-specific travel planning 

once this ROD is signed. This data collection will provide the 

information needed to fully evaluate the impacts of these routes on 

other resource allocations, uses and to the public, in addition to the 

GRSG.

2. Once the inventories are underway and/or completed, the BLM will 

initiate travel and transportation implementation plans. The plans 

will undergo a NEPA analysis that includes further public 

involvement.

3. Through this subsequent NEPA and planning process, the BLM will 

consider road and trail permanent and seasonal closures, as well as 

area closures. The decision to close routes or areas (e.g., around 

leks) to OHV use in the travel and transportation plans would be 

based on the overall goal of protecting, preserving and enhancing 

GRSG and their habitats.

1.8.9 County Land Use Plans

The following county plans have been reviewed for consistency with this 

amendment:
1. Introduction (Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs)

1-24 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

 Fergus County Land Use Policy (Revised February 16, 2011) (Fergus 

County 2011)

 Choteau County Growth Policy (Choteau County 2004)

The other three counties within the planning area, Petroleum, Judith Basin and 

Meagher Counties do not have land use or county growth plans that can be 

considered.

1.9 DESCRIPTION OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE

PROPOSED RMPA/FINAL 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. 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.

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. 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. See Section 6.5.3, Summary of 

Comments Received on the Draft RMPA/EIS, for a detailed description of the 

comments received during the public comment period, as well as the comment 

analysis methodology used.

As a result of public comments, best science, cooperating agency coordination, 

and internal review of the Draft RMPA/EIS, the BLM has developed the 

Proposed Plan Amendment for managing BLM-administered land within the 

Lewistown Field Office sub-region planning area. In developing the Proposed 

Plan Amendment, the BLM made modifications to the Preferred Alternative 

identified in the Draft RMPA/EIS. The Proposed Plan Amendment focuses on 

addressing public comments, while continuing to meet the BLM’s legal and 

regulatory mandates.

1.10 CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT RMPA/EIS TO THE PROPOSED RMPA/FINAL EIS

As a result of public comments, best science, cooperating agency coordination, 

and internal review of the Draft RMPA/EIS, the BLM has developed the 

Proposed RMPA/Final EIS for managing BLM-administered lands in the 

Lewistown Field Office GRSG sub-region. The Proposed RMPA/Final EIS focuses 

on addressing public comments, while continuing to meet the BLM’s legal and 

regulatory mandates. The Proposed Plan Amendment is a variation of the 
1. Introduction (Changes from Draft RMPA to the Proposed RMPA)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 1-25

preferred alternative (D) and is within the range of alternatives analyzed in the 

Draft RMPA/EIS.

Changes included in the Proposed Plan Amendment from the preferred 

alternative (D) in Draft RMPA/EIS are the following:

 Allocations for PHMA and GHMA—Allocations in the Proposed 

Plan Amendment provide more opportunities for uses in GHMA, 

while still maintaining conservation management by establishing 

screening criteria for project/activity review in GRSG habitat.

– Language was added to clarify major and minor right-of-way 

(ROW) actions that were analyzed under Alternative D in 

the Draft RMPA/EIS. PHMA and GHMA would be managed 

as ROW avoidance areas for high voltage transmission lines 

and large pipelines with limited exceptions. PHMA would 

also be managed as a minor ROW avoidance area. GMHA 

would be open to minor ROWs.

– PHMA would be managed as a ROW exclusion area for 

wind and solar energy and GHMA would be managed as a 

ROW avoidance area for wind and solar energy. These 

allocations were analyzed under Alternative B in the Draft 

RMPA/EIS.

– PHMA would be closed to nonenergy leasable minerals.

This allocation was analyzed under Alternative B in the 

Draft RMPA/EIS.

– PHMA would be closed to mineral materials. This allocation 

was analyzed under Alternative B in the Draft RMPA/EIS.

 Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs)—These areas have been identified in 

the Proposed Plan Amendment based on recommendations in the 

October 27, 2014 USFWS memorandum, and are proposed to be 

managed as PHMA with the following additional management: 

recommended for withdrawal and prioritized for management and 

conservation actions including, but not limited to review of livestock 

grazing permits/leases. Alternative B identified recommendation for 

withdrawal and or prioritization for grazing .and analyzed the 

impacts of those decisions. As such, the management of these areas 

as SFAs and the impacts of the associated management decisions 

were addressed in the Draft RMPA/EIS and is qualitatively within the 

spectrum of alternatives analyzed.

BLM will manage these areas, totaling approximately 53,440 acres 

within the LFO sub-region, as SFAs because of the importance of 

these necessary pockets of habitat to the conservation of the 

species range-wide. Specifically, SFAs include characteristics such as 

existing high-quality sagebrush habitat; highest breeding densities; 
1. Introduction (Changes from Draft RMPA to the Proposed RMPA)

1-26 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

have been identified as essential to conservation and persistence of 

the species; represent a preponderance of current federal 

ownership and in some cases are adjacent to protected areas that 

serve to anchor the conservation importance of the landscape. In 

light of the landscape level approach to GRSG conservation 

provided through this planning effort and as defined by the 

characteristics set forth above, as well as additional considerations, 

including potential for impacts from climate change, fire and 

invasives, these areas have been identified as SFAs. See Section 

2.4.6, Alternative D, in the Draft RMPA/EIS for a discussion of

managing at a landscape level and taking into account the 

conservation of the species at a landscape/range-wide scale. As 

stated in Section 2.4.3, Elements Common to Alternatives B, C, 

and D, data would be refined to (1) delineate PH and analyze 

actions within PH to conserve GRSG habitat functionality, or where 

possible, improve habitat functionality; and (2) delineate GH and 

analyze actions within GH that provide for major life history 

function (e.g., breeding, migration, or winter survival). The purpose 

of this would be to maintain genetic diversity needed for sustainable 

GRSG populations.

As noted in the Draft RMPA/EIS, one of the goals/objectives of this 

planning effort is to protect both the habitat and the species (see 

goal in Table 2-4, Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D, in the 

Draft RMPA/EIS). The habitat in the SFAs exhibits areas of highquality sagebrush habitat, areas with highest breeding densities, and 

areas identified as essential to conservation and persistence of the 

species. 

 USGS Buffer Study—Included a management action to incorporate 

the lek buffer-distances identified in the USGS report titled 

“Conservation Buffer Distance Estimates for Greater SageGrouse—A Review” (Manier et. al. 2014) during NEPA analysis at 

the implementation stage. Although the buffer report was not 

available at the time of the Draft RMPA/EIS release, applying these 

buffers was addressed in the Draft RMPA/EIS and is qualitatively 

within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed. Specifically, 

(Alternatives B and C) identified and analyzed allocation restrictions 

such as recommendation for withdrawal, eliminate of grazing, etc. 

Accordingly, the management decision to require lek buffers for 

development within certain habitat types is within the range of 

alternatives analyzed. Alternatives B and C in the Draft RMPA/EIS 

analyzed four-mile buffers around leks when constructing roads.

 Adaptive management—Identification of hard and soft adaptive 

management triggers for population and habitat and identified 

appropriate management responses. Chapter 2 of the Draft 

RMPA/EIS identified that the BLM would further develop the 
1. Introduction (Changes from Draft RMPA to the Proposed RMPA)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 1-27

adaptive management approach by identifying hard and soft triggers 

and responses. All of the adaptive management hard trigger 

responses were analyzed within the range of alternatives. For 

example, if a hard trigger is reached in GHMA, and GHMA would 

be managed as open to saleable minerals in the Proposed Plan

Amendment, the response would be to manage it as closed to 

saleable minerals. This closure was analyzed under Alternative C in 

the Draft RMPA/EIS.

 Monitoring and Disturbance—The monitoring framework was 

further refined in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, and further 

clarification as to how disturbance cap calculations would be 

measured were developed for the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. During 

the public comment period, BLM received comments on how 

monitoring and disturbance cap calculations would occur at 

implementation. The Draft RMPA/EIS outlined the major 

components of the monitoring strategy, as well as provided a table 

portraying a list of anthropogenic disturbances that would count 

against the disturbance cap. A BLM Disturbance and Monitoring 

Sub-team further enhanced the two Appendices (Appendix B, The 

Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework, and Appendix N, 

Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance Caps) in the Final EIS. 

 Mitigation Strategy; Net Conservation Gain—The net conservation 

gain strategy is in response to the overall landscape-scale goal which 

is to enhance, conserve, and restore GRSG and its habitat. All of the 

action alternatives in the Draft RMPA/EIS provided management 

actions to meet the landscape-scale goal (see Table 2-4 in the 

Draft RMPA/EIS).

Changes made to Chapter 3, Affected Environment, in Proposed RMPA/Final 

EIS are the following:

 A discussion of predators and predation was added in Section 

3.4.1, Predation (GRSG). Range-wide and Montana-specific average 

vitality rates for GRSG are provided in Table 3-1, Average Range 

of Vital Rates for GRSG, range-wide and in Montana. Drilling and 

production statistics were updated in Section 3.8.1, Conditions of 

the Planning Area (Fluid Minerals). Air Quality Data was updated in 

Section 3.16.1, Conditions of the Planning Area (Air Resources).

Special status species listing data was updated in Section 3.20.1, 

Conditions of the Planning Area (Special Status Species – Other).

Changes made to Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, in Proposed

RMPA/Final EIS are the following:

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

environment that could occur from implementing the Proposed Plan 
1. Introduction (Changes from Draft RMPA to the Proposed RMPA)

1-28 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Amendment presented in Chapter 2 were incorporated into 

Chapter 4. Analysis shown under the draft alternatives may be 

referenced in the Proposed Plan Amendment analysis with such 

statements as “impacts would be the same as, or similar to, 

Alternative D” or “impacts would be the same as Alternative D, 

except for...,” as applicable.

Changes made to Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts, in Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 

are the following:

 WAFWA Management Zone Cumulative Effects Analysis on 

GRSG—A quantitative cumulative effects analysis for GRSG was 

included in the Final EIS. 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 Final EIS at the WAFWA Management Zone.

Public Comment on Draft RMPA/EIS—Updated the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 

based on public comment received on the Draft RMPA/EIS (see Appendix O, 

Response to Comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan 

Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement).

NEPA requires agencies to prepare a supplement to the draft EIS: 1) the agency 

makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to 

environmental concerns; or 2) if there are significant new circumstances or 

information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed 

action or its impacts. A supplement is not necessary if a newly formulated 

alternative is a minor variation of one of the alternatives is qualitatively within 

the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS.

The Proposed Plan Amendment includes components of the alternatives 

analyzed in the Draft RMPA/EIS. Taken together, these components present a 

suite of management decisions that present a minor variation of alternatives 

identified in the Draft RMPA/EIS and are qualitatively within the spectrum of 

alternatives analyzed.

As such, the BLM has determined that the Proposed Plan Amendment is a 

minor variation and that the impacts of the Proposed Plan Amendment would 

not affect the human environment in a substantial manner or to a significant 

extent not already considered in the EIS. Therefore, this proposed RMPA/FEIS 

does not require a supplement. The impacts disclosed in the Proposed 

RMPA/Final EIS are similar or identical to those described Draft RMP/EIS.
Chapter 2

Proposed Action and Alternatives

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

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

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

2.2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 2-4

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

2.3.1 Components of Alternatives ....................................................................................... 2-5

2.3.2 Purpose of Alternatives Development ..................................................................... 2-5

2.4 Alternatives Development Process for the Lewistown Field Office Greater 

Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment .................................................................................................. 2-6

2.4.1 Developing a Reasonable Range of Alternatives .................................................... 2-6

2.4.2 Resulting Range of Alternatives in Draft RMPA/EIS .............................................. 2-7

2.5 BLM Resource Programs for Addressing GRSG Threats ................................................... 2-7

2.6 Proposed Plan Amendment ...................................................................................................... 2-10

2.6.1 Development of the Proposed Plan Amendment for Greater 

Sage-Grouse Management ......................................................................................... 2-10

2.6.2 Proposed Plan Amendment ....................................................................................... 2-11

2.7 Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and Mitigation ............................................................ 2-31

2.7.1 Adaptive Management Plan........................................................................................ 2-31

2.7.2 Monitoring for the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy ............................. 2-35

2.7.3 Regional Mitigation ...................................................................................................... 2-37

2.8 Draft RMP/EIS Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 2-39

2.8.1 Alternative A (No Action) ......................................................................................... 2-39

2.8.2 Management Common to Action Alternatives .................................................... 2-39

2.8.3 Alternative B ................................................................................................................. 2-40

2.8.4 Alternative C ................................................................................................................ 2-42

2.8.5 Alternative D ................................................................................................................ 2-44

2.9 Summary Comparison of Proposed Plan Amendment and Draft Alternatives ........... 2-45

2.10 Detailed Description of Draft Alternatives .......................................................................... 2-51

2.10.1 How to Read Table 2-5 .............................................................................................. 2-51

2.11 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis .................................................................. 2-73

2.11.1 National Technical Team Conservation Measures Not Applicable to 

Lewistown Field Office ............................................................................................... 2-73

2.11.2 Elimination of Livestock Grazing from BLM Lands .............................................. 2-73

2.12 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences .................................................. 2-75

2.13 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences .................................................. 2-81

TABLES Page 

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
Table of Contents 

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

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

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

FIGURES (see Appendix A)

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
June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-1

CHAPTER 2

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT EIS AND FINAL EIS

As a result of public comments, best science, cooperating agency coordination, 

and internal review of the Draft RMPA/EIS, the BLM has developed the 

Proposed RMPA/Final EIS for managing BLM-administered lands in the LFO

GRSG sub-region. The Proposed RMPA/Final EIS focuses on addressing public 

comments, while continuing to meet the BLM’s legal and regulatory mandates. 

The Proposed Plan Amendment is a variation of the preferred alternative (D)

and is within the range of alternatives analyzed in the Draft RMPA/EIS.

Changes made to the Proposed Plan Amendment from the preferred alternative 

(D) in Draft RMPA/EIS are the following:

 Allocations for PHMA and GHMA—Allocations in the Proposed 

Plan Amendment provide more opportunities for uses in GHMA, 

while still maintaining conservation management by establishing 

screening criteria for project/activity review in GRSG habitat.

– Language was added to clarify major and minor right-of-way 

(ROW) actions that were analyzed under Alternative D in 

the Draft RMPA/EIS. PHMA and GHMA would be managed 

as ROW avoidance areas for high voltage transmission lines 

and large pipelines with limited exceptions. PHMA would 

also be managed as a minor ROW avoidance area. GMHA 

would be open to minor ROWs.

– PHMA would be managed as a ROW exclusion area for 

wind and solar energy and GHMA would be managed as a 

ROW avoidance area for wind and solar energy. These 

allocations were analyzed under Alternative B in the Draft 

RMPA/EIS.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Changes Between the Draft EIS and Final EIS)

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

– PHMA would be closed to nonenergy leasable minerals. 

This allocation was analyzed under Alternative B in the 

Draft RMPA/EIS.

– PHMA would be closed to mineral materials. This allocation 

was analyzed under Alternative B in the Draft RMPA/EIS.

 Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs)— These areas have been identified in 

the Proposed Plan Amendment based on recommendations in the 

October 27, 2014 USFWS memorandum, and are proposed to be

managed as PHMA with the following additional management: 

recommended for withdrawal from the General Mining Act of 1872 

(as amended), subject to valid existing rights, and prioritization of 

land health assessments, compliance inspections, monitoring, and

management and conservation actions associated with livestock 

grazing permits/leases. Alternative B identified recommendation for 

withdrawal and or prioritization for grazing and analyzed the 

impacts of those decisions. As such, the management of these areas 

as SFAs and the impacts of the associated management decisions 

were addressed in the Draft RMPA/EIS and are qualitatively within 

the spectrum of alternatives analyzed.

BLM would manage these areas, totaling approximately 53,440 acres 

within the LFO sub-region, as SFAs because of the importance of 

these to the conservation of the species range-wide. Specifically, 

SFAs include characteristics such as existing high-quality sagebrush 

habitat; highest breeding densities; have been identified as essential

to conservation and persistence of the species; represent a 

preponderance of current federal ownership and in some cases are 

adjacent to protected areas that serve to anchor the conservation 

importance of the landscape. In light of the landscape level approach 

to GRSG conservation provided through this planning effort and as 

defined by the characteristics set forth above, as well as additional 

considerations, including potential for impacts from climate change, 

fire and invasives, these areas have been identified as SFAs. See 

Section 2.4.6, Alternative D, in the Draft RMPA/EIS for a 

discussion of managing at a landscape level and taking into account 

the conservation of the species at a landscape/range-wide scale. As 

stated in Section 2.4.3, Elements Common to Alternatives B, C, 

and D, data would be refined to (1) delineate PH and analyze 

actions within PH to conserve GRSG habitat functionality, or where 

possible, improve habitat functionality; and (2) delineate GH and 

analyze actions within GH that provide for major life history 

function (e.g., breeding, migration, or winter survival). The purpose 

of this would be to maintain genetic diversity needed for sustainable 

GRSG populations.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Changes Between the Draft EIS and Final EIS)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-3

As noted in the Draft RMPA/EIS, one of the goals/objectives of this 

planning effort is to protect both the habitat and the species (see 

goal in Table 2-4 in the Draft RMPA/EIS). The habitat in the SFAs 

exhibits areas of high-quality sagebrush habitat, areas with highest 

breeding densities, and areas identified as essential to conservation 

and persistence of the species. 

 USGS Buffer Study—Included a management action to incorporate 

the lek buffer-distances identified in the USGS report titled 

“Conservation Buffer Distance Estimates for Greater SageGrouse—A Review” (Manier et. al. 2014) during NEPA analysis at 

the implementation stage. Although the buffer report was not 

available at the time of the Draft RMPA/EIS release, applying these 

buffers was addressed in the Draft RMPA/EIS and is qualitatively 

within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed. Specifically, 

(Alternatives B and C) identified and analyzed allocation restrictions 

such as recommendation for withdrawal, eliminate of grazing, etc. 

Accordingly, the management decision to require lek buffers for 

development within certain habitat types is within the range of 

alternatives analyzed. Alternatives B and C in the Draft RMPA/EIS 

analyzed four-mile buffers around leks when constructing roads.

 Adaptive management—Identification of hard and soft adaptive 

management triggers for population and habitat and identified 

appropriate management responses. Chapter 2 of the Draft 

RMPA/EIS identified that the BLM would further develop the 

adaptive management approach by identifying hard and soft triggers 

and responses. All of the adaptive management hard trigger 

responses were analyzed within the range of alternatives. For 

example, if a hard trigger is reached in GHMA, and GHMA would 

be managed as open to saleable minerals in the Proposed Plan 

Amendment, the response would be to manage it as closed to 

saleable minerals. This closure was analyzed under Alternative C in 

the Draft RMPA/EIS.

 Monitoring and Disturbance—The monitoring framework was 

further refined in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, and further 

clarification as to how disturbance cap calculations would be 

measured were developed for the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. During 

the public comment period, BLM received comments on how 

monitoring and disturbance cap calculations would occur at 

implementation. The Draft RMPA/EIS outlined the major 

components of the monitoring strategy, as well as provided a table 

portraying a list of anthropogenic disturbances that would count 

against the disturbance cap. A BLM Disturbance and Monitoring 

Sub-team further enhanced the two Appendices (Appendix B, The 

Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework, and Appendix N, 

Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance Caps) in the Final EIS. 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Changes Between the Draft EIS and Final EIS)

2-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

 Mitigation Strategy; Net Conservation Gain—The net conservation 

gain strategy is in response to the overall landscape-scale goal which 

is to enhance, conserve, and restore GRSG and its habitat. All of the 

action alternatives in the Draft RMPA/EIS provided management 

actions to meet the landscape-scale goal (see Table 2-4 in the 

Draft RMPA/EIS).

2.2 INTRODUCTION

This Proposed RMPA/Final EIS complies with NEPA, which directs the BLM to 

“study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses 

of action in any proposal that involves unresolved conflicts concerning 

alternative uses of available resources...” (NEPA Section 102[2][e]). At the 

heart of the alternative development process is the required development of a 

reasonable range of alternatives. Public and internal (within BLM) scoping (see 

Section 1.6, Scoping and Identification of Issues) identified issues that present 

opportunities for alternative courses of action, while the purpose and need for 

action described in Section 1.2, Purpose and Need, provides sideboards for 

determining “reasonableness.”

This chapter introduces and details the Proposed Plan Amendment. The BLM’s 

Preferred Alternative, identified as Alternative D in the Draft RMPA/EIS, has 

been modified and is now the Proposed Plan Amendment. The Proposed Plan 

Amendment is based on best science, public scoping comments, public 

comments on the Draft RMPA/EIS and internal agency discussion. The 

alternatives that were in the Draft RMPA/EIS are also included in this chapter. 

These include the No Action Alternative, which would continue the existing 

policies of the BLM; three action alternatives; and the alternatives considered 

but eliminated from detailed analysis.

The identification of the Preferred Alternative in the Draft RMPA/EIS did not 

constitute a commitment or decision in principle, and there is no requirement to 

select the Preferred Alternative or any of the separate alternatives presented in 

the Draft RMPA/EIS in the Final RMPA/EIS as the Proposed Plan Amendment. The 

BLM has the discretion to select any of the alternatives as their Preferred 

Alternative in the Draft RMPA/EIS. The BLM also has the discretion to modify the 

Preferred Alternative between the Draft EIS and the Final EIS into the Proposed 

Plan Amendment. The modifications are allowable as long as the actions 

presented in the Proposed Plan Amendment within the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 

were within the range of alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIS. The various parts 

of the separate alternatives that were analyzed in the Draft EIS can be “mixed and 

matched” to develop an alternative—known as the Proposed Plan—in the Final 

EIS, as long as the reasons for doing so are explained (40 CFR, Part 1506.2(b)).

2.3 INTRODUCTION TO ALTERNATIVES

RMP decisions consist of identifying and clearly defining goals and objectives 

(desired outcomes) for resources and resource uses, followed by developing 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Introduction to Alternatives)

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

allowable uses and management actions necessary for achieving the goals and 

objectives. These critical determinations guide future land management actions 

and subsequent site-specific implementation actions to meet multiple use and 

sustained yield mandates while sustaining land health.

2.3.1 Components of Alternatives

Goals are broad statements of desired (RMP-wide and resource- or resourceuse-specific) outcomes and are not quantifiable or measurable. Objectives are 

specific measurable desired conditions or outcomes intended to meet goals. 

Goals and objectives can vary across alternatives, resulting in different allowable 

uses and management actions for some resources and resource uses.

Management actions and allowable uses are designed to achieve objectives. 

Management actions are measures that guide day-to-day and future activities. 

Allowable uses delineate which uses are permitted, restricted, or prohibited, 

and may include stipulations or restrictions. Allowable uses also identify lands 

where specific uses are excluded to protect resource values, or where certain 

lands are open or closed in response to legislative, regulatory, or policy 

requirements. Implementation decisions are site-specific on-the-ground actions 

and are typically not addressed in RMPs.

2.3.2 Purpose of Alternatives Development

Land use planning and NEPA regulations require the BLM to formulate a 

reasonable range of alternatives. Alternative development is guided by established 

planning criteria (as outlined for the BLM at 43 CFR, Part 1610; see Chapter 1).

The NEPA regulations at 40 CFR, Part 1501.2(c) state that Federal agencies 

shall: “Study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended 

courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflict concerning 

alternatives uses of available resources....”

The basic goal of alternatives development is to produce distinct potential 

management scenarios that:

 Address the identified major planning issues;

 Explore opportunities to enhance management of resources and 

resource uses;

 Resolve conflicts among resources and resource uses; and

 Meet the purpose of and need for the RMP or RMPA.

Pursuit of this goal provides the BLM and the public with an appreciation for the 

diverse ways in which conflicts regarding resources and resource uses might be 

resolved, and offers the decision maker a reasonable range of alternatives from 

which to make an informed decision. The components and broad aim of each 

alternative considered for the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse 

RMPA/EIS are discussed below.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Alternatives Development Process for the Lewistown Field Office Greater 

Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment)

2-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

2.4 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FOR THE LEWISTOWN FIELD OFFICE

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE PLAN AMENDMENT

The Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS planning team 

employed the BLM planning process (outlined in Section 1.5, BLM Planning 

Process) to develop a reasonable range of alternatives for the Lewistown Field 

Office greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS. The BLM complied with NEPA and the 

CEQ implementing regulations at 40 CFR, Part 1500 in the development of 

alternatives for this Proposed RMPA/EIS, including seeking public input and 

analyzing reasonable alternatives. Where necessary to meet the planning 

criteria, to address issues and comments from cooperating agencies and the 

public, or to provide a reasonable range of alternatives, the alternatives include 

management options for the planning area that would modify or amend 

decisions made in the applicable RMP. Since this RMPA/EIS is aimed at 

addressing GRSG conservation, many decisions within existing RMPs that do not 

impact GRSG are acceptable and reasonable; in these instances, there is no need 

to develop alternative management prescriptions.

Public input received during the scoping process was considered to identify 

significant issues deserving of detailed study to help identify alternatives. The 

planning team developed planning issues to be addressed in the RMPA/EIS, based 

on broad concerns or controversies related to conditions, trends, needs, and 

existing and potential uses of planning area lands and resources. All comments 

were reviewed to determine whether they identified significant issues or 

unresolved conflicts.

2.4.1 Developing a Reasonable Range of Alternatives

Based on scoping and collaboration efforts, the BLM finalized its planning criteria 

and identified 10 key planning issues to help frame the alternatives development 

process. Following the close of the public scoping period on March 29, 2012, 

the BLM began the alternatives development process. Between May and 

September 2012, the planning team (BLM and cooperating agencies) met to 

develop management goals and to identify objectives and actions to address the 

goals. The various groups met numerous times throughout this period to refine 

their work. As outcomes of this process, the planning team developed one No 

Action Alternative (Alternative A) and three preliminary action alternatives

(Alternatives B-D) that were set forth in the Draft RMPA/EIS.

 The first action alternative (Alternative B) is based on A Report on 

National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures (NTT 2011).

 The second action alternative (Alternative C) is based on a 

proposed alternative submitted by conservation groups.

 The third action alternative (Alternative D) customized the goals, 

objectives, and actions from Alternative B that strives for balance 

among competing interests.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Introduction to Alternatives)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-7

Each of the preliminary action alternatives in the Draft RMPA/EIS was designed 

to:

 Address the 10 planning issues (refer to Section 1.6.3)

 Fulfill the purpose and need for the RMPA (outlined in Section 1.2)

 Meet the multiple use mandate of FLPMA (43 USC, Section 1732).

2.4.2 Resulting Range of Alternatives in Draft RMPA/EIS

The three action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, and D) in the Draft RMPA/EIS 

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 in collaboration 

with other conservation partners. While the goal is the same across all the 

alternatives, each alternative contains a discrete set of objectives and 

management actions constituting a separate RMPA. The goal would be met in 

varying degrees by application of each of the alternatives, with the potential for 

different long-range outcomes and conditions.

The relative emphasis given to particular resources and resource uses differs as 

well, including allowable uses, restoration measures, and specific direction 

pertaining to individual resource programs. When resources or resource uses 

are mandated by law or are not tied to planning issues, there are typically few 

or no distinctions between alternatives.

The meaningful differences among the alternatives are described in Section 2.9, 

Summary Comparison of Proposed Plan Amendment and Draft Alternatives. 

Section 2.10, Detailed Description of Draft Alternatives, also provides a 

complete description of the proposed decisions for each alternative, including 

the project goal and objectives, management actions, and allowable uses for 

individual resource programs. Maps in Appendix A provide a visual 

representation of differences between alternatives. In some instances, varying 

levels of management overlap a single area, or polygon, due to management 

prescriptions from different resource programs. In instances where varying 

levels of management prescriptions overlap a single polygon, the stricter of the 

management prescriptions would apply.

2.5 BLM RESOURCE PROGRAMS FOR ADDRESSING GRSG THREATS

The action alternatives are directed toward responding to USFWS-identified 

issues and threats (from the 2010 warranted but precluded finding and COT 

report) to GRSG and its habitat. The issues and threats USFWS identified do 

not necessarily align with BLM resource program areas, and are often integrated 

into several different agency resource program areas. Table 2-1 provides a 

cross-walk between each of the USFWS listing decision and COT identified 

threats and the BLM resource program areas and shows how those threats 

were addressed in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (BLM Resource Programs for Addressing GRSG Threats)

2-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-1

USFWS Threats to GRSG and Their Habitat and Applicable BLM Resource Program Areas Addressing these Threats

USFWS-Identified Threats to 

GRSG and Its Habitat (2010 

warranted but precluded 

finding)

COT Report-Identified 

Threats to GRSG and Its 

Habitat (2013)

Applicable BLM Resource Program Addressing Threat*

Wildland Fire Fire Fire and Fuels Management

Invasive Species Nonnative, Invasive Plants Species Habitat Restoration/Vegetation Management; Range Management; Fire

and Fuels Management; Lands and Realty

Oil and Gas

For wind energy development, 

see Infrastructure – power 

lines/pipelines, roads (below)

Energy Development Lands and Realty; Fluid Minerals

Prescribed Fire Sagebrush Removal Habitat Restoration/Vegetation Management; Fire and Fuels 

Management

Grazing Grazing Range Management; Special Status Species; Habitat 

Restoration/Vegetation Management; Fire and Fuels Management

See Grazing Management (above) Range Management Structures Range Management

No similar threat identified Free-Roaming Equid Management Not Applicable; Free-Roaming equids do not occur within the planning 

area.

Conifer Encroachment Pinyon and/or Juniper Expansion Fire and Fuels Management; Habitat Restoration/Vegetation 

Management

Agriculture and

Urbanization

Agricultural Conversion and ExUrban Development

Lands and Realty

Hard Rock Mining Mining Lands and Realty; Locatable Minerals; Nonenergy Leasable Minerals;

Salable Minerals

See Infrastructure, Roads Recreation Recreation; Travel and Transportation Management
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (BLM Resource Programs for Addressing GRSG Threats)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-9

Table 2-1

USFWS Threats to GRSG and Their Habitat and Applicable BLM Resource Program Areas Addressing these Threats

USFWS-Identified Threats to 

GRSG and Its Habitat (2010 

warranted but precluded 

finding)

COT Report-Identified 

Threats to GRSG and Its 

Habitat (2013)

Applicable BLM Resource Program Addressing Threat*

Infrastructure

- Power lines/ pipelines

- Roads

- Communication sites

- Railroads

Range improvements (see below)

Infrastructure Lands and Realty; Travel and Transportation Management

Infrastructure – Range 

Improvements

Range Management Structures Range Management

Water Developments No similar threat identified All applicable programs

Climate Change No similar threat identified There is no BLM resource program in the proposed plan addressing this 

threat. 

Weather No similar threat identified There is no BLM resource program in the proposed plan addressing this 

threat.

Predation No similar threat identified There is no BLM resource program in the proposed plan addressing this 

threat (see Chapter 1, Section 1.6.4).

Disease No similar threat identified Range Management (see Section 2.6.2- RM 1.18 and 1.28)

Hunting No similar threat identified There is no BLM resource program in the proposed plan addressing this 

threat.

Contaminants No similar threat identified There is no BLM resource program in the proposed plan addressing this 

threat.

*See Section 2.6.2 and Table 2-5.

Source: USFWS 2010, 2013
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Proposed Plan Amendment)

2-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

2.6 PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT

2.6.1 Development of the Proposed Plan Amendment for Greater SageGrouse Management

In developing the Proposed Plan Amendment, the BLM modified the Preferred 

Alternative identified in the Draft RMPA/EIS. The modifications are based on

public comments received on the Draft RMPA/EIS, internal BLM review, new 

information and best available science, the need for clarification in the plans, and 

ongoing coordination with stakeholders across the range of the GRSG. As a 

result, the Proposed Plan Amendment provides consistent GRSG habitat 

management across the range, prioritizes development outside of GRSG habitat, 

and focuses on a landscape-scale approach to conserving GRSG habitat.

The Proposed Plan Amendment is a variation of the preferred alternative (D) 

and is within the range of alternatives analyzed in the Draft 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 cooperation, the BLM has developed a Proposed Plan Amendment that 

takes into account state, Tribal, and local plans, policies, and strategies in 

accordance with applicable law and contributes to the long-term conservation 

of the GRSG. The BLM also received many substantive public comments on the 

Draft RMPA (see Appendix O), which greatly informed the BLM’s 

development of the Proposed Plan Amendment.

The BLM’s Proposed Plan Amendment considers documents related to

conserving GRSG that have been released since the publication of the Draft 

RMPA/EIS. For example, this Proposed Plan Amendment considers the USFWS’s

October 27, 2014 memorandum Greater Sage-Grouse: Additional Recommendations 

to Refine Land Use Allocations in Highly Important Landscapes (see Section 1.1)

and the USGS’ November 21, 2014 report Conservation Buffer Distance Estimates 

for Greater Sage-Grouse—A Review (Manier et. al. 2014). Based on these 

documents, the BLM is proposing to designate SFAs to further protect highly 

valuable habitat. The agency is proposing to include buffer distances when 

authorizing activities near leks. The BLM also updated the Proposed Plan 

Amendment to reflect new GRSG state conservation strategies, including recent 

state executive orders.

On October 27, 2014, the USFWS provided the BLM a memorandum titled 

“Greater Sage-Grouse: Additional Recommendations to Refine Land Use 

Allocations in Highly Important Landscapes” 

(http://www.fws.gov/greatersagegrouse/documents/ESA%20Process/GRSG%20St

rongholds%20memo%20to%20BLM%20and%20USFS%20102714.pdf). The 

memorandum and associated maps provided by the USFWS identify areas that 

represent recognized “strongholds” for GRSG that have been noted and 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Proposed Plan Amendment)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-11

referenced as having the highest densities of GRSG and other criteria important 

for the persistence of the species. Within these areas, the BLM identified 

Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs) (Figure 2-1, Sagebrush Focal Area - Proposed 

Plan, in Appendix A, Figures), which are PHMA with the following additional 

management:

1. Recommended for withdrawal from the Mining Law of 1872, subject 

to valid existing rights.

2. Prioritized for management and conservation actions in these areas, 

including, but not limited to review of livestock grazing 

permits/leases (see livestock grazing section in Section 2.6.2, 

Proposed Plan Amendment, for additional actions).

The BLM has refined the Proposed Plan Amendment to provide a layered

management approach that offers the highest level of protection for GRSG in 

the most valuable habitat. Land use allocations in the Proposed Plan Amendment

would limit or eliminate new surface disturbance in PHMA, while minimizing 

disturbance in GHMA. 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 and monitoring (see

Section 2.7.2), mitigation approaches (see Section 2.7.3), adaptive 

management triggers and responses (see Section 2.7.1), and lek bufferdistances (see Appendix M) throughout the range. These overlapping and 

reinforcing conservation measures would work in concert to improve GRSG 

habitat condition and provide clarity and consistency on how the BLM would

manage activities in GRSG habitat.

2.6.2 Proposed Plan Amendment

This section lists the Proposed Plan Amendment goal, objectives, and 

management actions developed by the BLM with input from cooperating 

agencies and the public. The alternatives direction/management actions are 

organized by resource programs identified in the NTT report (A Report on 

National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures; NTT 2011).

Special Status Species (SS)

Goal SS-1. Maintain and/or increase GRSG abundance and distribution by conserving, 

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

cooperation with other conservation partners.

Management Objectives

Objective SS-1.1—Protect PHMA from anthropogenic disturbances that would reduce distribution or 

abundance of GRSG.

Objective SS-1.2—Habitat Delineation: Delineate PHMA to encompass the 75% breeding bird density 

map: 233,219 BLM surface acres (19% of total PHMA acres). See Figure 1-1 (Appendix A).
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Proposed Plan Amendment)

2-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Objective SS-1.3—Habitat Delineation: Delineate GHMA to encompass the remainder of the habitat 

presented in the 100% breeding bird density map: 112,341 BLM surface acres (11% of total GHMA

acres). See Figure 1-1 (Appendix A).

Objective SS-1.4— The habitat objectives in Table 2-2 summarize the characteristics that research 

has found represent the seasonal habitat needs for GRSG. The specific seasonal components 

identified in Table 2-2 were adjusted based on local science and monitoring data to define the 

range of characteristics used in this sub-region. Thus, the habitat objectives provide the broad 

vegetative conditions we strive to obtain across the landscape that indicate the seasonal habitats 

used by GRSG These habitat indicators are consistent with the rangeland health indicators used by 

the BLM (see Appendix F, Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

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

Dakotas).

The habitat objectives would be part of the GRSG habitat assessment to be used during land health 

evaluations (see Monitoring Framework, Appendix B). These habitat objectives are not obtainable 

on every acre within the designated GRSG habitat management areas. Therefore, the determination 

on whether the objectives have been met would be based on the specific site's ecological ability to 

meet the desired condition identified in the table.

All BLM use authorizations would contain terms and conditions regarding the actions needed to 

meet or progress toward meeting the habitat objectives. If monitoring data show the habitat 

objectives have not been met nor progress being made towards meeting them, there would be an 

evaluation and a determination made as to the cause. If it is determined that the authorized use is a 

cause, the use would be adjusted by the response specified in the instrument that authorized the 

use.

Table 2-2

Habitat Objectives

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition Reference

Breeding, Nesting and Early Brood Rearing (Seasonal Use Period March 1—June 30) 

Lek Security Proximity of 

trees

Trees or other tall 

structures are not within 

line of sight of lek and 

absent or uncommon 

within 3 kilometers (km)

(1.9 miles) of the lek.

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.

Collision Risks Fences and other 

structures that pose a 

high collision risk are 

absent or mitigated with 

visual markers.

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.

Stevens, B.S. 2011. Impacts of Fences on

Greater Sage-Grouse in Idaho: Collision, 

Mitigation, and Spatial Ecology. M.S. thesis.

University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Proximity of 

sagebrush to 

leks

Adjacent protective 

sagebrush cover within 

100 meters (m; 328 feet 

[ft.]) of an active lek.

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, 2010. 

Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework. U.S. 

Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State 

Office, Boise, Idaho.

Cover Percent of 

seasonal habitat 

meeting desired 

Maintain or increase 

areas meeting 

recommended 

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, 

and C.E. Braun. 2000. “Guidelines to manage 

sage grouse populations and their habitats.”
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Proposed Plan Amendment)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-13

conditions vegetation 

characteristics for 

nesting habitat within 5 

km (3.1 miles) of active 

GRSG leks.

Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):967-985.

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. 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4096476

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.

USDA, NRCS, Montana, Ecological Site 

Descriptions. Accessed January 28, 2014. 

Available at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/

portal/nrcs/detail/mt/technical/

landuse/pasture/?cid=nrcs144p2_057024

Sagebrush cover 10-25% Berkeley, L., J. Smith and M. Szczypinski. 2013. 

Evaluating Sage-Grouse and Habitat Responses 

to Sage-Grouse Friendly Livestock Grazing 

Strategies: 3-yr Preliminary Findings.

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.

Doherty, K.E., D.E. Naugle, 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.

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.

Hagen, C.A., J.W. Connelly, M.A. Schroedeer. 

2007. “A Meta-analysis of Greater Sage-grouse

Centrocercus urophasianus Nesting and Broodrearing Habitats.” Wildlife Biology, 13 (1):42-50.

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.

Sagebrush 

height

40-80 centimeters (cm)

(15.7-31.5 inches) 

individual sagebrush 

available within stand 

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.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Proposed Plan Amendment)

2-14 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

(for nesting) with a 

variety of heights 

(including those <40 cm 

[<15.7 inches]).

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.

Predominant 

sagebrush shape

Spreading 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.

Perennial grass 

cover

≥15% 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.

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.

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.

Perennial grass 

and forb height

≥18 cm (≥7.1 inches) Berkeley, L., J. Smith and M. Szczypinski. 2013. 

Evaluating Sage-Grouse and Habitat Responses 

to Sage-Grouse Friendly Livestock Grazing 

Strategies: 3 Year Preliminary Findings.

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.

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 sagegrouse nest survival.” Wildlife Biology 20 (6):320-

326.

Hagen, C.A., J.W. Connelly, and M.A. 

Schroedeer. 2007. “A Meta-analysis of Greater 

Sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Nesting 

and Brood-rearing Habitats.” Wildlife Biology, 13 

(1):42-50.

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.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Proposed Plan Amendment)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-15

USDA, NRCS, Montana, Ecological Site

Descriptions. Internet website: 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/

portal/nrcs/detail/mt/technical/

landuse/pasture/?cid=nrcs144p2_057024

Perennial forb 

cover

≥10% 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.

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.

Late Brood-Rearing/Summer (Seasonal Use Period July 1—October 31)

Cover Percent of 

seasonal habitat 

meeting desired 

condition

Maintain or increase 

areas meeting 

recommended 

vegetation 

characteristics for brood 

rearing habitat within 5 

km (3.1 miles) of active 

GRSG leks.

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.

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.

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.

USDA, NRCS, Montana, Ecological Site 

Descriptions. Internet website: 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/

portal/nrcs/detail/mt/technical/

landuse/pasture/?cid=nrcs144p2_057024

Sagebrush cover 5-25% 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

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.

Hagen, C. A., J. W. Connelly, and M. A. 

Schroedeer. 2007. “A meta-analysis of greater 

sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting 

and brood-rearing habitats.” Wildlife Biology

13:(1):42-50.

Sant, E. D., G. E. Simonds, R. D. Ramsey, and R. 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Proposed Plan Amendment)

2-16 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

T. Larsen. 2014. “Assessment of sagebrush 

cover using remote sensing at multiple spatial 

and temporal scales.” Ecological Indicators 

43:297-305.

Sagebrush 

height

40-80 cm (15.7-31.5 

inches) individual 

sagebrush available 

within stand (for nesting) 

with a variety of heights 

(including those <40 cm 

[<15.7 inches]).

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.

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.

Perennial grass 

and forb cover

≥25% 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.

Hagen, C. A., J. W. Connelly, and M. A. 

Schroedeer. 2007. “A meta-analysis of greater 

sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting 

and brood-rearing habitats.” Wildlife Biology

13:(1):42-50.

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.

Riparian 

areas/mesic 

meadows

80% or more of PHMA 

in Proper Functioning 

Condition (PFC) or 

higher.

Prichard, D., F. Berg, S. Leonard, M. Manning, 

W. Hagenbuck, R. Krapf, C. Noble. 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.

Schroeder et al. 1999. “Greater Sage-Grouse

(Centrocercus urophasianus).” The Birds of North 

America Online (A. Poole, editor). Cornell 

Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. 

Internet website:

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/

species/425/articles/introduction

USDI, BLM. 1997. Record of Decision for 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines 

for Livestock Grazing Management Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for Montana 

and North and South Dakota. BLM, Montana 

State Office, Billings. August 7, 1997.

Upland and Preferred forbs are Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Proposed Plan Amendment)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-17

riparian 

perennial forb 

availability

common with several 

preferred species 

present.

and C. E. Braun. 2000. “Guidelines to manage 

sage grouse populations and their habitats.” 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):967-985.

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, 2010. 

Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework. U.S. 

Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State 

Office, Boise.

Winter (Seasonal Use Period November 1—February 28)

Cover and 

Food

Percent of 

seasonal habitat 

meeting desired 

conditions

Maintain acres meeting 

recommended 

vegetation 

characteristics for GRSG

winter ranges when 

snow depth exceeds 12 

inches.

Wallestad, R. 1975. Life History and Habitat 

Requirements of Sage Grouse in Central 

Montana. Game Management Division, 

Montana Department of Fish and Game, 

Helena.

Sagebrush cover ≥10% Wallestad, R. 1975. Life History and Habitat 

Requirements of Sage Grouse in Central 

Montana. Game Management Division, 

Montana Department of Fish and Game, 

Helena.

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.

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.

Sagebrush 

height 

≥25cm (≥9.8 inches) 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.

Management Actions

Action SS-1.1—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 Report 2014-1239) in accordance with Appendix M.

Action SS-1.2—Disturbance: If the 3% anthropogenic disturbance cap is exceeded on lands (regardless 

of land ownership) within GRSG 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.) would be permitted by BLM within GRSG 

PHMA in any given BSU until the disturbance has been reduced to less than the cap. (BSU for this 

RMPA is the summary of all the PHMA within a GRSG population as delineated in the COT report.)

If the 3% anthropogenic disturbance cap were exceeded on lands (regardless of land ownership), or if 

anthropogenic disturbance and habitat loss associated with conversion to agricultural tillage or fire 

exceed 5% within a project analysis area in PHMA, then no further discrete anthropogenic 

disturbances (subject to applicable laws and regulations, such as the 1872 Mining Law, as amended, 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Proposed Plan Amendment)

2-18 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

valid existing rights, etc.) would be permitted by BLM within a project analysis area until the 

disturbance has been reduced to less than the cap.

Action SS-1.3—Development Density: Subject to applicable laws and regulations and valid existing 

rights, if the average density of one energy and mining facility per 640 acres (the density cap) is 

exceeded on all lands (regardless of land ownership) in the PHMA within a proposed project analysis 

area, then no further disturbance from energy or mining facilities would be permitted by BLM: (1) 

until disturbance in the proposed project analysis area has been reduced to maintain the limit under 

the cap; or (2) unless the energy or mining facility is co-located into an existing disturbed area.

Action SS-1.4—Disturbance: If the BLM determines that the State of Montana has adopted a GRSG 

Habitat Conservation Program that contains comparable components to those found in the State of 

Wyoming’s Core Area Strategy including an all lands approach for calculating anthropogenic 

disturbances, a clear methodology for measuring the density of operations, and a fully operational 

density and disturbance calculation tool (DDCT), the 3% disturbance cap would be converted to a 

5% cap for all sources of habitat alteration within a project analysis area.

Action SS-1.5—Designate SFAs as shown on Figure 2-1, Sagebrush Focal Area—Proposed Plan

(Appendix A) (53,440 acres). SFAs would be managed as PHMA, with the following additional 

management:

1) Recommended for withdrawal from the General Mining Act of 1872 (as amended), subject 

to valid existing rights. 

2) Prioritized for management and conservation actions in these areas, including, but not 

limited to review of livestock grazing permits/leases (see Range Management (RM) section in 

for additional actions).

Travel and Transportation Management (TM)

Management Actions

Action TM-1.1—BLM-administered lands are designated limited yearlong for OHVs (OHVs are 

restricted to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails). Implement a comprehensive travel and 

transportation management (CTTM) plan to designate roads and trails (when travel management plan 

is complete). Administrative off-road use for BLM personnel and BLM authorized activities would be 

allowed. BLM-implemented CTTM would not apply to private or other state or federal lands within 

the LFO.

Action TM-1.2—On completion of site-specific projects, roads used for commercial or administrative 

access on BLM-administered lands would be reclaimed, unless the route would provide specific 

benefits for public access, would minimize impacts on the resources, and would be considered on a 

case-by-case basis.

Action TM-1.3—The BLM would close or restore unauthorized, user created roads and trails to 

prevent resource damage, including impacts on GRSG.

Action TM-1.4—During route designation and travel planning in PHMA, travel management would 

evaluate the need for permanent or seasonal route or area closures where vehicle use is causing or 

would cause considerable adverse effects on habitat.

Action TM-1.5—Through site-specific planning, the BLM would designate roads, primitive roads, and 

trails for motorized use. Roads, primitive roads, and trails would be inventoried, mapped, and 

analyzed to the degree necessary to evaluate and designate the roads, primitive roads, and trails as 

open, seasonally open, or closed (BLM 2003b). All CTTM planning should be completed within 5 

years of the signing of the ROD. The CTTM planning would be conducted using an interdisciplinary 

team approach to address all resource uses, including administrative, recreation, commercial, and 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Proposed Plan Amendment)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-19

associated modes of travel (motorized, mechanized, and nonmotorized types; BLM—Travel and 

Transportation Handbook [H-8342]).

Action TM-1.6—In PHMA, during site-specific travel and transportation management planning, limit 

route construction to realignment of existing routes if that realignment has a minimal impact on 

GRSG habitat, if it eliminates the need to construct a new road, or if it is necessary for motorist 

safety.

Action TM-1.7—In PHMA, during site-specific travel and transportation management planning, use 

existing routes or realignments, as described above, to access valid existing rights that are not yet 

developed. If valid existing rights cannot be accessed via existing routes, then build any new route to 

the absolute minimum standard necessary.

Action TM-1.8—In PHMA, during site-specific travel and transportation management planning, the 

upgrading of existing routes that would change route category (road, primitive road, or trail) or 

capacity may be allowed when there are minimal impacts on GRSG and GRSG habitat, if it is 

necessary for motorist safety, or if it eliminates the need to construct a new road. All upgrades to 

existing routes would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and would be subject to valid existing 

rights (e.g., existing ROWs or easements).

Action TM-1.9—When travel plans are complete, restore roads, primitive roads and trails in PHMA

that are not designated in travel management plans. This also includes primitive routes/roads that 

were not designated in WSAs that have been selected for protection in previous RMPs.

Action TM-1.10—When reseeding roads, primitive roads, and trails in PHMA, use appropriate seed 

mixes and consider the use of transplanted sagebrush.

Action TM-1.11—In PHMA and GHMA, temporary closures would be considered in accordance with 

43 CFR, subpart 8364 (Closures and Restrictions); 43 CFR, subpart 8351 (Designated National Area); 

43 CFR, subpart 6302 (Use of Wilderness Areas, Prohibited Acts, and Penalties); 43 CFR, subpart 

8341 (Conditions of Use).

Temporary closure or restriction orders under these authorities are enacted at the discretion of the 

authorized officer to resolve management conflicts and protect persons, property, and public lands 

and resources. Where an authorized officer determines that OHVs are causing or would cause 

considerable adverse effects upon soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, 

historical resources, threatened or endangered species, wilderness suitability, other authorized uses, 

or other resources, the affected areas shall be immediately closed to the type(s) of vehicle causing 

the adverse effect until the adverse effects are eliminated and measures implemented to prevent 

recurrence (43 CFR, Part 8341.2). A closure or restriction order should be considered only after 

other management strategies and alternatives have been explored. The duration of temporary 

closure or restriction orders should be limited to 24 months or less; however, certain situations may 

require longer closures and/or iterative temporary closures. This may include closure of routes or 

areas.

Recreation (RE)

Management Actions

Action RE-1.1—Special recreation permits (SRP) in PHMA may be allowed if they are neutral or 

beneficial for GRSG habitat.

Action RE-1.2—In PHMA, do not construct new recreation facilities (e.g., campgrounds, trails, 

trailheads, and staging areas) unless the development would have a net conservation gain to GRSG 

habitat (such as concentrating recreation, diverting use away from important areas, etc.), or unless 

the development is required for visitor health and safety or resource protection.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Proposed Plan Amendment)

2-20 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Lands and Realty (LR)

Rights-of-Way

Management Actions

Action LR-1.1—PHMA and GHMA would be managed as ROW avoidance areas for high voltage 

transmission lines (100 kilovolt [kV] and over) and large pipelines (24 inches in width and over)

(345,560 acres) with limited exceptions, which must be based on an explicit rationale that biological 

impacts on GRSG are being avoided with the exception. See Figure 2-2, Major Rights-of-Way

Avoidance Areas—Proposed Plan (Appendix A).

 PHMA would also be managed as a minor ROW avoidance area (233,219 acres). See 

Figure 2-3, Minor Rights-of-Way Avoidance Areas—Proposed Plan (Appendix A).

 GMHA would be open to minor ROWs (112,341 acres).

 Where new ROWs are required, collocate new ROWs within existing ROWs or where it 

best minimizes impacts on GRSG and GRSG habitat.

 Appropriate RDFs identified within the terms of the authorization to minimize surfacedisturbing and disruptive activities. See Appendix D, Required Design Features for Greater 

Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternative D and Proposed Plan Amendment, for RDFs that may 

be applied based on site-specific project level NEPA analysis.

Action LR-1.2—PHMA would be managed as a ROW exclusion area for wind and solar energy 

(233,219 acres) and GHMA would be managed as a ROW avoidance area for wind and solar energy 

(112,341 acres). See Figure 2-4, Rights-of-Way Wind and Solar Energy—Proposed Plan (Appendix 

A).

Action LR-1.3—When addressing ROW authorizations in PHMA, identify and evaluate opportunities 

to remove, bury, or modify power lines within PHMA. Financial and technical feasibility would be 

evaluated during the environmental analysis process.

Action LR-1.4—Current FLPMA ROWs have a stipulation that when the ROW terminates, the site 

must be remediated and restored by the grant holder to BLM’s satisfaction (43 CFR, Part 2807.19).

Action LR-1.5—Many pre-FLPMA grant authorizations are for water, or electricity, to large areas and 

most of these grants are perpetual or non-expiring. If an amendment is needed the grant would be 

renewed/reauthorized under current authority with additional stipulations and/or mitigation 

requirements. If the pre-FLPMA authorizations are no longer needed, grantees would be required to 

reclaim sites by removing features/fixtures and restoring habitat. Grant authorizations under the 

Mineral Leasing Act would be renewed if they are still being used for their original purposes.

Action LR-1.6—Leases and permits (other than for cabin site leasing), which may be for occupancy, 

and film production, would be considered on a case-by-case basis; however, PHMA would be lease 

and permit avoidance areas. Leases and permits would be allowed in GHMA with appropriate 

stipulations and conservation measures identified within the terms of the authorization to minimize 

surface-disturbing and disruptive activities. Avoidance areas within GHMA may be identified.

Action LR-1.7—The holder of a ROW should be responsible for weed control on disturbed areas 

within the limits of the ROW. The holder should be responsible for invasive weed control for the life 

of the ROW. ROW holder is responsible for weed control and monitoring for three years after 

reclamation has been completed. The holder would be responsible for consultation with the 

authorized officer and/or local authorities for acceptable weed control methods.

Action LR-1.8—No utility corridors designated within the planning area.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Proposed Plan Amendment)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-21

Land Tenure Adjustment

Management Actions

Action LR-1.9—Lands classified as PHMA and GHMA would be retained in federal management unless: 

(1) the agency can demonstrate that disposal of the lands would provide a net conservation gain to 

the GRSG or (2) the agency can demonstrate that the disposal of the lands would have no direct or 

indirect adverse impact on conservation of the GRSG.

Action LR-1.10—Land tenure adjustments in the Headwaters planning area would be subject to 

disposal/acquisition criteria identified (BLM 1984, page 20).

Action LR-1.11—Retain important wildlife habitat (one of the three main criteria for land tenure 

adjustments outlined in the Judith Resource Area RMP) (BLM 1994).

Action LR-1.12—Headwaters RMP land ownership adjustment criteria include nesting/breeding habitat 

for game animals (BLM 1984, page 20).

Action LR-1.13—When offered, PHMA would be a priority in consideration of land acquisitions (refer 

to Appendix H, Land Pattern Review and Land Adjustment). Consider GRSG for all land tenure 

actions.

Recommend Land Withdrawals

Management Actions

Action LR-1.14—Withdrawals from minerals on BLM surface (2,686 acres).

Action LR-1.15—SFAs (53,440 acres) would be recommended for withdrawal from the General 

Mining Act of 1872 (as amended), subject to valid existing rights.

Range Management (RM)

Management Actions

Action RM-1.1—GRSG habitat objectives would be considered when evaluating an allotment’s 

conformance with land health standards (Appendix F) prior to renewing a grazing authorization.

Action RM-1.2—In PHMA and GHMA, conduct land health evaluations and determinations that include 

(at a minimum) indicators and/or measurements of structure/condition/composition of vegetation 

specific to achieving GRSG habitat objectives. Management actions would be developed and 

implemented within one year if land health determinations indicate that an allotment is not meeting 

standards due to current livestock grazing. Appendix B addresses mid-scale monitoring.

Action RM-1.3—Livestock grazing would be allowed on all areas not specifically closed to grazing 

(570,112 acres would be open to grazing and 103,806 animal unit months [AUM] available). See 

Figure 2-5, Areas Open and Closed, Grazing Allotments—Proposed Plan (Appendix A).

Action RM-1.4—In PHMA, cooperate with ranchers and other agencies on integrated ranch planning so 

operations with intermingled land ownerships within BLM allotments can be planned as single units.

Action RM-1.5—The BLM would prioritize (1) the review of grazing permits/leases in particular to 

determine if modification is necessary prior to renewal): and (2) the processing of grazing 

permits/leases in PHMA. In setting workload priorities, precedence would be given to existing 

permits/leases in these areas not meeting Land Health Standards, with focus on those containing 

riparian areas, including wet meadows. The BLM may use other criteria for prioritization to respond 

to urgent natural resource concerns (e.g., fire) and legal obligations. Land health evaluations and 

determinations, and grazing authorization renewals would be completed within the designated 

planning units as prioritized (see Section 3.14.2, Range Management; Conditions on BLMAdministered Lands).
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Proposed Plan Amendment)

2-22 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

The NEPA analysis for renewals and modifications of livestock grazing permits/leases that include 

lands within PHMA would include specific management thresholds, based on GRSG Habitat 

Objectives (Table 2-2), Land Health Standards (43 CFR, Part 4180.2) and ecological site potential, 

and one or more defined responses that would allow the authorizing officer to make adjustments to 

livestock grazing that have already been subjected to NEPA analysis.

Allotments within SFAs, followed by those within PHMA, and focusing on those containing riparian 

areas, including wet meadows, will be prioritized for field checks to help ensure compliance with the 

terms and conditions of the grazing permits. Field checks could include monitoring for actual use, 

utilization, and use supervision.

At the time a permittee or lessee voluntarily relinquishes a grazing 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 or fire breaks.

Ecological site descriptions (ESD), 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 (Appendix F).

Action RM-1.6—Allotments that have the best opportunities for conserving, enhancing, or restoring 

habitat for GRSG would receive high priority for monitoring, evaluation, and management.

Action RM-1.7—In PHMA, conduct land health evaluations and determinations that include (at a 

minimum) indicators and/or measurements of structure/condition/composition of vegetation specific 

to achieving GRSG habitat objectives. Management actions would be developed if land health 

determinations indicate that an allotment is not meeting standards due to current livestock grazing.

Appendix B addresses mid-scale monitoring.

Action RM-1.8—The BLM would monitor grazing permits/leases renewed or modified in accordance 

with the direction contained in this guidance as follows: Allotments within SFAs, followed by those in 

other PHMA, and focusing on those with riparian areas, would be prioritized for monitoring to 

ensure compliance with the terms and conditions in the permits. The BLM would collect, at a 

minimum, the following monitoring data:

 Vegetation Condition

 Actual Use

 Utilization 

 Use Supervision

Implementation Management Action After Land Health Evaluations

Management Actions

Action RM-1.9—In PHMA and GHMA, conduct land health evaluations and determinations that include 

(at a minimum) indicators and/or measurements of structure/condition/composition of vegetation 

specific to achieving GRSG habitat objectives. Management actions would be developed if land health 

determinations indicate that an allotment is not meeting standards due to livestock grazing in 

accordance with BLM grazing regulations 43 CFR, Part 4100. Appendix B addresses mid-scale 

monitoring. Land health evaluations and determinations, and grazing authorization renewals would be 

completed within the designated planning units as prioritized (Section 3.14.2).
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Proposed Plan Amendment)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-23

Action RM-1.10—Conserve, enhance, or restore PHMA based on ecological site descriptions 

(including wetlands and riparian areas). If an effective grazing system that meets GRSG habitat 

objectives is not already in place, analyze at least one allotment-specific alternative within the planning 

unit/permit renewal process that conserves, restores, or enhances PHMA.

Action RM-1.11—In PHMA, manage for vegetation composition and structure consistent with 

ecological site potential within the reference state to achieve GRSG seasonal habitat objectives. 

Natural ecological processes that impede localized site potential and that create a mosaic of habitat 

successional patterns would continue to occur.

Action RM-1.12—In PHMA, implement management actions within or outside of the watershed 

planning/permit renewal process to modify grazing management and to meet seasonal GRSG habitat 

objectives. Consider singly, or in combination, for changes in:

 Season or timing of use

 Numbers of livestock (includes temporary non-use or livestock removal)

 Distribution of livestock use

 Intensity of use

 Type of livestock

Action RM-1.13—During drought periods, prioritize evaluating effects of the drought in PHMA, relative 

to their needs for food and cover. Drought management would continue to be in accordance with 

the Montana/Dakotas drought policy (Appendix I, Drought Policy). Since there is a lag in vegetation 

recovery following drought, post-drought management would be implemented to allow for 

vegetation recovery that meets GRSG needs in PHMA. In accordance with BLM grazing regulation 43 

CFR, Part 4130.3-3, consultation, cooperation, and coordination with owners or lessees having lands 

or managing resources within the area, the affected cooperative state grazing district, and interested 

public would be completed prior to adjusting post-drought livestock management if the grazing 

permit is being modified to make these adjustments. Implementation of adjustments would be 

initiated through documented agreement or by decision of the authorized officer in accordance with 

BLM grazing regulation 43 CFR, Part 4160.

Riparian Areas and Wet Meadows

Management Actions

Action RM-1.14—Riparian-wetland areas would be managed for PFC within the LFO. Within PHMA

and GHMA, manage wet meadows to maintain a component of perennial forbs with diverse species 

richness relative to site potential (e.g., reference state) to facilitate brood rearing. Also conserve or 

enhance these wet meadow complexes.

Action RM-1.15—Riparian-wetland areas currently achieving PFC would be managed for desired future 

condition and the desired plant community, based on ecological site potential. Other values to be 

considered include important wildlife habitat, water quality impaired streams, fisheries, riparian 

woodland forest, and habitat for currently listed threatened, endangered, and sensitive species.

Action RM-1.16—Riparian-wetland areas with altered potential (i.e., those riparian-wetland areas that 

are incapable of reaching potential because of causes that are outside of the control of the BLM) 

would be managed for their capability.

Action RM-1.17—Human-made water developments, such as reservoirs and stock ponds, can develop 

riparian-wetland characteristics. Those that have the capability to support important wildlife values 

(such as GRSG habitats and fisheries) would be managed for such to the extent practical, with 

greater consideration given to the purpose of the development. When constructing or modifying 

water developments in PHMA, use RDFs (Appendix D) to reduce potential impacts from West Nile 

virus.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Proposed Plan Amendment)

2-24 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Action RM-1.18—Within PHMA, reduce hot season grazing on riparian and meadow complexes to 

promote recovery or maintenance of appropriate vegetation and water quality. Use fencing/herding 

techniques or seasonal use or livestock distribution changes to reduce pressure on riparian or wet 

meadow vegetation used by GRSG in summer. Hot season use of riparian and wet meadow 

complexes may be authorized where consistent with overall GRSG habitat objectives and where use 

is currently resulting in vegetative conditions that are in conformance with land health standards.

Action RM-1.19—In PHMA, management emphasis would be placed on riparian and wetland potential 

associated with springs and seeps. Water from other sources would be prioritized to develop grazing 

management infrastructure. New water development for diversion from spring or seeps would be 

authorized only when no other sources are available and where such considerations would be neutral 

or beneficial to GRSG.

Action RM-1.20—Analyze springs, seeps, and associated pipelines during the land health evaluation and 

determination process to determine if modifications are necessary to maintain the continuity of the 

predevelopment riparian area within PHMA. Make modifications, where necessary, in accordance 

with Montana water law, considering impacts on other water uses, when such considerations are 

neutral or beneficial to GRSG.

Treatments to Increase Forage for Livestock/Wild Ungulates

Management Objectives

Objective RM-1.1 —Develop and implement (as budgets and workloads allow) methods for 

prioritizing and restoring sagebrush steppe invaded by nonnative plants.

Management Actions

Action RM-1.21—Evaluate the role of existing seedings that are currently composed of primarily 

introduced perennial grasses in and adjacent to PHMA to determine if they should be restored to 

sagebrush or habitat of higher quality for GRSG. If these seedings are part of a grazing management

plan that is providing value in conserving or enhancing native rangelands in PHMA and other priority 

wildlife habitats, then no restoration would be necessary. Assess the compatibility of these seedings 

for GRSG habitat or as a component of a grazing system during the land health evaluation and 

determination process.

Action RM-1.22—Integrated vegetation management would be used to control, suppress, and 

eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive species, in accordance with Chapter 6, sections II and 

III of BLM Handbook H-1740-2.

Action RM-1.23—Noxious weed control on affected grazing allotments would be implemented 

through Weed Control Cooperative Range Improvement Project Agreements, which requires as a 

term and condition of a grazing authorization that the operator control noxious weeds on the grazing 

allotment(s) they are authorized to use.

Structural Range Improvement and Livestock Management Tools

Management Actions

Action RM-1.24—In PHMA, site and design new structural range improvements and location of 

supplements (salt or protein blocks) to conserve, enhance, or restore said habitat through an 

improved grazing management system relative to GRSG habitat objectives. Structural range 

improvements, in this context, include cattle guards, fences, exclosures, corrals, or other livestock 

handling structures; pipelines, troughs, storage tanks (including movable tanks used in livestock water 

hauling), windmills, ponds/reservoirs, solar panels, and spring developments).
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Proposed Plan Amendment)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-25

Action RM-1.25—Potential for invasive species establishment or increase following construction would 

be considered in the project planning process and monitored and treated post-construction. Projects 

would be designed to the extent practical to reduce or eliminate the establishment of new two-track 

roads and trails that may be created during construction and maintenance.

Action RM-1.26—When developing or modifying water developments in PHMA and GHMA, use 

applicable RDFs (Appendix D) to reduce potential impacts from West Nile virus.

Action RM-1.27—During the land health evaluation and determination and grazing authorization 

renewal process (typically every 10 years), examine existing structural range improvements and 

location of supplements (salt or protein blocks) to ensure they conserve, enhance or restore PHMA. 

 Identify and mark fences in high and moderate risk areas, as identified by the use of “The Fence 

Collision Risk Tool” (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/) within PHMA, 

based on proximity to lek, lek size, and topography (Stevens 2011, Stevens et al. 2013).

 During the allotment evaluation and determination and grazing authorization renewal process, 

examine existing structural range improvements to ensure they conserve, enhance, or restore 

PHMA.

 In PHMA and GHMA, monitor for and treat invasive and noxious weed species associated with 

existing range improvement projects.

Action RM-1.28—In PHMA and GHMA, site-specific requirements for resting or deferring areas from 

livestock grazing following fire would depend on a variety of factors, including resource objectives, 

the type of fuel, time and intensity of burn, accessibility of the burned area to livestock and post-burn 

climactic factors.

Fluid Minerals (FM)

Leased Federal Fluid Mineral Estate

Management Actions

Action FM-1.1—Allow geophysical exploration within PHMA to obtain exploratory information for 

areas outside of and adjacent to PHMA areas. Allow only geophysical operations by helicopter‐

portable drilling methods and in accordance with seasonal timing restrictions and other restrictions 

that may apply (see Appendix D).

Action FM-1.2—During implementation level review and decisions, (e.g., approval of an application for 

permit to drill [APD] or Sundry Notice) and on completion of the environmental record of review 

(43 CFR, Part 3162.5), include appropriate documentation of compliance with NEPA. In this process 

evaluate, among other things:

 Whether the conservation measure is reasonable (43 CFR, Part 3101.1‐2) with the valid 

existing rights; and

 Whether the action is in conformance with the approved RMP.

The following operating constraints would be applied to existing leases as COA in PHMA and 

GHMA. Exceptions may be granted by the authorized officer if an environmental review 

demonstrates that effects could be mitigated to an acceptable level, if habitat for the species is not 

present in the area, or if portions of the area can be occupied without affecting GRSG. Exceptions 

may also be granted where the short-term effects on GRSG within PHMA and GHMA are mitigated 

by the long-term benefits.

Permanent (longer than two months) structures that create movement must be designed or sited to 

minimize impacts on GRSG.

 As reasonable (43 CFR, Part 3101.1‐2), in consideration of valid existing rights, and to 

achieve a net conservation gain, the BLM would require compensatory mitigation when 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Proposed Plan Amendment)

2-26 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

impacts cannot be adequately avoided and minimized, and residual impacts would result in 

habitat loss and degradation. Compensatory mitigation actions would align with the 

recommendations in the Regional Mitigation Strategy (see Section 2.7.3), as appropriate. A 

priority may be given to compensatory mitigation actions in the same PHMA as is being 

impacted, unless a greater benefit can be achieved elsewhere. Compensatory mitigation 

would be considered when no feasible options remain to adequately avoid and minimize 

impacts within and immediately adjacent to the impacted site.

 Make applicable RDFs (Appendix D) mandatory as COAs within PHMA and GHMA. RDFs 

provided in Appendix D would be site-specific restrictions applied to permits to drill as 

COA after the completion of site- specific NEPA analysis. Standard stipulations (see 

Appendix J, Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations) apply to existing leases. Applied RDFs would 

have to be reasonable (43 CFR, Part 3101.1‐2) with the valid existing rights and in 

conformance with the approved Judith and Headwaters RMPs.

Solid Minerals (SM)

Coal

Management Actions

Action SM-1.1—At the time an application for a new coal lease or lease modification is submitted to 

the BLM, the BLM would determine whether the lease application area is "unsuitable" for all or 

certain coal mining methods pursuant to 43 CFR, Part 3461.5. PHMA is essential habitat for 

maintaining GRSG for purposes of the suitability criteria set forth at 43 CFR, Part 3461.5(o)(1).

Locatable Minerals

Management Actions

Action SM-1.2—Recommend SFA (53,440 acres) for withdrawal from the General Mining Act of 1872

(as amended), subject to valid existing rights. See Figure 2-6, Withdrawals and Recommend for 

Withdrawal—Proposed Plan (Appendix A).

Analyze proposed action in Plan of Operations and apply mitigating measures needed to prevent 

unnecessary or undue degradation1.

Action SM-1.3—Locatable minerals exploration and development under the mining laws are not 

authorized under the discretion of the field manager but are reviewed (Notice and Plan of 

Operations) and approved (Plan of Operations) to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation. 

Proposed actions under Plan of Operations would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis in 

coordination with Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MTDEQ), and RDFs apply to 

locatables to the extent consistent with applicable law (Appendix D).

Action SM-1.4—See Figure 2-6 (Appendix A). At a minimum, annual compliance inspections would 

be conducted on each active Notice or Plan of Operations.

 

1Unnecessary 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 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 BLM-administered National Monuments and National Conservation Areas.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Proposed Plan Amendment)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-27

Nonenergy Leasable Minerals 

Management Actions

Action SM-1.5—Close PHMA to nonenergy leasable mineral leasing. This includes not permitting any 

new leases to expand an existing mine. See Figure 2-7, Nonenergy Leasable Minerals—Proposed 

Plan (Appendix A)

Action SM-1.6—For existing nonenergy leasable mineral leases in PHMA, apply all appropriate RDFs 

from Appendix D, whether traditional or solution mining is used to extract resources.

Salable Minerals

Management Actions

Action SM-1.7—PHMA and GHMA are closed to salable minerals disposal. See Figure 2-8, Salable 

Minerals - Proposed Plan (Appendix A).

Action SM-1.8—PHMA are closed to new mineral material sales. However, these areas remain “open” 

to free use permits and the expansion of existing active pits, only if the following criteria are met:

 the activity is within the BSU and project area disturbance cap;

 the activity is subject to the provisions set forth in the mitigation framework (Appendix 

G); and

 all applicable RDFs are applied; and [if applicable] the activity is permissible under the 

specific sub-regional screening criteria.

In GHMA, the BLM would issue permits for salable minerals, where disposal is deemed to be in the 

public interest (Figure 2-8, Appendix A), while providing for reclamation of mined lands and 

preventing unnecessary or undue degradation, and meeting goals and objectives for PHMA, surface 

disturbance limits (applies only to PHMA), mitigation and other measures through the application of 

appropriate RDFs (Appendix D). Salable mineral permits are considered on a case-by-case basis and 

are issued at the discretion of the field manager. If activity under the permit application cannot be

mitigated based on appropriate RDFs and strategies outlined in Section 2.7.3 and Appendix G to 

achieve net conservation gain and prevent unnecessary or undue degradation to GRSG habitat.

Action SM-1.9—In PHMA, restore salable mineral pits no longer in use to meet GRSG habitat 

conservation objectives.

Mineral Split Estate (ME)

Management Actions

Action ME-1.1—Where the federal government owns the surface and the mineral estate is in nonfederal ownership in PHMA and GHMA, apply appropriate surface use COAs, stipulations, and 

mineral RDFs through ROW grants or other surface management instruments, to the maximum

extent permissible under existing authorities, in coordination with the mineral estate owner/lessee

(Appendix D).

Action ME-1.2—Where the federal government owns the mineral estate in PHMA and GHMA, and the 

surface estate is in non-federal ownership, apply the same stipulations, COAs, and/or conservation 

measures and RDFs (Appendix D) applied if the mineral estate is developed on BLM-administered 

lands in that management area, to the maximum extent permissible under existing authorities, and in 

coordination with the landowner.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Proposed Plan Amendment)

2-28 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Fire and Fuels Management (FF)

Fuels Management

Management Objectives

Objective FF-1.1—Design fuel treatments to protect, restore, enhance, or maintain GRSG habitat, 

consistent with vegetation and wildlife habitat objectives.

Management Actions

Action FF-1.1—If prescribed fire is used in GRSG habitat, the NEPA analysis for the Burn Plans would

address:

 why alternative techniques were not selected as a viable options;

 how GRSG goals and objectives would be met by its use;

 how the COT report objectives would be addressed and met; and

 a risk assessment to address how potential threats to GRSG habitat would be minimized.

Prescribed fire as vegetation or fuels treatment should only be considered after the NEPA analysis 

for the Burn Plan has addressed the four bullets outlined above. Prescribed fire could be used to 

meet specific fuels objectives that would protect GRSG habitat in PHMA (e.g., creation of fuel 

breaks that would disrupt the fuel continuity across the landscape in stands where annual invasive 

grasses are a minor component in the understory, burning slash piles from conifer reduction 

treatments, used as a component with other treatment methods to combat annual grasses and 

restore native plant communities).

Prescribed fire in known winter range should only be considered after the NEPA analysis for the 

Burn Plan has addressed the four bullets outlined above. Any prescribed fire in winter habitat would 

need to be designed to strategically reduce wildfire risk around and/or in the winter range and 

designed to protect winter range habitat quality.

Action FF-1.2—Design fuels management projects in PHMA to strategically and effectively reduce 

wildfire threats in the greatest area. This may require fuels treatments implemented in a more linear 

versus block design.

Action FF-1.3—During fuels management project design, consider the utility of using livestock to 

strategically reduce fine fuels and implement grazing management that would accomplish this. Consult 

with an interdisciplinary team of resource specialists, as appropriate, to minimize impacts on native 

perennial grasses.

Action FF-1.4—Follow the most current RDFs for fire and fuels (Appendix D).

Action FF-1.5—If prescribed fire is used, the burn plan would clearly indicate how COT objectives 

would be addressed and met, and why alternative techniques are not applicable. A fire risk 

assessment would be completed for implementation of prescribed fire used to meet the GRSG goals 

and objectives in PHMA (see Appendix K, GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment).

Fire Operations

Management Objectives

Objective FF-1.2—Manage wildfires to minimize loss of sage-brush and protect GRSG habitat.

Management Actions

Action FF-1.6—In PHMA, prioritize suppression, after life and property, to conserve the habitat. See 

Appendix K, which would be completed to help further refine fire management actions once this 

plan is completed.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Proposed Plan Amendment)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-29

Action FF-1.7—In GHMA, prioritize suppression where wildfires threaten PHMA.

Action FF-1.8—Follow the most current RDFs for fire and fuels (Appendix D).

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation 

Management Actions

Action FF-1.9—In PHMA, prioritize native seed allocation for use in GRSG habitat in years when 

preferred native seed is in short supply. This may require reallocating native seed from emergency 

stabilization and rehabilitation (ES&R) projects outside of PHMA to those inside it. Use of native plant 

seeds for ES&R seedings is required, based on availability, adaptation (site potential), and probability 

of success. Where probability of success or native seed availability is low, nonnative seeds may be 

used, as long as they meet GRSG habitat conservation objectives. Reestablishing appropriate 

sagebrush species/subspecies and important understory plants, relative to site potential, should be 

the highest priority for rehabilitation.

Action FF-1.10—In PHMA, design post ES&R management to ensure long-term persistence of seeded 

or pre-burn native plants. This could include changes in current resource management to achieve and 

maintain the desired condition of the restoration effort that benefits GRSG. Modifications to 

livestock grazing would be made in accordance with BLM grazing regulation 43 CFR, Part 4130.3-3 

and after consultation, cooperation and coordination with owners or lessees having lands or 

managing resources within the affected allotment(s), affected cooperative state grazing districts and 

the interested public, if the grazing permit is being modified to make these adjustments. Temporary 

or long-term adjustments in post-restoration livestock use would be implemented by documented 

agreement or by the decision of the authorized officer in accordance with BLM grazing regulation 43 

CFR, Part 4160.

Action FF-1.11—In PHMA, consider potential changes in climate when proposing restoration seeding 

of native plants. Consider collection from the warmer component of the species’ current range when 

selecting native seed.

Action FF-1.12—Develop an appropriate seed mix for the location, based on current climatic data as 

well as soils/ecological site descriptions.

Action FF-1.13—Appropriate pre and post treatment monitoring would be established to document 

impacts and success of the treatments.

Action FF-1.14—Requirements for resting or deferring areas from livestock grazing following fire 

would depend on a variety of factors including resource objectives, the type of fuel, time and intensity 

of burn, accessibility of the burned area to livestock, and post-burn climatic factors. Compliance with 

land health standards (Appendix F).

Habitat Restoration/Vegetation Management (HV)

Management Objectives

Objective HV-1.1—In all SFAs and PHMA, the desired condition is to maintain a minimum of 70% of 

lands capable of producing sagebrush with 10 to 30% sagebrush canopy cover. The attributes 

necessary to sustain these habitats are described in Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health (BLM 

Tech Ref 1734-6).

Objective HV-1.2—Within the analysis area, vegetation treatments may continue to be used to meet 

or support resource management objectives, given special consideration for the protection and 

maintenance of sagebrush ecosystems is incorporated into the design and implementation of 

treatments. The BLM would continue to cooperate with the MFWP to determine wildlife habitat 

needs.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Proposed Plan Amendment)

2-30 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Management Actions

Action HV-1.1—In PHMA, prioritize implementation of restoration projects based on environmental 

variables that improve chances for project success in areas most likely to benefit GRSG.

Action HV-1.2—In PHMA and GHMA, prioritize restoration in seasonal habitats that are thought to be 

limiting GRSG distribution or abundance.

Action HV-1.3—In PHMA and GHMA, consideration for other threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species would be evaluated in addition to GRSG when prioritizing restoration projects.

Action HV-1.4—Manage for suitable GRSG habitat within PHMA.

Action HV-1.5—In PHMA, require use of native seeds for restoration based on availability, adaptation 

(ecological site potential), and probability of success. Nonnative species would be considered when 

determined to be necessary for emergency stabilization and where required to facilitate natural 

succession of desired native vegetative communities.

Action HV-1.6—In PHMA, design post-restoration management to ensure long-term persistence. This 

could include changes in current resource management to achieve and maintain the desired condition 

of the restoration that benefits GRSG. Modifications to livestock grazing would be made in 

accordance with BLM grazing regulation 43 CFR, Part 4130.3-3, and after consultation, cooperation, 

and coordination with owners or lessees having lands or managing resources within the affected 

allotment(s), affected cooperative state grazing districts and the interested public, if the grazing 

permit is being modified to make these adjustments. Temporary or long-term adjustments in postrestoration livestock use would be implemented by documented agreement or by the decision of the 

authorized officer in accordance with BLM grazing regulation 43 CFR, Part 4160.

Action HV-1.7—In PHMA, consider potential changes in climate when proposing restoration seeding of 

native plants. Consider collection from the warmer component of the species’ current range when 

selecting native seed.

Action HV-1.8—Choose appropriate seed mix for the location.

Action HV-1.9—In PHMA, restore native (or desirable) plants and create landscape patterns that most 

benefit GRSG. Consideration for other threatened, endangered, or sensitive species would be 

evaluated, in addition to GRSG, when creating landscape habitat patterns.

Action HV-1.10—Make reestablishment of suitable GRSG habitat a high priority for restoration. Other 

restoration efforts within the field office may take precedence over sagebrush habitat projects, based 

on future threatened and endangered species listing decisions, funding sources and requirements, 

access to sites, landowner, and other agency cooperation, potential project success, as well as others. 

Decisions regarding restoration of habitats within the field office would remain at the discretion of 

the authorized officer.

Action HV-1.11—In PHMA with higher fire frequency, where sagebrush seed is required for GRSG 

habitat restoration, consider establishing seed harvest areas that are managed for seed production 

that receive a priority for protection from outside disturbances.

Action HV-1.12—Remove conifers encroaching into sagebrush habitats. Prioritize treatments closest 

to occupied GRSG habitats and near occupied leks, and where juniper encroachment is phase 1 or 

phase 2. Use of site-specific analysis and principles like those included in the FIAT report (Chambers 

et. al., 2014) and other ongoing modeling efforts to address conifer encroachment would help refine 

the location for specific priority areas to be treated.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Proposed Plan Amendment)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-31

Required Design Features

RDFs are required for certain activities in all 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) 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 

for the project or 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.

The RDFs for the Proposed Plan Amendment are presented in Appendix D.

2.7 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT, MONITORING, AND MITIGATION

2.7.1 Adaptive Management Plan

Adaptive management is a decision process that promotes flexible resource 

management decision making that can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as 

outcomes from management actions and other events become better 

understood. Careful monitoring of these outcomes both advances scientific 

understanding and helps with adjusting resource management directions as part 

of an iterative learning process. Adaptive management also recognizes the 

importance of natural variability in contributing to ecological resilience and 

productivity. It is not a “trial and error process, but rather emphasizes learning 

while doing. Adaptive management does not represent an end in itself, but 

rather a means to more effective decisions and enhanced benefits.

In relation to the BLM’s National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy, 

adaptive management would help identify if GRSG conservation measures 

presented in this EIS contain the needed level of certainty for effectiveness. 

Principles of adaptive management are incorporated into the conservation 

measures in the Proposed Plan Amendment to ameliorate threats to a species, 

thereby increasing the likelihood that the conservation measures and plan would

be effective in reducing threats to that species. The following provides the 

BLM’s adaptive management strategy for the Lewistown Field Office Greater 

Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS. The adaptive management plan described below would 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and Mitigation)

2-32 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

only apply to the Proposed Plan Amendment, and not the alternatives 

(Alternatives A—D) presented in the Draft EIS.

If the BLM finds that the State of Montana is implementing a GRSG Habitat 

Conservation Program that is effectively conserving the GRSG, the BLM will 

review the management goals and objectives to determine if they are being met 

and whether amendment of the BLM plan is appropriate to achieve consistent 

and effective conservation and GRSG management across all lands regardless of 

ownership.

In making amendments to this plan, the BLM will coordinate with the USFWS as 

BLM continues to meet its objective of conserving, enhancing and restoring 

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

Adaptive Management and Monitoring

This Proposed RMPA/Final EIS contains a monitoring framework plan 

(Appendix B) that includes an effectiveness monitoring component. The BLM

intends to use the data collected from the effectiveness monitoring to identify 

any changes in habitat conditions related to the goals and objectives of the plan 

and other range-wide conservation strategies (DOI 2004; Stiver et al. 2006; 

USFWS 2013). The information collected through the Monitoring Framework 

Plan outlined in Appendix B would be used by the BLM to determine when 

adaptive management hard and soft triggers (discussed below) are met. The 

GRSG adaptive management plan provides regulatory assurance that a means of 

addressing and responding to unintended negative impacts to GRSG and its 

habitat before consequences become severe or irreversible.

The Montana Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Program established by the 

Montana Governor’s Executive Order # 10-2014, states under the General 

Provisions heading, item # 22 “Montana Sage Grouse Oversight Team (MSGOT) 

shall regularly reevaluate the effectiveness of the Conservation Strategy, at a 

minimum annually, as new science, information and data emerge regarding the 

habitats and behavior of sage grouse, and shall recommend such changes as are 

appropriate.”

Adaptive Management Triggers

Adaptive management triggers are essential for identifying when potential

management changes are needed in order to continue meeting GRSG

conservation objectives. The BLM would use soft and hard triggers.

Soft Triggers

Soft triggers are indicators that management or specific activities may not be

achieving the intended results of conservation action. The soft trigger is any 

negative deviation from normal trends in habitat or population in any given year,

or if observed across two to three consecutive years. Metrics include, but are

not limited to, annual lek counts, wing counts, aerial surveys, habitat monitoring,

and DDCT evaluations. BLM field offices, local MFWP offices, and GRSG
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and Mitigation)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-33

working groups would evaluate the metrics. The purpose of these strategies is

to address localized GRSG population and habitat changes by providing the

framework in which management would change if monitoring identifies negative

population and habitat anomalies.

Each major project (EIS level) would include adaptive management strategies in 

support of the population management objectives for GRSG set by the State of

Montana, and would be consistent with this GRSG Adaptive Management Plan.

These adaptive management strategies would be developed in partnership with

the State of Montana, project proponents, partners, and stakeholders,

incorporating the best available science.

Soft Triggers Response

Soft triggers require immediate monitoring and surveillance to determine causal

factors and may require curtailment of activities in the short or long term, as

allowed by law. The project level adaptive management strategies would identify

appropriate responses where the project’s activities are identified as the causal

factor. The BLM and the adaptive management group would implement an 

appropriate response strategy to address causal factors not addressed by 

specific project adaptive management strategies, not attributable to a specific 

project, or to make adjustments at a larger regional or state-wide level.

Hard Triggers

Hard triggers represent a threshold indicating that immediate action is necessary 

to stop a severe deviation from GRSG objectives as set forth in the BLM plans.

Hard triggers are focused on three metrics: 1) number of active leks, 2) acres of

available habitat, and 3) population trends based on annual lek counts.

Within the context of normal population variables, hard triggers shall be

determined to take effect when two of the three metrics exceeds 60 percent of

normal variability for the BSU in a single year, or when any of the three metrics

exceeds 40 percent of normal variability for a three-year time period within a

five-year range of analysis. A minimum of three years is used to determine

trends, with a five- year period preferred to allow determination of three actual

time periods (Y1-2-3, Y2-3-4, Y3-4-5). Baseline population estimates are 

established by pre-disturbance surveys, reference surveys and account for 

regional and statewide trends in population levels. Population count data in 

Montana are maintained by MFWP. Estimates of population are determined 

based upon survey protocols determined by MFWP, and are implemented 

consistently throughout the state. Population counts are tracked for individual 

leks and are then summarized for PHMA.

Hard Trigger Response

Hard triggers represent a threshold indicating that immediate action is 

necessary to stop a severe deviation from GRSG conservation objectives set 

forth in the BLM plans. As such, the Proposed Plan Amendment includes a 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and Mitigation)

2-34 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

“hard-wired” plan-level response; that is, it provides that, upon reaching the 

trigger, a more restrictive alternative, or an appropriate component of a more 

restrictive alternative analyzed in the EIS would be implemented without further 

action by the BLM. Specific “hard-wired” changes in management are identified 

in Table 2-3. In addition to the specific changes identified in Table 2-3 the 

BLM would review available and pertinent data, in coordination with GRSG 

biologists and managers from multiple agencies including the USFWS, National 

Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), and the State of Montana, to 

determine the causal factor(s) and implement a corrective strategy. The 

corrective strategy would include the changes identified in Table 2-3, and could 

also include the need to amend or revise the RMP to address the situation and 

modify management accordingly. When a hard trigger is hit in a BSU, including 

those that cross state lines, the WAFWA Management Zone Greater SageGrouse Conservation Team would convene to determine the causal factor, put 

project level responses in place, as appropriate and discuss further appropriate 

actions to be applied. (BSU for this Proposed RMPA/Final EIS is the total of all 

the PHMA within a GRSG population as delineated in the COT report.)

Adoption of any further actions at the plan level may require initiating a plan 

amendment process.

Table 2-3

Specific Management Responses

Program Adaptive Management Response

GRSG Management Areas within and adjacent to PHMA where a hard trigger has been 

reached would be the top priority for regional mitigation, habitat 

restoration and fuels reduction treatments.

Vegetation Management PHMA would be the top priority for regional mitigation, habitat 

restoration and fuels reduction treatments.

Wildland Fire Management Reassess GRSG habitat needs to determine if priorities for at risk 

habitats, fuels management areas, preparedness, suppression and 

restoration have changed.

Livestock Grazing For areas not achieving the GRSG habitat objectives due to grazing, 

apply adjustments to livestock grazing to achieve objectives.

Rights of Way – Existing 

Corridors

Retain the corridors as mapped, but limit the size of new lines within 

the corridors to same as existing structures, or not larger than 100 

kilovolt (kV).

Wind Energy Development No change from Proposed Plan Amendment.

Industrial Solar No change from Proposed Plan Amendment.

Comprehensive Travel and 

Transportation Management

If travel management planning has not been completed within GRSG 

habitat, PHMA areas where the hard trigger was met would be the 

highest priority for future travel management planning efforts.

If travel management has been completed within GRSG habitat in the 

PHMA where the hard trigger was met, re-evaluate designated routes to 

determine their effects on GRSG. If routes are found to be causing 

population-level impacts, revise their designation status to reduce the 

effect.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and Mitigation)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-35

Table 2-3

Specific Management Responses

Program Adaptive Management Response

Fluid Minerals No change from Proposed Plan Amendment.

Locatable Minerals No change from Proposed Plan Amendment.

Salable Minerals No change from Proposed Plan Amendment.

Nonenergy Leasable Minerals No change from Proposed Plan Amendment.

In addition to implementing the hard wired plan-level response, in the event that 

new scientific information becomes available demonstrating that the hard wired 

response would be insufficient to stop a severe deviation from GRSG

conservation objectives set forth in the BLM plans, the BLM would immediately 

implement a formal directive to protect GRSG and its habitat and to ensure that 

conservation options are not foreclosed. To the extent that it is supported 

scientifically, this formal directive would be drawn from the range of alternatives 

analyzed in the RMPA.

2.7.2 Monitoring for the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy

The BLM’s planning regulations, specifically 43 CFR, Part 1610.4-9, require that 

land use plans establish intervals and standards for monitoring based on the 

sensitivity of the resource decisions. Land use plan monitoring is the process of 

tracking the implementation of land use plan decisions (implementation 

monitoring) and collecting data/information necessary to evaluate the 

effectiveness of land use plan decisions (effectiveness monitoring). For GRSG, 

these types of monitoring are also described in the criteria found in the Policy 

for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (50 CFR 

Vol. 68, No. 60). One of the criteria evaluates whether provisions for 

monitoring and reporting progress on implementation (based on compliance 

with the implementation schedule) and effectiveness (based on evaluation of 

quantifiable parameters) of the conservation effort are provided.

A guiding principle in the BLM National Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy 

(DOI 2004) is that “the Bureau is committed to sage-grouse and sagebrush 

conservation and will continue to adjust and adapt our National Sage-Grouse 

Strategy as new information, science, and monitoring results evaluate 

effectiveness over time.” In keeping with the WAFWA Sage-Grouse 

Comprehensive Conservation Strategy (Stiver et al. 2006) and the Greater SageGrouse Conservation Objectives: Final Report (USFWS 2013), the BLM would

monitor implementation and effectiveness of conservation measures in GRSG 

habitats.

On March 5, 2010, USFWS’ 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater 

Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered were 

posted as a Federal Register notice (75 Federal Register 13910-14014, March 

23, 2010). This notice stated:
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and Mitigation)

2-36 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

“...the information collected by BLM could not be used to make broad 

generalizations about the status of rangelands and management actions. 

There was a lack of consistency across the range in how questions were 

interpreted and answered for the data call, which limited our ability to 

use the results to understand habitat conditions for sage-grouse on BLM 

lands.”

Standardization of monitoring methods and implementation of a defensible 

monitoring approach (within and across jurisdictions) would resolve this 

situation. The BLM and other conservation partners use the resulting 

information to guide implementation of conservation activities.

Monitoring strategies for GRSG habitat and populations must be collaborative, 

as habitat occurs across jurisdictional boundaries (52 percent on BLMadministered lands, 31 percent on private lands, 8 percent on National Forest 

System lands, 5 percent on state lands, 4 percent on tribal and other federal 

lands) (75 Federal Register 13910, March 23, 2010), and state fish and wildlife 

agencies have primary responsibility for population level wildlife management, 

including population monitoring. Therefore, population efforts would continue 

to be conducted in partnership with state fish and wildlife agencies. The BLM 

has finalized a monitoring framework, which can be found in Appendix B. This 

framework describes the process that the BLM would use to monitor 

implementation and effectiveness of RMP decisions. The Monitoring Framework 

in Appendix B would apply to the Proposed Plan Amendment and draft 

Alternatives B, C and D presented in the Draft EIS. The monitoring framework 

includes methods, data standards, and intervals of monitoring at broad and mid 

scales; consistent indicators to measure and metric descriptions for each of the 

scales; analysis and reporting methods; and the incorporation of monitoring 

results into adaptive management. The need for fine-scale and site-specific 

habitat monitoring may vary by area depending on existing conditions, habitat 

variability, threats, and land health. Indicators at the fine and site scales would be 

consistent with the Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF); however, the values 

for the indicators could be adjusted for regional conditions.

More specifically, the framework discusses how the BLM would monitor and 

track implementation and effectiveness of planning decisions (e.g., tracking of 

waivers, modifications, and site-level actions). The BLM would monitor the 

effectiveness of RMP decisions in meeting management and conservation 

objectives. Effectiveness monitoring would include monitoring disturbance in 

habitats, as well as landscape habitat attributes. To monitor habitats, the BLM 

would measure and track attributes of occupied habitat, PHMA, and GHMA at 

the broad scale, and attributes of habitat availability, patch size, connectivity, 

linkage/connectivity habitat, edge effect, and anthropogenic disturbances at the 

mid-scale. Disturbance monitoring would measure and track changes in the 

amount of sagebrush in the landscape and changes in the anthropogenic 

footprint, including change energy development density. The framework also 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and Mitigation)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-37

includes methodology for analysis and reporting for field offices, states, and BLM 

districts, including geospatial and tabular data for disturbance mapping (e.g., 

geospatial footprint of new permitted disturbances) and management actions 

effectiveness.

2.7.3 Regional Mitigation

Consistent with the proposed plan’s goal outlined in Section 2.6.2, the intent 

of the Proposed Plan Amendment is to provide a net conservation gain to the 

species. 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, the BLM would 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. This is also consistent with 

BLM Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management, Section .02B, which 

states “to initiate proactive conservation measures that reduce or eliminate 

threats to Bureau sensitive species to minimize the likelihood of the need for 

listing of these species under the ESA. Actions which result in habitat loss and 

degradation include those identified as threats which contribute to GRSG 

disturbance as identified by the USFWS in its 2010 listing decision (75 FR 13910) 

and shown in Table B-2 in Appendix B.

Mitigation Standards

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, the BLM would 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. Mitigation would follow the regulations from the 

CEQ (40 CFR, Part 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 would be used to 

provide a net conservation gain to the species. Any compensatory mitigation 

would be durable, timely, and in addition to that which would have resulted 

without the compensatory mitigation (see the concepts of durability, timeliness, 

and additionality as described further in Appendix G).

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team

The BLM would establish a WAFWA Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Team (Team) to help guide the conservation of GRSG, within 90 

days of the issuance of the ROD. This Team would develop a WAFWA 

Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy (Regional Mitigation Strategy). 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and Mitigation)

2-38 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

The Team would also compile and report on monitoring data (including data on 

habitat condition, population trends, and mitigation effectiveness) from States 

across the WAFWA Management Zone (see Section 2.7.2). Subsequently, the 

Team would use these data to either modify the appropriate Regional Mitigation 

Strategy or recommend adaptive management actions (see Section 2.7.1).

The BLM would invite governmental and Tribal partners to participate in this 

Team, including MFWP and USFWS, in compliance with the exemptions 

provided for committees defined in the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA) and FACA’s implementing regulations. The BLM would strive for a 

collaborative and unified approach between federal agencies (e.g., USFWS and

BLM), Tribal governments, state and local government(s), and other 

stakeholders for GRSG conservation. The Team would provide advice to the 

BLM, but would not make any decisions that impact federal lands. The BLM 

would remain responsible for making decisions that affect federal lands.

Developing a Regional Mitigation Strategy

The Team would develop a Regional Mitigation Strategy to inform the mitigation 

components of NEPA analyses for BLM management actions and third party 

actions that result in habitat loss and degradation. The Regional Mitigation 

Strategy would be developed within one year of the issuance of the ROD. The 

BLM’s Regional Mitigation Manual MS-1794 would serve as a framework for 

developing the Regional Mitigation Strategy. The Regional Mitigation Strategy 

would be applicable to the States/Field Offices within the WAFWA Management 

Zone’s boundaries.

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 provide a net conservation 

gain to the species. The Regional Mitigation Strategy developed by the Team 

would elaborate on the components identified above (i.e. avoidance, 

minimization, and compensation; additionality, timeliness, and durability) and 

further explained in Appendix G. 

In the time period before the Regional Mitigation Strategy is developed, BLM 

would consider regional conditions, trends, and sites, to the greatest extent 

possible, when applying the mitigation hierarchy and would ensure that 

mitigation is consistent with the standards set forth in the first paragraph of this 

section.

Incorporating the Regional Mitigation Strategy into NEPA Analyses

The BLM would 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 

would be carried forward into the decision.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and Mitigation)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-39

Implementing a Compensatory Mitigation Program

Consistent with the principles identified above, the BLM needs 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 would be implemented 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 would enter into a contract or agreement with a 

third-party 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 would conform to all relevant laws, 

regulations, and policies. The BLM would remain responsible for making 

decisions that affect federal lands.

2.8 DRAFT RMP/EIS ALTERNATIVES

The following are alternatives to the Proposed Plan Amendment and were 

presented and analyzed in the Draft RMPA/EIS.

2.8.1 Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A meets the CEQ requirement that a no action alternative be 

considered. This alternative continues current management direction and 

prevailing conditions derived from existing planning documents. Goals and 

objectives for resources and resource uses are based on the Judith Resource 

Area RMP and the Headwaters RMP/EIS and ROD, along with associated 

amendments, activity and implementation level plans, and other management 

decision documents. Laws and regulations that supersede RMP decisions would 

apply.

No PHMA or GHMA would be delineated under Alternative A. Goals and 

objectives for BLM-administered lands and mineral estate would not change. 

Appropriate and allowable uses and restrictions pertaining to such activities as 

mineral leasing and development, recreation, construction of utility 

infrastructure, and livestock grazing would also remain the same. The BLM 

would not modify existing criteria or establish additional criteria to identify sitespecific use levels.

2.8.2 Management Common to Action Alternatives

Alternatives B, C, and D have two basic components: delineated PHMA and 

GHMA, and RDFs.

Where more restrictive land use allocations or decisions are made in existing 

RMPs, those more restrictive land use allocations or decisions would remain in 

effect and would not be amended by this RMPA.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Draft RMP/EIS Alternatives)

2-40 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Delineate Lands as Priority and General Habitat Management Areas

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, PH and GH data would be refined to (1) 

delineate PHMA and analyze actions within PHMA to conserve GRSG habitat 

functionality, or where possible, improve habitat functionality; and (2) delineate 

GHMA and analyze actions within GHMA that provide for major life history 

function (e.g., breeding, migration, or winter survival). The purpose of these 

delineations would be to maintain genetic diversity needed for sustainable GRSG 

populations. The areas delineated as PHMA and GHMA would be the same 

under each alternative; however, the allowable uses and management actions 

within PHMA and GHMA may vary between alternatives to meet the goal of the 

RMPA and objectives of the alternative.

Required Design Features

RDFs are means, measures, or practices intended to reduce or avoid adverse 

environmental impacts. This Proposed RMPA/Final EIS proposes a suite of 

design features that would establish the minimum specifications for certain 

activities, such as water developments, certain mineral development, and fire 

and fuels management, to mitigate adverse impacts.

In general, the RDFs are accepted practices that are known to be effective when 

implemented properly at the project level. However, their applicability and 

overall effectiveness cannot be fully assessed except at the project-specific level, 

when the project location and design are known. Because of site-specific 

circumstances, some features may not apply to some projects (e.g., a resource is 

not present on a given site) or may require slight variations from what is 

described in the RMPA/EIS (e.g., a larger or smaller protective area). All 

variations in RDFs would require appropriate analysis and disclosure as part of 

future project authorizations. Additional mitigation measures may be identified 

and required during individual project development and environmental review. 

The proposed RDFs are presented in Appendix C, Required Design Features 

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat for Alternatives B and C, and Appendix D.

Table 2-4 summarizes select proposed decisions, and Table 2-5 includes 

details of all proposed decisions for the draft alternatives. Appendix C and 

Appendix D provide RDFs for surface-disturbing activities.

2.8.3 Alternative B

GRSG conservation measures in A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures (NTT 2011) provide BLM management direction under 

Alternative B. Management actions by the BLM, in concert with other state and 

federal agencies and private landowners, play a critical role in the future trends 

of GRSG populations. To ensure BLM management actions are effective and 

based on the best available science, the National Policy Team created an NTT in 

August 2011. The BLM’s objective for chartering this planning strategy was to 

develop new or revised regulatory mechanisms, through RMPs, to conserve and 

restore the GRSG and its habitat on BLM-administered lands. Conservation 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Draft RMP/EIS Alternatives)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-41

measures under Alternative B are focused on PHMA (areas that have the 

highest conservation value to maintaining or increasing GRSG populations).

Travel and transportation management—Alternative B would limit 

motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails at a minimum until 

travel management planning is complete and routes are either designated or 

closed. Under Alternative B, route construction in PHMA would be limited to 

realignments of existing designated routes, except to access valid existing rights; 

this would require additional mitigation for disturbances greater than three 

percent for that area. Alternative B would emphasize restoration of 

nondesignated roads, primitive roads, and trails in PHMA.

Recreation—SRPs would be allowed only in PHMA if they have neutral or 

beneficial effects on GRSG.

Lands and realty—PHMA would be designated as ROW exclusion area for 

new land use authorizations (approximately 233,219 acres), and GHMA would 

be designated as ROW avoidance areas for new land use authorizations

(approximately 112,341 acres). Lands within PHMA would be recommended for 

mineral withdrawal proposals, and other withdrawal proposals in PHMA would 

need to be consistent with GRSG conservation measures. No utility corridors 

have been designated within the planning area. If high voltage transmission or 

major pipeline or other major ROWs were applied for a separate plan 

amendment would be required.

Range management—Grazing would be allowed on all lands identified as 

suitable (approximately 570,112 acres). Alternative B would consider retiring 

permitted grazing use on allotments in PHMA when the current permittee is 

willing. Within PHMA, GRSG habitat objectives and management considerations 

would be incorporated into all BLM grazing allotments through AMPs or permit 

renewals. The BLM would prioritize completion of land health assessments in 

PHMA and implement actions to modify grazing management to meet GRSG

habitat requirements. Alternative B would focus forage treatments and 

restrictions to range improvements in PHMA.

Energy and mineral development—Existing fluid mineral leases in PHMA

would be subject to conservation measures through RMP implementation 

decisions and on completion of the environmental record of review. All 

mitigation/conservation measures not already required as stipulations would be 

analyzed in a site-specific NEPA document, and be incorporated, as appropriate, 

into COAs of the permit, plan of development, or other use authorizations.

Helicopter exploration would be allowed in PHMA, only in accordance with 

applicable restrictions.

Where the federal government owns the surface, and the mineral estate is not 

in federal ownership in PHMA, the BLM would apply appropriate fluid mineral

RDFs (Appendix C) to surface development.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Draft RMP/EIS Alternatives)

2-42 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Surface coal mining would be considered unsuitable in PHMA (approximately 

284,975 acres), and no subsurface coal mining disturbances and facilities would 

be allowed in PHMA. All PHMA (approximately 284,337 acres) would be closed 

to salable minerals and nonenergy leasable minerals, and would be 

recommended for withdrawal for locatable minerals.

Fire and fuels management—In PHMA, the BLM would design and implement 

fuels treatments and suppression, with an emphasis on protecting sagebrush 

ecosystems. Sagebrush canopy cover would not be reduced to less than 15 

percent, unless a fuels management objective were to require additional reduction 

in sagebrush cover to meet strategic protection of PHMA and conserve habitat

quality for the species. Under Alternative B, fuels management projects in PHMA

would be designed to reduce wildfire threats in the greatest area.

Habitat restoration/vegetation management—The BLM would prioritize 

implementing restoration projects. Decisions would be based on environmental 

variables that would improve chances for project success in areas most likely to 

benefit GRSG. The BLM would make meeting habitat restoration objectives 

within PHMA areas the highest restoration priority.

Special designations—GRSG habitat would not be designated as an ACEC. 

GRSG PHMA and GHMA areas would be protected and managed consistent 

with the identified management actions and constraints in this alternative.

2.8.4 Alternative C

During scoping for the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy, 

individuals and conservation groups submitted management direction 

recommendations for protecting and conserving GRSG and habitat at the rangewide level. These recommendations, in conjunction with resource allocation and 

management options and internal sub-regional BLM input, were reviewed in 

order to develop BLM management direction for GRSG under Alternative C. 

Conservation measures under Alternative C are focused on both PHMA and 

GHMA (seasonal or year-round habitat outside of PHMA).

Travel and transportation management—Alternative C, would limit 

motorized travel in PHMA and GHMA to existing roads, primitive roads, and 

trails, at a minimum. Alternative C would have the most restrictive 

requirements for constructing routes to existing valid rights, requiring a fourmile buffer from leks. Under Alternative C, route construction in PHMA and 

GHMA would be limited to realignments of existing designated routes. Like 

Alternative B, this alternative would also emphasize restoration of 

nondesignated roads, primitive roads, and trails in PHMA. Alternative C would 

have the most restrictions on travel and transportation.

Lands and realty—PHMA and GHMA would be designated as ROW

exclusion areas (approximately 345,560 acres). Lands within PHMA would be 

recommended for mineral withdrawal proposals, and other withdrawal
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Draft RMP/EIS Alternatives)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-43

proposals in PHMA and GHMA would need to be consistent with effective

GRSG conservation measures. Alternative C would have the most restrictions 

on ROW development and withdrawals.

Range management—Alternative C would remove livestock grazing from all 

allotments in PHMA and GHMA. Under this alternative, 232,947 acres would 

remain open to grazing. Under Alternative C, the BLM would consider retiring 

permitted grazing use on allotments in PHMA and GHMA when the current 

permittee is willing. Alternative C would focus forage treatments and 

restrictions on range improvements in PHMA and GHMA.

Energy and mineral development—Existing fluid mineral leases in PHMA

and GHMA habitat would be subject to conservation measures as COAs at the 

project and well permitting stages, and through RMP implementation decisions 

on completion of the environmental record of review. All mitigation and 

conservation measures not already required as stipulations would be analyzed in 

a site-specific NEPA document and incorporated, as appropriate, into COAs of 

the permit, plan of development, and/or other use authorizations. Helicopter 

exploration would be allowed in PHMA and GHMA in accordance with 

applicable restrictions.

Where the federal government owns the surface, and the mineral estate is not 

under federal ownership in PHMA and GHMA, the BLM would apply 

appropriate fluid mineral RDFs (Appendix C) to surface development.

Surface coal mining would be considered unsuitable in PHMA and GHMA

(approximately 464,178 acres), and no subsurface coal mining disturbances or

facilities would be allowed in PHMA and GHMA. All PHMA and GHMA

(approximately 457,774 acres) would be closed to salable minerals and 

nonenergy leasable minerals. PHMA and GHMA would be recommended for 

withdrawal for locatable minerals.

Fire and fuels management—This is similar to management under 

Alternative B; however, all management would apply to both PHMA and GHMA.

Habitat restoration/vegetation management—The BLM would prioritize 

implementing restoration projects based on environmental variables that 

improve chances for project success in areas most likely to benefit GRSG. The 

BLM would make meeting habitat restoration objectives within PHMA and 

GHMA the highest restoration priority.

Special designations—All PHMA for GRSG with at least 4,000 acres of 

contiguous BLM surface ownership would be designated as an ACEC to protect 

GRSG habitat (98,091 acres; see Appendix E, Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern Evaluation of Relevance and Importance Criteria). Management actions 

for the ACEC would be consistent with the management actions/constraints 

identified in Alternative C to protect GRSG habitat.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Draft RMP/EIS Alternatives)

2-44 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

2.8.5 Alternative D

Alternative D seeks to allocate limited resources among competing human 

interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural resource values. At the 

same time, it would sustain and enhance ecological integrity across the 

landscape, including plant, and wildlife habitat. This alternative incorporates 

cooperating agency adjustments to A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures (NTT 2011) and habitat boundaries to provide a balanced 

level of protection, restoration, enhancement, and use of resources and services 

to meet ongoing programs and land uses. Conservation measures under 

Alternative D are focused on both PHMA and GHMA.

Travel and transportation management—Similar to Alternative A, 

Alternative D would limit motorized travel in the planning area to existing 

roads, primitive roads, and trails. Similar to Alternative B, route construction in 

PHMA would be limited to realignments of existing designated routes. However, 

construction of access roads to existing rights would be less restrictive and

would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Similar to Alternative B, Alternative 

D would emphasize restoration of nondesignated roads, primitive roads, and 

trails in PHMA, following completion of travel management plans.

Recreation—SRPs would be allowed only in PHMA if they are neutral or 

beneficial for GRSG habitat.

Lands and realty—PHMA would be designated as ROW avoidance areas

(approximately 233,219 acres; wind energy authorizations would be avoided

from PHMA and GHMA areas). GHMA would be open to non-wind ROW 

development and evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Similar to Alternative B, 

nonmineral withdrawal proposal in PHMA would need to be consistent with 

GRSG conservation measures.

Range management—Similar to Alternative B, grazing would be allowed on all 

lands identified as suitable (approximately 570,112 acres). Within PHMA, GRSG

habitat objectives and management considerations would be incorporated into all 

BLM grazing allotments through watershed planning and permit renewal process. 

Similar to Alternative B, the BLM would prioritize completion of land health 

assessments in PHMA. Like Alternative B, Alternative D would focus forage 

treatments and restrictions on range improvements in PHMA.

In PHMA, land health evaluations and determinations would be conducted that 

include (at a minimum) indicators and measurements of

structure/condition/composition of vegetation specific to achieving GRSG

habitat objectives. State objectives would be used for fine-scale analysis, unless 

local objectives are developed at the field office level, in partnership with MFWP 

and USFWS. The objectives would be used during the land health evaluation and 

determination process and specifically linked to LFO Standard #5, the 

biodiversity standard (see Appendix F). Future management actions would be 

developed if land health determinations indicate that an allotment is not meeting 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Draft RMP/EIS Alternatives)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-45

standards due to current livestock grazing, based on an evaluation that 

considers the GRSG habitat objectives.

Energy and mineral development—Existing leases in the planning area

would be subject to conservation measures through implementation decisions 

and on completion of the environmental record of review. Operating 

constraints would also be applied to existing leases as COAs. All 

mitigation/conservation measures not already required as stipulations would be 

analyzed in a site-specific NEPA document, and be incorporated, as appropriate, 

into COAs of the permit, plan of development, and/or other use authorizations.

Exploration would be allowed in PHMA, by helicopter only in accordance with 

applicable restrictions.

The planning area would be available for coal exploration, subject to 

environmental review and mitigation measures. On a case-by-case basis, 

unsuitability criteria for coal would be applied and a plan amendment would be 

prepared. Proposed locatable minerals actions would be analyzed in Plan of 

Operations and appropriate mitigation would be applied. Permits for nonenergy 

leasable minerals and salable minerals would be considered on a case-by-case 

basis, and appropriate mitigation measures would be required.

Fire and fuels management—In suitable GRSG habitat, the BLM would 

design and implement fuels treatment and suppression with an emphasis on 

protecting sagebrush ecosystems. Sagebrush canopy cover would not be 

reduced to less than 15 percent, unless a fuels management objective were to 

require additional reduction in sagebrush cover to meet strategic protection of 

PHMA and conserve habitat quality for the species. Similar to Alternative B, 

fuels management projects in PHMA would be designed to reduce wildfire 

threats in the greatest area.

Habitat restoration/vegetation management— The BLM would make 

meeting GRSG habitat restoration objectives in PHMA and GHMA a high 

priority, while also considering other species.

Special designations—GRSG habitat would not be designated as an ACEC. It

would be protected and managed consistent with the identified management 

actions and constraints under this alternative.

2.9 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT AND DRAFT 

ALTERNATIVES

This section summarizes and compares Alternatives A through D and the BLM 

Proposed Plan Amendment considered in the Final EIS. Combined with the 

appendices and maps, Table 2-4 provides the differences among the 

alternatives relative to what they establish and where they occur. The table 

compares the differences with the most potential to affect resources among the 

alternatives.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Proposed Plan Amendment and Draft Alternatives)

2-46 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-4

Comparative Summary of Allocation Decisions of the Proposed Plan Amendment and Draft Alternatives

Resources/Resource Uses Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

Planning Area–BLM Surface (no 

PHMA or GHMA delineation) (acres) 593,995 593,995 593,995 593,995 593,995

GRSG Habitat Areas (acres)

PHMA–All ownerships 0 1,207,994 1,207,994 1,207,994 1,207,994

PHMA–BLM 0 233,219 233,219 233,219 233,219

PHMA–Private, State, or Other 

Surface/Federal Minerals 0 294,935 294,935 294,935 294,935

GHMA–All ownerships 0 1,015,035 1,015,035 1,015,035 1,015,035

GHMA–BLM 0 112,341 112,341 112,341 112,341

GHMA –Private, State, or Other 

Surface/Federal Minerals 0 195,668 195,668 195,668 195,668

Livestock Grazing

Open for all classes of livestock 

grazing (acres) 570,112 570,112 232,947 570,112 570,112

Open for all classes of livestock 

grazing in PHMA n/a 230,716 0 230,716 230,716

Open for all classes of livestock 

grazing in GHMA n/a 106,449 0 106,449 106,449

Open for all classes of livestock 

grazing in non-habitat n/a 232,947 232,947 232,947 232,947

Closed to livestock grazing (acres) 6,781 6,781 337,165 6,781 6,781

Closed for all classes of livestock 

grazing in PHMA n/a 0 230,716 0 0

Closed for all classes of livestock 

grazing in GHMA n/a 0 106,449 0 0

Available AUMs 103,806 103,806 34,398 103,806 103,806

Available AUMs in PHMA n/a 49,948 0 49,948 49,948

Available AUMs in GHMA n/a 19,460 0 19,460 19,460
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Proposed Plan Amendment and Draft Alternatives)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-47

Table 2-4

Comparative Summary of Allocation Decisions of the Proposed Plan Amendment and Draft Alternatives

Resources/Resource Uses Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

Available AUMs in non-habitat 103,806 34,398 34,398 34,398 34,398

Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

Limited to existing routes for OHVs

(acres) 593,955 593,955 593,955 593,955 593,955

Lands and Realty (acres)

Right-of-way (ROW) exclusion areas 0 233,219 345,560 0 0

ROW exclusion areas in PHMA n/a 233,219 233,219 0 0

ROW exclusion areas in GHMA n/a 0 112,341 0 0

ROW avoidance areas 30,403 132,826 0 260,949 366,045

ROW avoidance areas in PHMA n/a 0 0 233,219 233,219

ROW avoidance areas in GHMA n/a 112,341 0 7,245 112,341

ROW avoidance in non-habitat 30,403 20,485 0 20,485 20,485

Wind and Solar ROW exclusion areas n/a 0 0 0 233,219

ROW exclusion areas in PHMA n/a 0 0 0 233,219

ROW exclusion areas in GHMA n/a 0 0 0 0

Wind and Solar ROW avoidance

areas GHMA n/a 0 0 0 112,341

Coal1

Unsuitable for surface mining

(acres) 0 284,975 464,178 0 0

Unsuitable in PHMA n/a 284,975 284,975 0 0

Unsuitable in GHMA n/a 0 179,202 0 0

 

1Coal development is not addressed in the Judith Resource Area RMP/ROD (BLM 1994) because: there has been no federal coal mining in the last 70 years, 

there are no existing federal coal leases in the planning area, and no expression of interest for leasing or exchange have been identified; therefore, no acreage 

calculations will be created for the amendment.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Proposed Plan Amendment and Draft Alternatives)

2-48 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-4

Comparative Summary of Allocation Decisions of the Proposed Plan Amendment and Draft Alternatives

Resources/Resource Uses Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

Fluid Mineral Leasing

Existing fluid mineral leases (acres)

BLM surface/federal minerals 55,880 55,880 55,880 55,880 24,424

Private, state, or other 

surface/federal minerals 37,926 37,926 37,926 37,926 18,993

Locatable Minerals, Salables and Non-Energy Solid Leasable Minerals

BLM Surface/Federal Minerals (acres)

Withdrawn from Locatable Mineral

Entry 4,298 4,298 4,298 4,298 4,298

Withdrawn from locatable 

mineral entry in PHMA n/a 101 101 101 101

Withdrawn from locatable 

mineral entry in GHMA n/a 2,585 2,585 2,585 2,585

Recommend for withdrawal from 

locatable mineral entry

0 233,219 345,560 0 53,440

Recommend for withdrawal

from locatable mineral entry in 

PHMA

0 233,219 233,219 0 53,440

Recommend for withdrawal

from locatable mineral entry in 

GHMA

0 0 112,341 0 0

Closed to salable mineral disposal 2,858 235,897 345,790 2,858 235,897

Closed to salable mineral 

disposal in PHMA2

n/a 233,219 233,219 2,437 233,138

Closed to salable mineral 

disposal in GHMA n/a 2,437 112,341 101 2,437

 

2All acres would remain open to free use permits and expansion of existing pits except the 2,858 acres closed under all alternatives.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Proposed Plan Amendment and Draft Alternatives)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-49

Table 2-4

Comparative Summary of Allocation Decisions of the Proposed Plan Amendment and Draft Alternatives

Resources/Resource Uses Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

Closed to nonenergy leasable mineral

exploration or development 2,858 235,897 345,790 2,858 235,897

Closed to nonenergy leasable 

mineral exploration or 

development in PHMA

n/a 233,219 233,219 98 233,219

Closed to nonenergy leasable 

mineral exploration or 

development in GHMA

n/a 2,437 112,341 2,437 2,437

Private, State, or Other Surface/Federal Minerals

Withdrawn from Locatable Mineral

Entry (acres) 92,804 92,804 92,804 92,804 92,804

Withdrawn from locatable 

mineral entry in PHMA n/a 1,105 1,105 1,105 1,105

Withdrawn from locatable 

mineral entry in GHMA n/a 2,179 2,179 2,179 2,179

Recommend for withdrawal from 

locatable mineral entry (acres) 0 48,762 112,306 0 331

Recommend for withdrawal

from locatable mineral entry in 

PHMA

n/a 48,762 48,762 0 331

Recommend for withdrawal

from locatable mineral entry in 

GHMA

n/a 0 63,544 0 0
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Proposed Plan Amendment and Draft Alternatives)

2-50 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-4

Comparative Summary of Allocation Decisions of the Proposed Plan Amendment and Draft Alternatives

Resources/Resource Uses Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

Closed to salable mineral disposal 0 48,762 112,306 0 48,762

Closed to salable mineral 

disposal in PHMA3

n/a 48,762 48,762 0 48,762

Closed to salable mineral 

disposal in GHMA n/a 0 63,544 0 0

Closed to nonenergy leasable mineral

exploration or development (acres) 0 48,762 112,306 0 48,762

Closed to nonenergy leasable 

mineral exploration or 

development in PHMA

n/a 48,762 48,762 0 48,762

Closed to nonenergy leasable 

mineral exploration or 

development in GHMA

n/a 0 63,544 0 0

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

ACEC to protect GRSG (acres) 0 0 98,091 0 0

ACEC to protect GRSG in PHMA n/a 0 98,091 0 0

ACEC to protect GRSG in 

GHMA n/a 0 0 0 0

 

3All acres would remain open to free use permits and expansion of existing pits except the 2,538 acres closed under all alternatives.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Detailed Description of Draft Alternatives)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-51

2.10 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF DRAFT ALTERNATIVES

2.10.1 How to Read Table 2-5

The following describes how Table 2-5, below, is written and formatted to 

show the land use plan decisions proposed for each alternative.

In accordance with Appendix C of the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (H1601-1), land use plan and plan amendment decisions are broad-scale decisions 

that guide future land management actions and subsequent site-specific 

implementation decisions (BLM 2005a). Land use plan decisions fall into two 

categories, which establish the base structure for desired outcomes (goals and 

objectives), and allowable uses and actions to achieve outcomes.

 Goals are broad statements of desired outcomes that usually are 

not quantifiable.

 Objectives identify specific desired outcomes for resources. They 

may be quantifiable and measurable and may have established 

timeframes for achievement, as appropriate.

 Allowable uses identify allocations that are allowable, restricted, or 

prohibited on BLM-administered lands and mineral estate.

 Actions identify measures or criteria to achieve desired objectives, 

including actions to maintain, restore, or improve land health.

Stipulations are also applied to surface-disturbing activities to achieve desired 

outcomes (i.e., objectives).

In general, only those resources and resource uses that have been identified as 

planning issues have notable differences between the alternatives.

Actions that are applicable to all alternatives are shown in one cell across a row. 

These particular objectives and actions would be implemented regardless of 

which alternative is ultimately selected.

Actions that are applicable to more than one but not all alternatives are 

indicated by either combining cells for the same alternatives, or by denoting 

those objectives or actions as the “same as Alternative A,” for example.

In some cells, “No Similar Action” is used to indicate that there is no similar 

goal, objective or action to the other alternatives, or that the similar goal, 

objective or action is reflected in another management action in the alternative.
This page intentionally left blank.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Detailed Description of Draft Alternatives)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-53

Table 2-5

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

GOAL: Maintain and/or increase GRSG abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing, or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend, in cooperation with other conservation partners.

Objective:

No similar objective.

Objective:

 Protect PHMA from anthropogenic (human-caused) 

disturbances that would reduce distribution or abundance 

of GRSG

- Manage or restore priority areas so that at least 

70% of the land cover provides adequate sagebrush 

habitat to meet GRSG needs

- Manage PHMA so that discrete anthropogenic 

disturbances cover less than 3% of the total GRSG 

habitat

Objective:

 Protect PHMA and GHMA from anthropogenic 

disturbances that would reduce distribution or 

abundance of GRSG

Objective: 

 Protect PHMA from anthropogenic disturbances that 

would reduce distribution or abundance of GRSG.

Habitat Delineation: No similar delineation. Habitat Delineation: Delineate PHMA to encompass the 75% breeding bird density map: 233,219 BLM surface acres (19% of total PHMA acres). See Figure 1-1 (Appendix A).

Habitat Delineation: No similar delineation. Habitat Delineation: Delineate GHMA to encompass the remainder of the habitat presented in the 100% breeding bird density map: 112,341 BLM surface acres (11% of total GHMA acres). See 

Figure 1-1 (Appendix A).

ALTERNATIVES DIRECTION/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

Travel and Transportation Management

Action: BLM-administered lands are designated limited 

yearlong for motorized wheeled vehicles (motorized 

wheeled cross-country travel is restricted to existing roads 

and trails) (BLM 2003b).

Action: In PHMA, limit motorized travel to existing roads, 

primitive roads, and trails, at a minimum, until such time as travel 

management planning is complete and routes are either 

designated or closed.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PHMA

and GHMA.

Action: Same as Alternative A; in addition, implement a CTTM

plan to designate roads and trails (when travel management 

plan is complete). Administrative off-road use for BLM 

personnel and BLM authorized activities would be allowed. 

BLM-implemented CTTM would not apply to private or other 

state or federal lands within the LFO.

Action: No similar action. Action: Prohibit new road construction within 4 miles of active 

GRSG leks, and avoid new road construction in PHMA and 

GHMA.

Action: On completion of site-specific projects, roads used for 

commercial or administrative access on BLM-administered 

lands would be reclaimed, unless the route would provide 

specific benefits for public access, would minimize impacts on 

the resources, and would be considered on a case-by-case 

basis.

Action: The BLM may close or restore unauthorized, user 

created roads and trails to prevent resource damage, including 

impacts on GRSG.

Action: The BLM would minimize or prevent road and trail 

development on crucial big game and upland bird habitat 

areas (BLM 1994).

Action: BLM regulations (43 CFR, Parts 8341.2 and 8364.1) 

allow for area, road, or trail closures where off-road vehicles 

are causing or would cause considerable adverse effects on 

wildlife and its habitat (BLM 2003b).

Action: In PHMA, travel management should evaluate the need 

for permanent or seasonal road or area closures.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PHMA

and GHMA.

Action: During route designation and travel planning in PHMA,

travel management would evaluate the need for permanent or 

seasonal road or area closures where vehicle use is causing or 

would cause considerable adverse effects on habitat.

Action: Through site-specific planning, the BLM would 

designate roads and trails for motorized use. Roads and trails 

would be inventoried, mapped, and analyzed to the degree 

necessary to evaluate and designate the roads and trails as 

open, seasonally open, or closed (BLM 2003b).

Action: In PHMA, complete activity level travel plans within 5 

years of the ROD. During activity level planning, and where 

appropriate, designate routes in PHMA with current 

administrative/agency purpose or need for administrative access 

only.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PHMA

and GHMA.

Action: Same as Alternative A.

All CTTM planning should be completed within 5 years of the 

signing of the ROD. The CTTM planning would be conducted 

using an interdisciplinary team approach to address all 

resource uses, including administrative, recreation, 

commercial, and associated modes of travel (motorized, 

mechanized, and nonmotorized types; BLM – Travel and 

Transportation Handbook [H-8342]).
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Detailed Description of Draft Alternatives)

2-54 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-5

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Action: No similar action. Action: In PHMA, limit route construction to realignments of 

existing designated routes if that realignment has a minimal 

impact on GRSG habitat, if it eliminates the need to construct a 

new road, or if it is necessary for motorist safety.

Action: In PHMA and GHMA, limit route construction to 

realignments of existing designated routes if that realignment 

would have a minimal impact on GRSG habitat, if it would 

eliminate the need to construct a new road, or if it is necessary 

for motorist safety. Mitigate any impacts with methods that 

have been demonstrated to be effective to offset the loss of 

GRSG habitat.

Action: In PHMA, during site-specific travel and transportation 

management planning, limit route construction to realignment 

of existing routes if that realignment has a minimal impact on 

GRSG habitat, if it eliminates the need to construct a new 

road, or if it is necessary for motorist safety.

Action: No similar action. Action: In PHMA, use existing roads, or realignments, as 

described above, to access valid existing rights that are not yet 

developed. If valid existing rights cannot be accessed via existing 

roads, then build any new road to the absolute minimum 

standard necessary and add the surface disturbance to the total 

disturbance in the priority area. If that disturbance exceeds 3% 

for that area, then evaluate and implement additional effective 

mitigation to offset the resulting loss of GRSG habitat (see 

Alternative B Objectives).

Action: Same as Alternative B, using a 4-mile buffer from leks

to determine road route.

Action: In PHMA, during site-specific travel and transportation 

management planning, use existing roads or realignments, as 

described above, to access valid existing rights that are not yet 

developed. If valid existing rights cannot be accessed via 

existing roads, then build any new road to the absolute 

minimum standard necessary.

Action: No similar action. Action: In PHMA, allow no upgrading of existing routes that 

would change route category (road, primitive road, or trail) or 

capacity unless the upgrading would have minimal impact on 

GRSG habitat, if it is necessary for motorist safety, or if it 

eliminates the need to construct a new road.

Action: In PHMA and GHMA, allow no upgrading of existing 

routes that would change route category (road, primitive road, 

or trail) or capacity unless it is necessary for motorist safety, or 

eliminates the need to construct a new road. Any impacts shall 

be mitigated with methods that have been demonstrated to be 

effective to offset the loss of GRSG habitat.

Action: In PHMA, during site-specific travel and transportation 

management planning, the upgrading of existing routes that 

would change route category (road, primitive road, or trail) or 

capacity may be allowed when there are minimal impacts on 

GRSG and GRSG habitat, if it is necessary for motorist safety, 

or if it eliminates the need to construct a new road. All 

upgrades to existing routes would be evaluated on a case-bycase basis and would be subject to valid existing rights (e.g., 

existing ROWs or easements).

Action: No similar action. Action: In PHMA, restore roads, primitive roads, and trails not 

designated in travel management plans. This also includes 

primitive routes/roads that were not designated in WSAs that 

have been selected for protection in previous RMPs.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PHMA

and GHMA.

Action: Same as Alternative B, when travel plans are complete 

(these will not be complete prior to this RMPA decision).

Action: No similar action. Action: When reseeding roads, primitive roads, and trails in 

PHMA, use appropriate seed mixes and consider the use of 

transplanted sagebrush.

Action: When reseeding closed roads, primitive roads, and 

trails in PHMA and GHMA, use appropriate native seed mixes 

and require the use of transplanted sagebrush.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

Recreation

Action: No similar action. Action: Allow SRPs only in PHMA that have neutral or beneficial 

effects on PHMA.

Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: SRPs in PHMA may be allowed if they are neutral or 

beneficial for GRSG habitat.

Lands and Realty

Rights-of-Way

Action: ROWs outside of avoidance areas and WSAs would 

be considered on a case-by-case basis, with appropriate 

stipulations from BLM Handbook H-2801-1 incorporated 

into the ROW grant (BLM 1994, page 27).

Action: Public land within identified exclusion areas would 

not be available for utility and transportation corridor 

development (BLM 1984, page 15).

Action: There are no ROW exclusion areas within the Judith 

Resource Area RMP for GRSG. There are two ROW 

avoidance areas in the decision area (30,193 acres) (Acid 

Shale Pine Forest ACEC and Judith River Canyon). See 

Figure 2-9, Rights-of-Way Avoidance Areas - Alternative A 

(Appendix A).

Action: Make PHMA exclusion areas for new ROWs (233,219 

acres). Consider the following exceptions:

 Within designated ROW corridors encumbered by 

existing ROW authorizations: new ROWs may be 

collocated only if the entire footprint of the proposed 

project (including construction and staging) can be 

completed within the existing disturbance associated with 

the authorized ROWs.

 Subject to valid existing rights, where new ROWs

associated with valid existing rights are required, collocate 

new ROWs within existing ROWs or where it best 

minimizes GRSG impacts. Use existing roads, or 

realignments as described above, to access valid existing 

rights that are not yet developed. If valid existing rights 

Action: PHMA and GHMA areas shall be exclusion areas for 

new ROW (345,560 acres). Consider the following exceptions:

 Within designated ROW corridors encumbered by 

existing ROW authorizations, new ROWs may be 

collocated only if the entire footprint of the proposed 

project (including construction and staging) can be 

completed within the existing disturbance associated 

with the authorized ROWs.

 Subject to valid existing rights, where new ROWs

associated with valid existing rights are required, 

collocate new ROWs within existing ROWs or where it 

best minimizes GRSG impacts. Use existing roads, or 

realignments as described above, to access valid existing 

rights that are not yet developed. If valid existing rights 

Action: PHMA would be managed as ROW avoidance areas 

(233,219 acres).

 Where new ROWs are required, collocate new ROWs 

within existing ROWs or where it best minimizes 

impacts on GRSG and GRSG habitat.

Action: PHMA and GHMA would be managed as a wind 

energy ROW avoidance area (345,560 acres). See Figure 2-

12, Rights-of-Way Avoidance Areas - Alternative D 

(Appendix A).
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Detailed Description of Draft Alternatives)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-55

Table 2-5

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

cannot be accessed via existing roads, then build any new 

road to the absolute minimum standard necessary and add 

the surface disturbance to the total disturbance in the 

priority area. If that disturbance exceeds 3% for that area, 

then evaluate and implement additional effective mitigation 

on a case-by-case basis to offset the resulting loss of GRSG 

habitat. See Figure 2-10, Rights-of-Way Avoidance and 

Exclusion Areas - Alternative B (Appendix A).

cannot be accessed via existing roads, then build any new 

road to the absolute minimum standard necessary and 

add the surface disturbance to the total disturbance in 

the priority area. If that disturbance exceeds 3% for that 

area, then make additional mitigation that has been 

demonstrated to be effective to offset the resulting loss 

of GRSG habitat. See Figure 2-11, Rights-of-Way 

Exclusion Areas - Alternative C (Appendix A).

Action: No similar action. Action: Make GHMA avoidance areas for new ROWs (112,341 

acres). See Figure 2-10 (Appendix A).

Action: PHMA and GHMA areas would be exclusion areas for 

new ROW authorizations (345,560 acres). Consider the 

exceptions listed above. See Figure 2-11 (Appendix A).

Action: ROWs would be allowed in GHMA, with appropriate 

mitigation and conservation measures identified within the 

terms of the authorization to minimize surface-disturbing and 

disruptive activities.

Action: GHMA would be managed as a wind energy ROW

avoidance area (112,341 acres). See Figure 2-13, Rights-ofWay Wind Energy Avoidance Areas - Alternative D 

(Appendix A).

Action: No similar action. Action: In PHMA, evaluate and take advantage of opportunities 

to remove, bury, or modify existing power lines within PHMA.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PHMA

and GHMA.

Action: When addressing ROW authorizations in PHMA

identify and evaluate opportunities to remove, bury, or modify 

power lines within PHMA. Financial and technical feasibility 

would be evaluated during the environmental analysis process.

Action: Current FLMPA ROWs have a stipulation that when 

the use has been discontinued or abandoned, the site must 

be reclaimed and restored by the grant holder (43 CFR, Part 

2807.19).

Action: In PHMA, where existing leases or ROWs have had 

some level of development (such as roads, fences, or wells) and 

are no longer in use, reclaim the site by removing these features 

and restoring the habitat.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PHMA

and GHMA.

Action: Current FLPMA ROWs have a stipulation that when 

the use has been discontinued or abandoned, the site must be 

reclaimed and restored by the grant holder (43 CFR, Part 

2807.19).

Action: Many pre-FLPMA grant authorizations are for water, 

or electricity, to large areas and most of these grants are 

perpetual or non-expiring. If an amendment is needed the 

grant would be renewed/reauthorized under current authority 

with additional stipulations and/or mitigation requirements. If 

the pre-FLPMA authorizations are no longer needed, grantees 

would be required to reclaim sites by removing 

features/fixtures and restoring habitat. Grant authorizations 

under the Mineral Leasing Act would be renewed if they are 

still being used for their original purposes.

Action: Currently have policy to collocate ROWs, when 

possible.

Action: Where new ROWs are necessary in GHMA, collocate 

new ROWs within existing ROWs, where possible.

Action: No similar action. Action: Same as Alternative B.

Action: No similar action. Action: ROWs would be amended to require features that 

enhance GRSG habitat security in PHMA and GHMA.

Action: Existing corridors in ACECs may be accessed for 

maintenance.

Action: No similar action.

Action: Leases/permits (other than cabin site leasing) would 

be considered on a case-by-case basis (BLM 1994, page 30).

Action: No similar action. Actions: Leases and permits (other than for cabin site leasing), 

which may be for agricultural, occupancy, and film production, 

would be considered on a case-by-case basis; however, PHMA

would be ROW avoidance areas. Leases and permits would be 

allowed in GHMA with appropriate mitigation and 

conservation measures identified within the terms of the 

authorization to minimize surface-disturbing and disruptive 

activities.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Detailed Description of Draft Alternatives)

2-56 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-5

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Action: The holder of a ROW shall be responsible for weed 

control on disturbed areas within the limits of the ROW. 

The holder shall be responsible for invasive weed control for 

the life of the ROW. ROW holder is responsible for weed 

control and monitoring for 3 years after reclamation has 

been completed. The holder would be responsible for 

consultation with the authorized officer and/or local 

authorities for acceptable weed control methods.

Action: No similar action. Action: Same as Alternative A.

Action: No utility corridors have been designated within the planning area. If high voltage transmission and/or major pipeline or other major ROWs are applied for a separate plan amendment would be required.

Land Tenure Adjustment

Action: Land tenure adjustments in Judith Resource Area

planning area would be subject to disposal/acquisition criteria 

identified (BLM 1994).

Action: Land tenure adjustments in the Headwaters planning 

area would be subject to disposal/acquisition criteria 

identified (BLM 1984, page 20).

Action: Retain important wildlife habitat (one of the three 

main criteria for land tenure adjustments outlined in the 

Judith Resource Area RMP) (BLM 1994).

Action: Headwaters RMP land ownership adjustment criteria 

include nesting/breeding habitat for game animals (BLM 1984, 

page 20).

Action: Retain public ownership of PHMA. Consider exceptions 

where:

 There is mixed ownership, and land exchanges would 

allow for additional or more contiguous federal ownership 

patterns within PHMA.

 Under PHMA with minority federal ownership, include an 

additional, effective mitigation agreement for any disposal 

of federal land. As a final preservation measure, 

consideration should be given to pursuing a permanent 

conservation easement.

Action: Same as Alternative B, without exceptions for disposal 

to consolidate ownership that would be beneficial to GRSG 

(and applies to PHMA and GHMA).

Action: PHMA would be retained in public ownership, except 

when opportunities for land exchange would provide a greater 

benefit to GRSG habitat.

Action: Land exchanges, sales or other methods of 

acquisition (BLM 1994).

Action: There are no BLM-administered lands identified for 

disposal by sale within the planning area (BLM 1994, page 

30).

Action: Sale is the preferred method of disposal when 

exchange is not feasible (BLM 1984, page 21).

Action: Where suitable conservation actions cannot be achieved 

in PHMA, seek to acquire state and private lands with intact 

subsurface mineral estate by donation, purchase, or exchange in 

order to best conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat.

Action: The BLM would strive to acquire important private 

lands in ACECs. Acquisition would be prioritized over 

easements.

Action: When offered, PHMA would be a priority in 

consideration of land acquisitions (refer to Appendix H. 

Consider GRSG for all land tenure actions.

Recommend Land Withdrawals

Action: There are current withdrawals from minerals on 

BLM surface (4,298 acres in the planning area and 2,868 in 

decision area).

Action: Recommend lands within PHMA for mineral withdrawal

(233,219 acres).

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to PHMA and 

GHMA (345,468 acres).

Action: Same as Alternative A.

Action: No similar action. Action: In PHMA, do not recommend withdrawal proposals not 

associated with mineral activity unless the land management is 

consistent with GRSG conservation measures. (For example, in a 

proposed withdrawal for a military training range buffer area, 

manage the buffer area with GRSG conservation measures.)

Action: In PHMA and GHMA, do not approve withdrawal

proposals not associated with mineral activity unless the land 

management is consistent with GRSG conservation measures. 

(For example, in a proposed withdrawal for a military training 

range buffer area, manage the buffer area with GRSG 

conservation measures that have been demonstrated to be 

effective.)

Action: Same as Alternative B.

Range Management

Action: Livestock grazing would continue to be managed 

through development and monitoring of AMPs or similar 

grazing plans and supervision of grazing use. AMPs would be 

developed and maintained to achieve multiple-use objectives, 

in accordance with the Missouri Breaks Grazing EIS as 

Action: Within PHMA, incorporate GRSG habitat objectives and 

management considerations into all BLM grazing allotments

through AMPs or permit renewals. See Figure 2-15, Areas 

Opened and Closed Grazing Allotments Alternatives B and D 

(Appendix A).

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PHMA

and GHMA. See Figure 2-16, Areas Opened and Closed 

Grazing Allotments Alternative C (Appendix A).

Action: GRSG habitat objectives would be considered when 

evaluating an allotment’s conformance with land health 

standards (Appendix F) prior to renewing a grazing 

authorization.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Detailed Description of Draft Alternatives)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-57

Table 2-5

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

modified by the proposed Judith Resource Area RMP/Final 

EIS. Methods and guidelines from these EISs would be 

followed to maintain or improve ecological condition, to 

enhance vegetation production, to maintain and enhance 

wildlife habitat, to protect watersheds, to reduce bare 

ground to the target soil vegetation cover by soil subgroups, 

and to minimize livestock/recreation conflicts. AMPs would 

implement some form of grazing method (for example, rest 

rotation, deferred rotation, seasonal, or other methods). 

Livestock grazing management methods would be 

implemented prior to land treatments (BLM 1984 and 1994). 

See Figure 2-14, Grazing Allotments Alternative A 

(Appendix A).

Action: In PHMA, conduct land health evaluations and 

determinations that include (at a minimum) indicators and/or 

measurements of structure/condition/composition of 

vegetation specific to achieving GRSG habitat objectives. 

Management actions would be developed if land health 

determinations indicate that an allotment is not meeting 

standards due to current livestock grazing based on an 

evaluation that considers the GRSG habitat objectives. 

Appendix B addresses mid-scale monitoring. State objectives 

would be used for fine scale analysis unless local objectives are 

developed at the field office level, in partnership with MFWP 

and USFWS. See Figure 2-15 (Appendix A).

Action: Livestock grazing would be allowed on all areas not 

specifically closed to grazing (570,112 acres would be open 

to grazing and 103,806 AUMS available). See Figure 2-14

(Appendix A).

Action: Livestock grazing would be allowed on all areas not 

specifically closed to grazing (570,112 acres would be open to 

grazing and 103,806 AUMS available). See Figure 2-15

(Appendix A).

Action: Livestock grazing would be removed on all grazing 

allotments within PHMA and GHMA (337,165 acres and 69, 

408 AUMs; 232,947 acres would remain open to grazing and 

there would be 34,398 AUMs available). See Figure 2-16

(Appendix A).

Action: Same as Alternative B.

Action: No similar action. 

NOTE: This is currently being done on an allotment-specific basis 

over watershed areas.

Action: In PHMA, cooperate on integrated ranch planning within 

GRSG habitat so operations with deeded/BLM allotments can be 

planned as single units.

Action: No similar action. Action: In PHMA, cooperate with ranchers and other agencies 

on integrated ranch planning so operations with intermingled 

land ownerships within BLM allotments can be planned as 

single units.

Action: Areas with Category I allotments are the highest 

priority for processing authorizations, managing uses, and 

monitoring achievement of land health standards (BLM IM 

2009-018, Process for Setting Priorities for Issuing Grazing 

Permits and Leases).

Action: Prioritize completion of land health assessments and 

processing grazing permits within PHMA. Focus this process on 

allotments that have the best opportunities for conserving, 

enhancing or restoring habitat for GRSG. Utilize BLM ecological 

site descriptions to conduct land health assessments to 

determine if standards of range-land health are being met.

Action: No similar action. Action: Land health assessments and grazing permit renewals 

would be completed as they expire within watershed areas. 

Watershed areas in PHMA that contain expired or expiring 

grazing authorizations would be prioritized for renewal.

Action: Allotments that have the best opportunities for 

conserving, enhancing, or restoring habitat for GRSG would 

receive high priority for monitoring, evaluation, and 

management.

ESDs, 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 (Appendix F).

Action: Site-specific ground cover objectives would be 

incorporated to supplement and support range condition 

objectives. Ground cover objectives would be consistent 

with the site potential by soil series or ecological site. 

Grazing management methods, water developments, land 

treatments and other practices would be designed to meet 

ground cover objectives. Monitoring and evaluation methods 

would be applied and management practices would be 

modified as needed to ensure these objectives are met (BLM 

1994).

Action: In PHMA, conduct land health assessments that include 

(at a minimum) indicators and measurements of 

structure/condition/composition of vegetation specific to 

achieving GRSG habitat objectives.

Action: No similar action. Action: In PHMA, conduct land health evaluations and 

determinations that include (at a minimum) indicators and/or 

measurements of structure/condition/composition of 

vegetation specific to achieving GRSG habitat objectives. 

Management actions would be developed if land health 

determinations indicate that an allotment is not meeting 

standards due to current livestock grazing. Appendix B

addresses mid-scale monitoring. State objectives would be 

used for fine scale analysis unless local objectives are 

developed at the field office level, in partnership with MFWP 

and USFWS.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Detailed Description of Draft Alternatives)

2-58 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-5

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Implementing Management Actions after Land Health Evaluations

Action: Allotments in predominantly fair ecological condition 

or with fair condition areas due to poor livestock 

distribution would have grazing methods applied to 

periodically defer grazing during critical growth periods (BLM 

1994).

Action: No similar action. Action: In PHMA, conduct land health evaluations and 

determinations that include (at a minimum) indicators and/or 

measurements of structure/condition/composition of 

vegetation specific to achieving GRSG habitat objectives. 

Management actions would be developed if land health 

determinations indicate that an allotment is not meeting 

standards due to livestock grazing. Appendix B addresses 

mid-scale monitoring. State objectives would be used for fine 

scale analysis unless local objectives are developed at the field 

office level, in partnership with MFWP and USFWS.

Action: Grazing systems would be implemented. The type of 

system to be implemented would be based on consideration 

of the following factors (BLM 1984):

 Allotment specific management objectives

 Resource characteristics, including vegetation potential 

and water availability

 Operator needs

 Implementation costs

Action: In the NEPA document prepared for the permit renewal, 

develop specific objectives to conserve, enhance, or restore 

PHMA, based on ESDs and assessments (including within 

wetlands and riparian areas). If an effective grazing system that 

meets GRSG habitat requirements is not already in place, analyze 

at least one alternative that conserves, restores, or enhances 

GRSG habitat in the NEPA document prepared for the permit 

renewal.

Action: No similar action. Action: Conserve, enhance, or restore PHMA based on ESDs

(including wetlands and riparian areas). If an effective grazing 

system that meets GRSG habitat objectives is not already in 

place, analyze at least one allotment-specific alternative within 

the watershed planning/permit renewal process that 

conserves, restores, or enhances PHMA.

Action: Methods and guidelines from EISs would be followed 

to maintain or improve ecological condition, to enhance 

vegetation production, to maintain and enhance wildlife 

habitat, to protect watersheds, to reduce bare ground to the 

target soil vegetation cover by soil subgroups, and to 

minimize livestock/recreation conflicts (BLM 1984 and 1994).

Action: In PHMA, manage for vegetation composition and 

structure consistent with ecological site potential and within the 

reference state to achieve GRSG seasonal habitat objectives.

Action: In PHMA and GHMA, manage for vegetation 

composition and structure consistent with ecological site 

potential and within the reference state to achieve GRSG 

habitat objectives.

Action: In PHMA, manage for vegetation composition and 

structure consistent with ecological site potential within the 

reference state to achieve GRSG seasonal habitat objectives. 

Natural ecological processes that impede localized site 

potential and that create a mosaic of habitat successional 

patterns would continue to occur.

Action: Livestock use adjustments would be most often 

made by changing one or more of the following: the kind or 

class of livestock grazing on an allotment, the season of use, 

the stocking rate, or the pattern of grazing. Monitoring 

would be used to measure the changes brought about by 

new livestock management practices and to evaluate the 

effectiveness of management changes in meeting stated 

objectives. Primarily, this would occur on “I “category 

allotments, which would include priority GRSG habitat (BLM 

1984).

Action: Allotments in predominantly fair ecological condition 

or with fair condition areas due to poor livestock 

distribution would have grazing methods applied to 

periodically defer grazing during critical growth periods (BLM 

1994).

Action: In PHMA, implement management actions (grazing 

decisions, AMP/conservation plan development, or other 

agreements) to modify grazing management to meet seasonal 

GRSG habitat requirements. Consider singly or in combination 

changes in the following:

 Season or timing of use

 Numbers of livestock (includes temporary non-use or 

livestock removal)

 Distribution of livestock use

 Intensity of use

 Type of livestock (e.g., cattle, sheep, horses, llamas, 

alpacas, and goats)

Action: No similar action. Action: In PHMA, implement management actions within or 

outside of the watershed planning/permit renewal process to 

modify grazing management and to meet seasonal GRSG 

habitat objectives where allotment evaluations indicate land 

health assessments are not being met due to current livestock 

grazing management. Consider singly, or in combination, 

changes in:

 Season or timing of use

 Numbers of livestock (includes temporary non-use or 

livestock removal)

 Distribution of livestock use

 Intensity of use

 Type of livestock

Action: Efforts to manage public rangeland under drought 

conditions would be directed first to allotments with 

resource concerns such as “I” category allotments. Specific 

allotments in the “M” and “C” categories could also be 

considered high priority when resource values or conditions 

so require. Regardless of the category assigned to an 

allotment, operators should be aware of the procedures and 

flexibilities available for dealing with drought condition 

(Appendix I).

Action: During droughts, prioritize evaluating effects of the 

drought in PHMA relative to their needs for food and cover. 

Since there is a lag in vegetation recovery following drought, 

ensure that post-drought management allows for vegetation 

recovery that meets GRSG needs in PHMA.

Action: No similar action. Action: During drought periods, prioritize evaluating effects of 

the drought in PHMA, relative to their needs for food and 

cover. Drought management would continue to be in 

accordance with the Montana/Dakotas drought policy 

(Appendix I). Since there is a lag in vegetation recovery 

following drought, post-drought management would be 

implemented to allow for vegetation recovery that meets 

GRSG needs in PHMA. In accordance with BLM grazing 

regulation 43 CFR, Part 4130.3-3, consultation, cooperation, 

and coordination with owners or lessees having lands or 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Detailed Description of Draft Alternatives)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-59

Table 2-5

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

managing resources within the area, the affected cooperative 

state grazing district, and interested public would be 

completed prior to adjusting post-drought livestock 

management if the grazing permit is being modified to make 

these adjustments. Implementation of adjustments would be 

initiated through documented agreement or by decision of the 

authorized officer.

Riparian Areas and Wet Meadows

Action: Riparian habitat condition would be improved from 

unsatisfactory to satisfactory on approximately 26 miles of 

stream bank (BLM 1994).

Action: The first objective would be to improve or maintain 

riparian-wetland areas to PFC (BLM 1994).

Action: Riparian and wetland areas are in PFC (Lewistown 

Standard #2, BLM 1997).

Action: Manage riparian areas and wet meadows for PFC within 

PHMA. In PHMA and GHMA, manage wet meadows to maintain 

a component of perennial forbs with diverse species richness 

relative to site potential (e.g., reference state) to facilitate brood 

rearing. Also conserve or enhance these wet meadow complexes 

to maintain or increase amount of edge and cover within that 

edge to minimize elevated mortality during the late broodrearing period.

Action: Manage riparian areas and wet meadows for PFC within 

PHMA and GHMA. In PHMA and GHMA, manage wet 

meadows to maintain a component of perennial forbs, with 

diverse species richness and productivity relative to site 

potential (e.g., reference state), to facilitate brood rearing. At 

least 6 inches of stubble height must remain on all 

riparian/meadow area herbaceous species at all times. Also 

conserve or enhance these wet meadow complexes to 

maintain or increase the amount of edge and cover within that 

edge to minimize elevated deaths during the late brood-rearing 

period.

Action: Riparian-wetland areas would be managed for PFC

within the LFO. In PHMA and GHMA, manage wet meadows 

to maintain a component of perennial forbs with diverse 

species richness relative to site potential (e.g., reference state) 

to facilitate brood rearing. Also conserve or enhance these 

wet meadow complexes.

Action: The second objective would be to achieve or 

maintain the desired plant community to provide wildlife 

habitat, to increase waterfowl habitat by 30%, to improve 

watershed conditions, and to comply with the nonpoint 

source water pollution section of the Clean Water Act (BLM 

1994).

Action: In PHMA, where riparian areas and wet meadows meet 

PFC, strive to attain reference state vegetation relative to the 

ecological site description.

For example, within PHMA, reduce hot season grazing on 

riparian and meadow complexes to promote recovery or 

maintenance of appropriate vegetation and water quality. Use 

fencing/herding techniques or seasonal use or livestock 

distribution changes to reduce pressure on riparian or wet 

meadow vegetation used by GRSG in the summer.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to PHMA and 

GHMA.

Action: Riparian-wetland areas currently achieving PFC would 

be managed for desired future condition and the desired plant 

community, based on ecological site potential. Other values to 

be considered include important wildlife habitat, water quality

impaired streams, fisheries, riparian woodland forest, and 

habitat for currently listed threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive species.

Action: Riparian-wetland areas with altered potential (i.e., 

those riparian-wetland areas that are incapable of reaching 

potential because of causes that are outside of the control of 

the BLM) would be managed for their capability.

Action: Human-made water developments, such as reservoirs 

and stock ponds, can develop riparian-wetland characteristics. 

Those that have the capability to support important wildlife 

values (such as GRSG habitats and fisheries) would be 

managed for such to the extent practical, with greater 

consideration given to the purpose of the development. When 

constructing or modifying water developments in PHMA, use 

RDFs (Appendix D) to mitigate potential impacts from West 

Nile virus.

Action: Riparian habitat needs would be taken into 

consideration in developing livestock grazing systems and 

pasture designs. Some of the techniques that can be used to 

lessen impacts are changing class of stock from cow/calf pairs 

to herded sheep or yearlings; either eliminating hot season 

grazing or scheduling hot season grazing for only one year 

out of every 3; locating salt away from riparian zones; laying 

out pasture fences so that each pasture has as much riparian 

habitat as possible; locating fences so that they do not 

confine or concentrate livestock near the riparian zone; 

Action: No similar action. Action: Within PHMA, reduce hot season grazing on riparian

and meadow complexes to promote recovery or maintenance 

of appropriate vegetation and water quality. Use 

fencing/herding techniques or seasonal use or livestock 

distribution changes to reduce pressure on riparian or wet 

meadow vegetation used by GRSG in summer. Hot season use 

of riparian and wet meadow complexes may be authorized 

where consistent with overall GRSG habitat objectives and 

where use is currently resulting in vegetative conditions that 

are in conformance with land health standards.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Detailed Description of Draft Alternatives)

2-60 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-5

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

developing alternative sources of water to lessen the grazing 

pressure on the riparian habitat; and as a last resort, 

excluding livestock completely from riparian habitat by 

protective fencing (BLM 1984).

Action: Grazing methods to be implemented include 1) hot 

season grazing deferment, 2) creation of separate riparian

pastures, 3) changes in kind and class of livestock, 4) time 

control grazing, and 5) other range management practices, 

such as development of off-site water, salting, development 

of shade sources, herding, insect control, or early use 

pastures. A) All spring developments would be fenced if 

needed to protect associated riparian vegetation; B) salt and 

mineral blocks and supplemental feeding would only be 

allowed at least 0.25 mile or farther from riparian-wetland

areas, where possible; C) water developments would be built 

away from stream riparian-wetland areas where possible; D) 

study exclosures would be put in place on key areas and 

areas representative of common riparian-wetland types and 

types about which there are questions, to compare 

management progress, to demonstrate the values of proper 

management, and to confirm potential and recovery rates 

(BLM 1994).

Action: No similar action. Action: Authorize new water development for diversion from 

spring or seep source only when PHMA would benefit from the 

development. This includes developing new water sources for 

livestock as part of an AMP/conservation plan to improve GRSG 

habitat.

Action: Authorize no new water developments for diversion 

from spring or seep sources within PHMA and GHMA.

Action: In PHMA, management emphasis would be placed on 

riparian and wetland potential associated with springs and 

seeps. Water from other sources would be prioritized to 

develop grazing management infrastructure. New water 

development for diversion from spring or seeps would be 

authorized only when no other sources are available and 

where such considerations would be neutral or beneficial to 

GRSG.

Action: Human-made water developments, such as reservoirs 

and stock ponds, can develop riparian-wetland characteristics. 

Those that have the capability to support important wildlife 

values (such as GRSG habitats and fisheries) would be 

managed for such to the extent practical, with greater 

consideration given to the purpose of the development. When 

constructing or modifying water developments in PHMA, use 

RDFs (Appendix D) to mitigate potential impacts from West 

Nile virus.

Action: No similar action. Action: Analyze springs, seeps, and associated pipelines to 

determine if modifications are necessary to maintain the 

continuity of the predevelopment riparian area within PHMA.

Make modifications where necessary, considering impacts on 

other water uses when such considerations are neutral or 

beneficial to GRSG.

Action: Analyze springs, seeps, and associated water 

developments to determine if modifications are necessary to 

maintain the continuity of the predevelopment riparian area 

within PHMA and GHMA. Make modifications where 

necessary, including dismantling water developments.

Action: Analyze springs, seeps, and associated pipelines during 

the allotment evaluation and watershed planning process to 

determine if modifications are necessary to maintain the 

continuity of the predevelopment riparian area within PHMA. 

Make modifications, where necessary, in accordance with 

Montana water law, considering impacts on other water uses, 

when such considerations are neutral or beneficial to GRSG.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Detailed Description of Draft Alternatives)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-61

Table 2-5

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Treatments to Increase Forage for Livestock/Wild Ungulates (Hoofed Animals)

Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Develop and implement methods for prioritizing and 

restoring sagebrush steppe invaded by nonnative plants.

Objective: Develop and implement (as budgets and workloads 

allow) methods for prioritizing and restoring sagebrush steppe 

invaded by nonnative plants.

Action: No similar action. Action: Evaluate the role of existing seedings that are currently 

composed of primarily introduced perennial grasses in and 

adjacent to PHMA to determine if they should be restored to 

sagebrush or habitat of higher quality for GRSG. If these seedings 

are part of an AMP/conservation plan or if they provide value in 

conserving or enhancing the rest of the PHMA, then no 

restoration would be necessary. Assess the compatibility of 

these seedings for GRSG habitat or as a component of a grazing 

system during the land health assessments.

Action: Evaluate the role of existing seedings that are 

composed of primarily introduced perennial grasses in and 

adjacent to PHMA and GHMA to determine if they should be 

restored to sagebrush or habitat of higher quality for GRSG. If 

these seedings provide value in conserving or enhancing GRSG 

habitats, then no restoration would be necessary. Assess the 

compatibility of these seedings for GRSG habitat during the 

land health assessments.

Action: Evaluate the role of existing seedings that are 

currently composed of primarily introduced perennial grasses 

in and adjacent to PHMA to determine if they should be 

restored to sagebrush or habitat of higher quality for GRSG. If 

these seedings are part of a grazing management plan that is 

providing value in conserving or enhancing native rangelands in 

PHMA and other priority wildlife habitats, then no restoration 

would be necessary. Assess the compatibility of these seedings 

for GRSG habitat or as a component of a grazing system 

during the land health evaluation and determination process.

Action: Integrated vegetation management would be used to control, suppress, and eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive species, in accordance with Chapter 6, sections II and III of BLM Handbook H-1740-2.

Action: Noxious weed control on affected grazing allotments

would be implemented through Weed Control Cooperative 

Range Improvement Project Agreements.

Action: No similar action. Action: Noxious weed control on affected grazing allotments

would be implemented through Weed Control Cooperative 

Range Improvement Project Agreements.

Structural Range Improvements and Livestock Management Tools

Action: Range improvements generally would be designed to 

achieve both wildlife and range objectives. Existing fences 

may be modified and new fences would be built so as to 

allow wildlife passage (BLM 1984).

Action: In PHMA, design any new structural range improvements 

and location of supplements (salt or protein blocks) to conserve, 

enhance, or restore GRSG habitat through an improved grazing 

management system relative to GRSG habitat objectives. 

Structural range improvements, in this context, include cattle 

guards, fences, exclosures, corrals or other livestock handling 

structures; pipelines, troughs, storage tanks (including movable 

tanks used in livestock water hauling); windmills, 

ponds/reservoirs, solar panels; and spring developments. 

Potential for invasive species establishment or increase following 

construction must be considered in the project planning process 

and monitored and treated post-construction.

Action: No similar action. Action: In PHMA, site and design any new structural range 

improvements and location of supplements (salt or protein 

blocks) to conserve, enhance, or restore said habitat through 

an improved grazing management system relative to GRSG 

habitat objectives. Structural range improvements, in this 

context, include cattle guards, fences, exclosures, corrals, or 

other livestock handling structures; pipelines, troughs, storage 

tanks (including movable tanks used in livestock water 

hauling), windmills, ponds/reservoirs, solar panels, and spring 

developments.

Action: Potential for invasive species establishment or increase 

following construction would be considered in the project 

planning process and monitored and treated postconstruction. Projects would be designed to the extent 

practical to reduce or eliminate the establishment of new twotrack roads and trails that may be created during construction 

and maintenance.

Action: No similar action. Action: When developing or modifying water developments in 

PHMA, use applicable RDFs (Appendix C) to mitigate potential 

impacts from West Nile virus.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PHMA

and GHMA (Appendix C).

Action: Same as Alternative B (Appendix D).

Action: No similar action. Action: In PHMA, evaluate existing structural range 

improvements and location of supplements (salt or protein 

blocks) to make sure they conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG 

habitat.

 To reduce outright GRSG strikes and deaths, remove, 

modify, or mark fences in high risk areas within PHMA, 

based on proximity to lek, lek size, and topography.

 In PHMA, monitor for and treat invasive species associated 

with existing range improvements.

Action: In PHMA and GHMA, evaluate existing structural range 

improvements and location of supplements (salt or protein 

blocks) to make sure they conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG 

habitat.

 Remove, modify, or mark fences in areas of moderate or 

high risk of GRSG strikes within GRSG habitat, based on 

proximity to lek, lek size, and topography (Christiansen 

2009; Stevens 2011).

 In PHMA, monitor for and treat invasive species 

associated with existing range improvements.

Action: During the allotment evaluation and watershed

planning process (typically every 10 years), examine existing 

structural range improvements and location of supplements 

(salt or protein blocks) to ensure they conserve, enhance or 

restore PHMA.

 Identify and mark fences in high risk areas within PHMA, 

based on proximity to lek, lek size, and topography. 

During the allotment evaluation and watershed planning 

process, examine existing structural range 

improvements to ensure they conserve, enhance, or 

restore PHMA.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Detailed Description of Draft Alternatives)

2-62 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-5

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

 In PHMA and GHMA, monitor for and treat invasive 

species associated with existing range improvements.

Action: A minimum rest period from livestock grazing of 2 

growing seasons would be required after any major 

vegetative disturbance. More rest may be required, 

depending on the situation. Major disturbances are defined as 

mechanical manipulation of the range, such as chiseling and 

seeding. Requirements for rest following fire (wild or 

prescribed) would depend on a variety of factors including 

the type of fuel, time of burn, accessibility of the burned area 

to livestock, and climatic factors post-burn. Specific timing 

and the type of rest would be determined at the site specific 

environmental assessment phase (BLM 1994).

Action: No similar action. Action: In PHMA and GHMA, site-specific requirements for 

resting or deferring areas from livestock grazing following fire 

would depend on a variety of factors, including resource 

objectives, the type of fuel, time and intensity of burn, 

accessibility of the burned area to livestock and post-burn 

climactic factors.

Retirement of Grazing Privileges

Action: No similar action. Action: Maintain retirement of permitted grazing uses as an 

option in PHMA when the current permittee is willing to retire 

grazing on all or part of an allotment. Analyze the adverse 

impacts of no livestock use on wildfire and invasive species 

threats (Crawford et al. 2004) in evaluating retirement 

proposals.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PHMA

and GHMA.

Action: In PHMA, when a current grazing permittee/lessee is 

willing to relinquish grazing preference on all or part of an 

allotment, the associated authorized use would become 

vacated from the base property.

Where allotments are not meeting standards for rangeland 

health due to current livestock, reductions of authorized use, 

temporary closures of allotments and modifications of terms 

and conditions would be implemented as appropriate. If upon 

reevaluation of land health standards it is determined that they 

are still not met, consider making grazing preference 

unavailable through the land use planning process.

Any unavailability of grazing preference, in full or in part would 

be documented through the land use planning process after 

consultation, cooperation and coordination with owners or 

lessees having lands or managing resources within the 

allotment area, the affected cooperative state grazing district 

and interested public. Analyze the adverse impacts of no 

livestock use on wildfire, invasive species threats and socioeconomics in evaluating retirement proposals.

Fluid Minerals

Leased Federal Fluid Mineral Estate 

Action: No similar action. Action: Allow geophysical exploration within PHMA to obtain 

exploratory information for areas outside of and adjacent to 

PHMA. Allow only geophysical operations by helicopter‐portable 

drilling methods and in accordance with seasonal timing 

restrictions and other restrictions that may apply.

Action: Allow geophysical exploration within PHMA and 

GHMA areas to obtain exploratory information for areas 

outside of and adjacent to GRSG habitat areas. Allow only 

geophysical operations by helicopter‐portable drilling methods 

and in accordance with seasonal timing restrictions or other 

restrictions that may apply. Geophysical exploration would be 

subject to seasonal restrictions that preclude activities in 

breeding, nesting, brood rearing, and winter habitats during 

GRSG season of use.

Action: No new geophysical exploration permits would be 

issued.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

Action: No similar action in the RMP. Standard stipulations 

(see Appendix J) would apply existing leases.

Action: In PHMA, apply the following 9 conservation measures

through RMP implementation decisions (e.g., approval of an APD 

and Sundry Notice) and on completion of the environmental 

Action: In PHMA and GHMA, apply the following conservation 

measures as COAs at the project and well permitting stages,

and through RMP implementation decisions and on completion 

Action: During implementation level review and decisions, 

(e.g., approval of an APD or Sundry Notice) and on 

completion of the environmental record of review (43 CFR, 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Detailed Description of Draft Alternatives)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-63

Table 2-5

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Follow standards and guidelines found in Surface Operating 

Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development (The Gold Book 2007).

NOTE: COA means a site-specific requirement included in an 

approved APD or Sundry Notice that may limit or amend the 

specific actions proposed by the operator. COAs minimize, 

mitigate, or prevent impacts on BLM-administered lands or other 

resources. BMPs may be incorporated as a COA (Source –

Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 1, II. Definitions).

record of review (43 CFR, Part 3162.5), including appropriate 

documentation of compliance with NEPA. In this process 

evaluate, among other things: 

 Whether the conservation measure is “reasonable” (43 

CFR, Part 3101.1‐2) with the valid existing rights and

 Whether the action is in conformance with the approved 

RMP

Provide the following 9 conservation measures as terms and 

conditions of the approved RMP:

1) Do not allow new surface occupancy on federal leases 

within PHMA; this includes winter concentration areas 

during any time of the year. Consider an exception: 

 If the lease is entirely within PHMA, apply a 4-mile 

NSO stipulation around the lek and limit permitted 

disturbances to one per section, with no more than 

3% surface disturbance in that section.

 If the entire lease is within the 4-mile lek perimeter, 

limit permitted disturbances to one per section, with 

no more than 3% surface disturbances in that section. 

Require any development to be placed at the most 

distal part of the lease from the lek, or, depending on 

topography and other habitat aspects, in an area that 

is less demonstrably harmful to GRSG.

2) Apply a seasonal restriction on exploratory drilling that 

prohibits surface-disturbing activities during the nesting and 

early brood-rearing season in all PHMA during this period.

3) The BLM would closely examine the applicability of 

categorical exclusions in PHMA. If extraordinary 

circumstances review is applicable, the BLM should 

determine whether those circumstances exist. 

4) Complete master development plans in lieu of application 

for APD-by-APD processing for all but wildcat wells.

5) When permitting APDs on existing leases that are not yet 

developed, the proposed surface disturbance cannot exceed 

3% for that area. Consider an exception if:

 Additional, effective mitigation is demonstrated to 

offset the resulting loss of GRSG (see Alternative B 

Objectives).

a. When necessary, conduct additional effective 

mitigation in PHMA or, less preferably, in 

GHMA (depending on the area-specific ability 

to increase GRSG populations).

b. Conduct additional effective mitigation first 

within the same population area where the 

impact is realized; if not possible, conduct 

mitigation within the same management zone 

as the impact, in accordance with 2006 

WAFWA Strategy (page 2-17).

6) Require unitization when deemed necessary for proper 

of the environmental record of review (43 CFR, Part 3162.5), 

including appropriate documentation of compliance with NEPA. 

In this process evaluate, among other things:

 Whether the conservation measure is “reasonable” (43 

CFR, Part 3101.1‐2) with the valid existing rights and

 Whether the action is in conformance with the approved 

RMP

Provide the following 9 conservation measures as terms and 

conditions of the approved RMP:

1) Do not allow new surface occupancy on federal leases 

within PHMA and GHMA; this includes winter 

concentration areas during any time of the year. Consider 

an exception: 

 If the lease is entirely within PHMA, apply a 4-mile 

NSO around the lek and limit permitted 

disturbances to one per section, with no more than 

3% surface disturbance in that section.

 If the entire lease is within the 4-mile lek perimeter, 

limit permitted disturbances to one per section, 

with no more than 3% surface disturbances in that 

section. Require any development to be placed at 

the most distal part of the lease from the lek or, 

depending on topography and other habitat aspects, 

in an area that is less demonstrably harmful to 

GRSG.

2) Apply a seasonal restriction on exploratory drilling that 

prohibits surface-disturbing activities during the nesting and 

brood-rearing season in all PHMA during this period. This 

seasonal restriction shall also apply to related activities that 

are disruptive to GRSG, including vehicle traffic and other 

human presence.

3) The BLM should closely examine the applicability of 

categorical exclusions in PHMA. If extraordinary 

circumstances review is applicable, the BLM should 

determine whether those circumstances exist.

4) Complete master development plans in lieu of APD-byAPD processing for all but wildcat wells.

5) When permitting APDs on existing leases that are not yet 

developed, the proposed surface disturbance cannot 

exceed 3% per section for that area. Consider an 

exception if:

 Additional, effective mitigation is demonstrated to 

offset the resulting loss of GRSG (see Alternative C 

Objectives).

a. When necessary, conduct additional effective 

mitigation in PHMA or, less preferably, 

GHMA (depending on the area-specific 

ability to increase GRSG populations)

b. Conduct additional effective mitigation first 

Part 3162.5), include appropriate documentation of 

compliance with NEPA. In this process evaluate, among other 

things:

 Whether the conservation measure is reasonable (43 

CFR, Part 3101.1‐2) with the valid existing rights and

 Whether the action is in conformance with the 

approved RMP

The following operating constraints would be applied to 

existing leases as COAs in PHMA and GHMA. 

Exceptions may be granted by the authorized officer if an 

environmental review demonstrates that effects could be 

mitigated to an acceptable level, if habitat for the species is 

not present in the area, or if portions of the area can be 

occupied without affecting GRSG. Exceptions may also be 

granted where the short-term effects on GRSG within PHMA

and GHMA are mitigated by the long-term benefits. The BLM 

may add additional site-specific restrictions as deemed 

necessary by further environmental analysis and as developed 

through coordination with other federal, state, and local 

regulatory and resource agencies.

1) Surface-disturbing/disruptive activities would avoid or 

minimize disturbance to GRSG or their habitat. Except as 

identified above or during emergency situations, activities 

would not compromise the functionality of the habitat.

2) Continuous noise (related to long-term operations or 

activities) would be no greater than 32 decibels at the 

perimeter of the lek and important seasonal habitats.

3) Temporary noise (related to, for example, installation, 

maintenance, one-time use, and emergency operations) 

exceeding 32 decibels at the perimeter of a lek or surface 

disturbing/disruptive activities may be allowed, but only 

from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., between March 15 and June 30. 

4) Manage water developments to reduce the spread of 

West Nile virus within GRSG habitat areas.

5) Site or minimize linear ROW to reduce disturbance to 

sagebrush habitats.

6) Maximize placement of new utility developments (such as 

power lines and pipelines) and transportation routes in 

existing utility or transportation corridors.

7) Power lines would be buried, eliminated, designed, or 

sited in a manner that does not impact GRSG. 

8) Placement of other high profile structures, exceeding 10 

feet in height, would be eliminated, designed, or sited in a 

manner that does not impact GRSG.

9) Production facilities must be remotely monitored, and all 

permit applications must contain a plan to reduce the 

frequency of vehicle use.

10) Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long-term 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Detailed Description of Draft Alternatives)

2-64 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-5

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

development and operation of an area (with strong oversight 

and monitoring) to minimize adverse impacts on GRSG 

according to the Federal Lease Form, 3100-11, Sections 4 

and 6.

7) Identify areas where acquisitions (including subsurface 

mineral rights) or conservation easements would benefit 

GRSG habitat.

8) For future actions, require a full reclamation bond specific to 

the site, in accordance with 43 CFR, Parts 3104.2, 3104.3, 

and 3104.5. Ensure that bonds are sufficient for costs 

relative to reclamation that would result in full restoration 

of the lands to their condition prior to disturbance. Base the 

reclamation costs on the assumption that contractors for 

the BLM would perform the work.

9) Make applicable RDFs (Appendix C) mandatory as COAs 

within PHMA. RDFs provided in Appendix C would be 

site-specific restrictions applied to permits to drill as COAs 

after the completion of site-specific NEPA analysis. Standard 

stipulations (see Appendix J) would apply existing leases.

within the same population area where the 

impact is realized, and, if not possible, then 

conduct mitigation within the same 

management zone as the impact, in 

accordance with 2006 WAFWA Strategy, 

page 2-17.

6) Require unitization when deemed necessary for proper 

development and operation of an area (with strong 

oversight and monitoring) to minimize adverse impacts on 

GRSG, according to the Federal Lease Form, 3100-11, 

Sections 4 and 6.

7) Identify areas where acquisitions (including subsurface 

mineral rights) or conservation easements would benefit 

GRSG habitat.

8) For future actions, require a full reclamation bond specific 

to the site, in accordance with 43 CFR, Parts 3104.2, 

3104.3, and 3104.5. Ensure bonds are sufficient for costs 

relative to reclamation that would result in full restoration 

of the lands to their condition prior to disturbance. Base 

the reclamation costs on the assumption that contractors 

for the BLM would perform the work.

9) Make applicable RDFs (Appendix C) mandatory as COAs 

within PHMA and GHMA. RDFs provided in Appendix C

would be site-specific restrictions applied to permits to

drill as COAs after the completion of site-specific NEPA

analysis. Standard stipulations (see Appendix J) would 

apply existing leases.

access roads and well pads, including reshaping, topsoiling, and revegetating cut and fill slopes. 

11) Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to predisturbance conditions or desired plant community.

12) Permanent (longer than two months) structures that 

create movement must be designed or sited to minimize 

impacts on GRSG.

13) Consider using off-site mitigation within the same PHMA

(e.g., creating sagebrush habitat, improving brood rearing 

habitat, or purchasing conservation easements) with 

proponent dollars to offset habitat losses (Washington 

Office-IM 2008-204).

14) Consider creating a mitigation trust account when 

impacts cannot be avoided, minimized, or effectively 

mitigated through other means. If approved by the BLM, 

the proponent may contribute funding to maintain habitat 

function within the same PHMA based on the estimated 

cost of habitat treatments or other mitigation needed to 

maintain the functions of impacted habitats. Off-site 

mitigation should be considered only when no feasible 

options are available to adequately mitigate within and 

immediately adjacent to the impacted site, or when the 

off-site location would provide more effective mitigation 

of the impact than can be achieved on-site.

15) Make applicable RDFs (Appendix D) mandatory as 

COAs within PHMA and GHMA. RDFs provided in 

Appendix D would be site-specific restrictions applied 

to permits to drill as COAs after the completion of sitespecific NEPA analysis. Standard stipulations (see 

Appendix J) would apply existing leases. Applied RDFs 

would have to be reasonable (43 CFR, Part 3101.1‐2) 

with the valid existing rights and in conformance with the 

approved Judith and Headwaters RMPs.

Solid Minerals

Coal - There is no coal potential in the planning area.

Action: Surface occupancy generally would be prohibited 

within public road corridors, ROWs, floodplains, and key 

wildlife areas (BLM 1984).

Action: The planning area would be available for coal

exploration licenses. See Figure 2-17, Solid Leasable and 

Salable Minerals – Alternative A (Appendix A). Before 

exploration licenses and licenses to mine are approved, a 

project-specific environmental review document would be 

prepared to assess impacts and develop mitigation measures.

Action: Prior to issuing coal leases, unsuitability criteria would 

apply and a plan amendment will be prepared (BLM 1994).

Action: Surface mines: In PHMA, find unsuitable all coal surface 

mining under the criteria set forth in 43 CFR, Part 3461.5 

(284,975 acres). See Figure 2-18, Solid Leasable and Salable 

Minerals – Alternative B (Appendix A).

Action: Surface mines: In PHMA and GHMA, find unsuitable all 

coal surface mining under the criteria set forth in 43 CFR, Part 

3461.5 (464,178 acres). See Figure 2-19, Solid Leasable and 

Salable Minerals – Alternative C (Appendix A).

Action: The planning area would be available for coal

exploration licenses. See Figure 2-20, Solid Leasable and 

Salable Minerals – Alternative D (Appendix A). Before 

exploration licenses and licenses to mine are approved, a 

project-specific environmental impact statement would be 

prepared to assess impacts on all resources including GRSG

and to develop mitigation measures through the RDFs set 

forth in Appendix D as the current RMPs do not contain 

allocation decisions concerning coal.

Action: On a case-by-case basis, unsuitability criteria would be 

applied, in accordance with 43 CFR, Part 3461.5, and a plan 

amendment would be prepared.

Action: No similar action. Action: Subsurface mines—Grant no new mining leases unless all 

surface disturbances (appurtenant facilities) are placed outside of 

the PHMA.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PHMA

and GHMA.

Action: No similar action.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Detailed Description of Draft Alternatives)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-65

Table 2-5

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Action: No similar action. There are no existing coal leases. Action: For coal mining operations on existing leases:

Subsurface mining—In PHMA, place any new appurtenant facilities 

outside of PHMA. Where new appurtenant facilities associated 

with the existing lease cannot be located outside the PHMA, 

collocate new facilities within existing disturbed areas. If this is 

not possible, then build any new appurtenant facilities to the 

absolute minimum standard necessary.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PHMA

and GHMA.

Action: No similar action.

Action: No similar action. Action: In GHMA, apply minimization of surface-disturbing or 

disrupting activities (including operations and maintenance) 

where needed to reduce the impacts of human activities on 

important seasonal GRSG habitats. Apply these measures during 

activity level planning.

Action: Use additional effective mitigation to offset impacts, as 

appropriate (determined by local options/needs).

Action: No similar action.

Locatable Minerals

Action: Analyze proposed action in Plan of Operations and 

apply mitigating measures needed to prevent unnecessary or 

undue degradation (BLM 1994)1.

Action: Before the BLM approves a Plan of Operations on 

existing mining claims in areas withdrawn, it would conduct 

validity examinations. If the claims did not contain a 

discovery, within the meaning of the mining laws, the claims 

would be declared null and void and the Plan of Operations 

would be denied. The BLM would consider purchasing valid 

claims where activities threaten the resource values 

protected by the withdrawal (BLM 1994).

Action: Analyze proposed action in Plan of Operations and 

apply mitigating measures needed to prevent unnecessary or 

undue degradation (BLM 1994).

Action: Screen Notices for impacts that constitute 

unnecessary or undue degradation (BLM 1994).

See Figure 2-21, Withdrawals and Recommend for 

Withdrawal – Alternative A (Appendix A).

Action: In PHMA, recommend withdrawal from mineral entry

based on risk to the GRSG and its habitat from conflicting 

locatable mineral potential and development (281,900 acres). 

 Make any existing mining claims within the withdrawal area 

subject to validity exams or buy out. In Plan of Operations 

required prior to any proposed surface-disturbing 

activities, include the following:

- Additional, effective mitigation in perpetuity for 

conservation (in accordance with existing policy, 

Washington Office IM 2008-204). Example: 

purchase private land and mineral rights or severed 

subsurface mineral rights within the priority area 

and deed to the US Government).

- Consider seasonal restrictions if deemed effective.

- RDFs would be applied to locatables to the extent 

consistent with applicable law (Appendix C).

See Figure 2-22, Withdrawals and Recommend for Withdrawal 

– Alternative B (Appendix A).

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PHMA

and GHMA (457,774 acres). RDFs would be applied to 

locatables to the extent consistent with applicable law

(Appendix C).

See Figure 2-23, Withdrawals and Recommend for 

Withdrawal – Alternative C (Appendix A).

Action: Same as Alternative A. See Figure 2-24, Withdrawals

and Recommend for Withdrawal – Alternative D (Appendix 

A).

Action: Locatable minerals exploration and development 

under the mining laws are not authorized under the discretion 

of the field manager but are reviewed (Notice and Plan of 

Operations) and approved (Plan of Operations) to prevent 

unnecessary or undue degradation. Proposed actions under 

Plan of Operations would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis 

in coordination with MTDEQ, and RDFs (Appendix D)

would be applied to locatables to the extent consistent with

applicable law.

Action: At a minimum, annual compliance inspections would 

be conducted on each active Notice or Plan of Operations.

Nonenergy Leasable Minerals

Action: No similar action. 

NOTE: Application of current BMP.

Action: Close PHMA to nonenergy leasable mineral leasing. This 

includes not permitting any new leases to expand an existing 

mine (284,337 acres).

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PHMA

and GHMA (457,774 acres).

Action: No similar action.

 

1Unnecessary 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 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 BLM-administered National Monuments and National Conservation Areas.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Detailed Description of Draft Alternatives)

2-66 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-5

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Action: Prospecting permits would be issued after 

appropriate environmental review to assess impacts and 

develop mitigating measures (BLM 1994).

Action: For existing nonenergy leasable mineral leases in PHMA,

in addition to the solid minerals RDFs (Appendix C), follow the 

same RDFs applied to fluid minerals (Appendix C) when wells 

are used for solution mining.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PHMA

and GHMA.

Action: In PHMA, prospecting permits may be issued after 

appropriate environmental review to assess impacts and to 

develop RDFs set forth in Appendix D. Prospecting permits 

are considered on a case-by-case basis and are issued at the 

discretion of the Montana BLM State Office. If activity under 

the permit application cannot be mitigated to prevent 

unnecessary or undue degradation to GRSG habitat, the field 

manager would not recommend issuing the permit.

Salable Minerals

Action: 2,437 acres within GH and 198 acres within PH are 

closed to salable minerals disposal. See Figure 2-17

(Appendix A).

Action: Close PHMA to salable minerals disposal (284,337acres). 

See Figure 2-18 (Appendix A).

Action: Close PHMA and GHMA to salable minerals disposal 

(457,774 acres). See Figure 2-19 (Appendix A).

Action: Same as Alternative A. See Figure 2-17 (Appendix 

A).

Action: The BLM would issue sales contracts for salable 

minerals where disposal is deemed to be in the public 

interest, while providing for reclamation of mined lands and 

preventing unnecessary or undue impact on nonmineral 

resources. Salable minerals permits are considered on a 

case-by-case basis and are issued at the discretion of the area 

manager (BLM 1994).

Action: No similar action. Action: In PHMA, the BLM would issue permits for salable 

minerals where disposal is deemed to be in the public interest 

(Figure 2-17, Appendix A), while providing for reclamation 

of mined lands and preventing unnecessary or undue 

degradation (Appendix D). Salable mineral permits are 

considered on a case-by-case basis and are issued at the 

discretion of the field manager. If activity under the permit 

application cannot be mitigated to prevent unnecessary or 

undue degradation to GRSG habitat, the permit would not be 

issued.

Action: The BLM would issue sales contracts for salable 

minerals where disposal is deemed to be in the public 

interest, while providing for reclamation of mined lands and 

preventing unnecessary or undue impact on nonmineral 

resources (BLM 1994).

Action: In PHMA, restore salable mineral pits no longer in use to 

meet GRSG habitat conservation objectives.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PHMA

and GHMA.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

Mineral Split Estate

The BLM manages 700 million acres of subsurface mineral 

estate nationwide, including approximately 58 million acres 

where the surface is privately owned. In many cases, the 

surface rights and mineral rights were severed under the 

terms of the nation’s homesteading laws. These and other 

federal laws, regulations, and BLM policy directives, some 

noted below, give managers the authority and direction for 

administering the development of federal oil and natural gas 

resources beneath privately owned surface.

Planning and Leasing

 Must involve the public when preparing land use plans 

and amendments

 Must notify the public when oil and gas lease sales have 

been scheduled

Permitting

 Encourages the lessee/operator to contact the surface 

owner as early as possible when operations are 

contemplated

 Requires the lessee/operator to certify that a good 

faith effort has been made to negotiate a surface use 

agreement with the surface owner

Action: Where the federal government owns the surface, and 

the mineral estate is not in federal ownership in PHMA, apply 

appropriate fluid mineral RDFs (Appendix C) to surface 

development.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PHMA

and GHMA (Appendix C).

Action: Where the federal government owns the surface, and 

the mineral estate is not in federal ownership in PHMA, apply 

appropriate fluid mineral RDFs (Appendix D) to surface 

development. Applied RDFs would have to be reasonable (43 

CFR, Part 3101.1‐2) with the valid existing rights and whether 

the action is in conformance with the approved RMP.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Detailed Description of Draft Alternatives)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-67

Table 2-5

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Drilling and Production

 Conducts compliance inspections, consults with 

surface owner as appropriate, and takes enforcement 

action when necessary to ensure permit compliance

Surface Reclamation

 Must carefully consider the surface owner’s views on 

reclamation requirements and seek concurrence that 

final reclamation is satisfactory

Action: No similar action. Action: Where the federal government owns the mineral estate 

in PHMA, and the surface is not in federal ownership, apply the 

same conservation measures applied on BLM-administered lands.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PHMA

and GHMA.

Action: Where the federal government owns the mineral 

estate in PHMA and the surface is not in federal ownership, 

apply the same conservation measures applied on BLMadministered lands when federal action (mineral exploration 

or development) occurs. See appropriate mineral section for 

more information. Applied RDFs would have to be reasonable 

(43 CFR, Part 3101.1‐2) with the valid existing rights and

whether the action is in conformance with the approved RMP.

Fire and Fuels Management

Fuels Management

Objective: Prescribed burning would continue to be used in 

support of resource management objectives (BLM 1984).

Objective: Prescribed fire may be used to meet resource 

objectives, such as restoring fire-adapted grass and 

shrublands, or increasing variation of age classes in 

shrublands. Treatments would be designed to achieve mosaic 

patterns, which would also reduce the potential of entire 

stands being destroyed by wildland fire. Most sagebrush 

treatments would be on mountain big sagebrush or silver 

sagebrush (BLM 2003a).

Objective: Design fuel treatments to protect, restore, enhance, or maintain GRSG habitat, consistent with vegetation and wildlife habitat objectives.

Action: Land treatments would be designed to maintain 

sagebrush levels within the desired canopy cover range 15 to 

50% and to increase the amounts of succulent forbs. 

Controlled burning in conifer and sagebrush types would be 

done on an individual basis to improve wildlife habitat (BLM 

1994).

Action: Prescribed burning would be administered on an 

individual basis in grassland, sagebrush, and conifer types to 

improve wildlife habitat and vegetation production (BLM 

1994).

Action: Burning would be done on a limited basis to improve 

wildlife and livestock forage in dense pine-juniper stands 

throughout the Missouri Breaks and to improve vegetation 

productivity on other upland sites, including sagebrush (BLM 

1994).

Action: Mechanical treatments and prescribed fire would 

primarily be used to remove encroaching conifers or open 

Action: In PHMA, design and implement fuels treatments with an 

emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. 

 Do not reduce sagebrush canopy cover to less than 15% 

unless a fuels management objective requires additional 

reduction in sagebrush cover to meet strategic protection 

of PHMA and conserve habitat quality for the species. 

Closely evaluate the benefits of the fuel break against the 

additional loss of sagebrush cover in future NEPA

documents.

 Apply appropriate seasonal restrictions for implementing 

fuels management treatments according to the type of 

seasonal habitats present in PHMA.

 Allow no treatments in known winter range unless the 

treatments are designed to strategically reduce wildfire 

risk around or in the winter range and would maintain 

winter range habitat quality.

 Do not use fire to treat sagebrush in less than 12-inch 

precipitation zones (e.g., Wyoming big sagebrush or other 

xeric sagebrush species). However, if as a last resort and 

after all other treatment opportunities have been explored 

Action: In PHMA and GHMA, design and implement fuels 

treatments with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush 

ecosystems. 

 Do not reduce sagebrush canopy cover to less than 15%, 

unless a fuels management objective requires additional 

reduction in sagebrush cover to meet strategic 

protection of PHMA and GHMA and conserve habitat 

quality for the species. 

 Closely evaluate the benefits of the fuel break against the 

additional loss of sagebrush cover in the NEPA process.

 Apply appropriate seasonal restrictions for implementing 

fuels management treatments according to the type of 

seasonal habitats present.

 Allow no fuels treatments in known winter range, unless 

the treatments are designed to strategically reduce 

wildfire risk around or in the winter range and would 

maintain winter range habitat quality.

 Do not use fire to treat sagebrush in less than 12-inch 

precipitation zones (e.g., Wyoming big sagebrush or 

other xeric sagebrush species). However, if as a last 

Action: In PHMA and GHMA, design and implement fuels 

treatments with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush 

ecosystems. 

 Do not reduce sagebrush canopy cover to less than 

15%, unless a fuels management objective requires 

additional reduction in sagebrush cover to meet 

strategic protection of PHMA and conserve habitat 

quality for the species. Closely evaluate the benefits of 

the fuel break against the additional loss of sagebrush 

cover in the NEPA process.

1) Sites should not be burned unless: 

a) Biological and physical limitations of the site 

and impact on GRSG are identified and 

determined to be neutral or beneficial to 

PHMA, including moisture regimes, soil 

texture, seed sources, and sagebrush 

recovery time,

b) Management objectives for the site, including 

those for wildlife, are clearly defined,

c) Potential for weed invasion and successional 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Detailed Description of Draft Alternatives)

2-68 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-5

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

the canopy on dense, stagnant, and even-aged stands of 

sagebrush that are at risk of destruction by wildland fire. In 

shrublands where mechanical treatments and prescribed fire 

are used against conifer encroachment, the density and 

canopy of shrub stands would be reduced in treated areas. 

The duration of the reduction would depend on whether the 

shrubs sprout after fire and post-fire management actions, 

such as reseeding (BLM 2003a).

Action: Chemical weed treatments would be applied where 

other fuels treatments would create conditions favorable for 

noxious weeds or other undesirable invasive species to 

expand. For example, weeds are often present in areas of 

conifer encroachment. When the canopy is opened by 

mechanical treatments or prescribed burns, the conditions 

are favorable for the weeds or invasive species to expand. 

Nearly all of the weed treatments would be applied either 

before or after the area is treated with prescribed fire or 

mechanical methods (BLM 2003a).

Action: A minimum rest period from livestock grazing of 2 

growing seasons would be required after any major 

vegetative disturbance. More rest may be required, 

depending on the situation. Major disturbances are defined as 

mechanical manipulation of the range, such as chiseling and 

seeding. Requirements for rest following wild or prescribed 

fire would depend on a variety of factors, including the type 

of fuel, time of burn, accessibility of the burned area to 

livestock, and climatic factors post-burn. Specific timing and 

the type of rest would be determined at the site-specific 

environmental assessment phase (BLM 1994).

and site-specific variables allow, the use of prescribed fire

for fuel breaks that would disrupt the fuel continuity 

across the landscape could be considered, in stands where 

cheatgrass is a very minor component in the understory. 

 Monitor and control invasive vegetation post-treatment.

 Rest treated areas from grazing for two full growing 

seasons, unless vegetation recovery dictates otherwise.

 Require use of native seeds for fuels management 

treatment, based on availability, adaptation (site potential), 

and probability of success. Where probability of success or 

native seed availability is low, nonnative seeds may be used 

as long as they meet GRSG habitat objectives.

 Design post fuels management projects to ensure longterm persistence of seeded or pretreatment native plants. 

This may require temporary or long-term changes in 

livestock grazing management, travel management, or 

other activities to achieve and maintain the desired 

condition of the fuels management project.

resort and after all other treatment opportunities have 

been explored and if site-specific variables allow, the use 

of prescribed fire for fuel breaks that would disrupt the 

fuel continuity across the landscape could be considered. 

This would be for stands where cheatgrass is a very 

minor component in the understory.

 Design post fuels management projects to ensure longterm persistence of seeded or pretreatment native 

plants, including sagebrush. This may require temporary 

or long-term changes in livestock grazing management,

travel management, or other activities to achieve and 

maintain the desired condition of the fuels management 

project.

trends are well understood, and 

d) Capability exists to manage the post-burn 

site properly, including a funded monitoring 

schedule, to achieve a healthy sagebrush 

community. Manage grazing, weeds, 

reseeding, or other activities that potentially 

influence the outcome of rehabilitation or 

treatment in a manner that achieves the 

desired condition of the burned site.

 Apply appropriate seasonal restrictions for 

implementing fuels management treatments according 

to the type of seasonal habitats present in PHMA.

 Allow no fuels treatments in known GRSG winter range 

unless the treatments are designed to strategically 

reduce wildfire risk around or in the winter range and 

would maintain winter range habitat quality.

 Monitor and control invasive vegetation post-treatment.

 Requirements for resting or deferring areas from 

livestock grazing following fire would depend on a 

variety of factors, including resource objectives, the 

type of fuel, time and intensity of burn, accessibility of 

the burned area to livestock, and post-burn climatic 

factors.

Action: No similar action. Action: Design fuels management projects in PHMA to 

strategically and effectively reduce wildfire threats in the greatest 

area. This may require fuels treatments implemented in a more 

linear versus block design.

Action: No similar action. Action: Same as Alternative B.

Action: No similar action. Action: During fuels management project design, consider the 

utility of using livestock to strategically reduce fine fuels, and 

implement grazing management that would accomplish this 

objective. Consult with ecologists to minimize impacts on native 

perennial grasses.

Action: No similar action. Action: During fuels management project design, consider the 

utility of using livestock to strategically reduce fine fuels and 

implement grazing management that would accomplish this.

Consult with an interdisciplinary team of resource specialists, 

as appropriate, to minimize impacts on native perennial 

grasses.

Action: No similar action. Action: Any vegetation treatment plan must include 

pretreatment data on wildlife and habitat condition, must 

establish nongrazing exclosures, and must include long-term 

monitoring where treated areas are monitored for at least 

three years before grazing returns. Continue monitoring for 

five years after livestock are returned to the area and compare 

to treated ungrazed exclosures, as well as untreated areas.

Action: No similar action.

Action: No similar action. Action: In PHMA, follow RDFs (Appendix C). Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PHMA

and GHMA. Follow RDFs in Appendix C.

Action: Follow the most current RDFs for fire and fuels 

(Appendix D).
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Detailed Description of Draft Alternatives)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-69

Table 2-5

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Fire Operations

Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Manage wildfires to minimize loss of sage-brush and protect GRSG habitat.

Action: Intensive suppression would be applied to areas with 

high resource values, structures, improvements, oil and gas 

developments, commercial forest values, sagebrush and 

juniper areas, fire sensitive woody riparian areas (soil 

subgroups 6 and 17) and cultural values that require 

aggressive suppression (BLM 2003a).

Action: In PHMA, prioritize suppression, after life and property, 

to conserve the habitat. See Appendix K, which would be 

completed to help further refine fire management actions once 

this plan is completed.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PHMA

and GHMA. See Appendix K, which would be completed to 

help further refine fire management actions once this plan is 

completed.

Action: Same as Alternative B. See Appendix K, which would 

be completed to help further refine fire management actions 

once this plan is completed.

Action: Intensive suppression would be applied to areas with 

high resource values, structures, improvements, oil and gas 

developments, commercial forest values, sagebrush and 

juniper areas, fire sensitive woody riparian areas (soil 

subgroups 6 and 17), and cultural values that require 

aggressive suppression (BLM 2003a).

Action: In GHMA, prioritize suppression where wildfires 

threaten PHMA.

Action: No similar action. Action: Same as Alternative B.

Action: No similar action. Action: In PHMA, follow RDFs (Appendix C). Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PHMA

and GHMA. Follow RDFs in Appendix C.

Action: Follow the most current RDFs for fire and fuels 

(Appendix D).

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation

Action: No similar action. Action: In PHMA, prioritize native seed allocation for use in 

GRSG habitat in years when preferred native seed is in short 

supply. This may require reallocating native seed from ES&R 

projects outside of PHMA to those inside it. Use of native plant 

seeds for ES&R seedings is required, based on availability, 

adaptation (site potential), and probability of success. Where 

probability of success or native seed availability is low, nonnative 

seeds may be used, as long as they meet GRSG habitat 

conservation objectives. Reestablishing appropriate sagebrush 

species/subspecies and important understory plants, relative to 

site potential, should be the highest priority for rehabilitation.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PHMA

and GHMA.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

Action: No similar action. Action: In PHMA, design post-ES&R management to ensure longterm persistence of seeded or pre-burn native plants. This may 

require temporary or long-term changes in livestock grazing and 

travel management to achieve and maintain the desired condition 

of ES&R projects to benefit GRSG.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to both PHMA

and GHMA.

Action: In PHMA, design post ES&R management to ensure 

long term persistence of seeded or pre-burn native plants. 

This could include changes in current resource management 

to achieve and maintain the desired condition of the 

restoration effort that benefits GRSG. Modifications to 

livestock grazing would be made in accordance with BLM 

grazing regulation 43 CFR, Part 4130.3-3 and after 

consultation, cooperation and coordination with owners or 

lessees having lands or managing resources within the affected 

allotment(s), affected cooperative state grazing districts and 

the interested public. Temporary or long-term adjustments in 

post-restoration livestock use would be implemented by 

documented agreement or by the decision of the authorized 

officer in accordance with BLM grazing regulation 43 CFR, 

Part 4160.

Action: No similar action. Action: In PHMA, consider potential changes in climate when 

proposing restoration seeding of native plants. Consider 

collection from the warmer component of the species’ current 

range when selecting native seed.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to PHMA and 

GHMA.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

Action: Develop an appropriate seed mix for the location, 

based on current climatic data as well as soils/ESDs.

Action: No similar action. Action: Post-fire recovery must include establishing adequately 

sized exclosures (free of livestock grazing) that can be used to 

assess recovery.

Action: Appropriate pre and post treatment monitoring would 

be established to document impacts and success of the 

treatments.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Detailed Description of Draft Alternatives)

2-70 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-5

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Action: No similar action. Action: Livestock grazing should be excluded from burned 

areas until woody and herbaceous plants achieve GRSG habitat 

objectives.

Action: Requirements for resting or deferring areas from 

livestock grazing following fire would depend on a variety of 

factors including resource objectives, the type of fuel, time 

and intensity of burn, accessibility of the burned area to 

livestock, and post-burn climatic factors. Compliance with land 

health standards (Appendix F) would be considered when 

implementing post-fire grazing management.

Action: No similar action. Action: Where burned GRSG habitat cannot be fenced from 

other unburned habitat, the entire area (e.g., allotment/pasture) 

should be closed to grazing until recovered.

Action: Requirements for resting or deferring areas from 

livestock grazing following fire would depend on a variety of 

factors, including resource objectives, the type of fuel, time, 

and intensity of burn, accessibility of the burned area to 

livestock, and post-burn climatic factors. Compliance with land 

health standards (Appendix F) would be considered when 

implementing post fire grazing management.

Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Objective: Grazing methods, land treatments, and other 

improvements would be designed and monitored to 

accomplish objectives. The BLM would continue to 

cooperate with MFWP to determine wildlife habitat needs.

Objective: Within the analysis area, vegetation treatments may continue to be used to meet or support resource management objectives, given special consideration for the protection and 

maintenance of sagebrush ecosystems is incorporated into the design and implementation of treatments. The BLM would continue to cooperate with the MFWP to determine wildlife habitat needs.

Action: No similar action. Action: In PHMA, prioritize implementation of restoration 

projects based on environmental variables that improve chances 

for project success in areas most likely to benefit GRSG.

Action: Prioritize restoration in seasonal habitats that are 

thought to be limiting GRSG distribution or abundance.

Action: In PHMA and GHMA, prioritize implementation of 

restoration projects based on environmental variables that 

improve chances for project success in areas most likely to 

benefit GRSG.

Action: Prioritize restoration in seasonal habitats that are 

thought to be limiting GRSG distribution and abundance and 

where factors causing degradation have already been addressed 

(e.g., changes in livestock management).

Action: In PHMA, prioritize implementation of restoration 

projects based on environmental variables that improve 

chances for project success in areas most likely to benefit 

GRSG.

Action: In PHMA and GHMA, prioritize restoration in 

seasonal habitats that are thought to be limiting GRSG 

distribution or abundance.

Action: In PHMA and GHMA, consideration for other 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive species would be 

evaluated in addition to GRSG when prioritizing restoration 

projects.

Action: No similar action. Action: Include GRSG habitat parameters, as defined by Connelly 

et al. (2000) and Hagen et al. (2007) or, if available, state GRSG 

conservation plans and appropriate local information in habitat 

restoration objectives. Make meeting these objectives within 

PHMA the highest restoration priority.

Action: Include GRSG habitat objectives in habitat restoration 

projects. Make meeting these objectives within PHMA and 

GHMA the highest restoration priority.

Action: Manage for suitable GRSG habitat for restoration 

projects within PHMA.

Action: Surface-disturbing activities greater than 0.25 acre 

would require the initiating party to rehabilitate the 

disturbance. Native species in the site’s natural plant 

community would normally be seeded to revegetate all surface 

disturbances. Some reclamation may involve introduced 

species if these species are necessary to stabilize the site. 

Revegetation species would be determined during the sitespecific environmental assessment phase (BLM 1994, page 11).

Action: In PHMA, require use of native seeds for restoration, 

based on availability, adaptation (ecological site potential), and 

probability of success. Where probability of success or adapted 

seed availability is low, nonnative seeds may be used as long as 

they support GRSG habitat objectives.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to PHMA and 

GHMA.

Action: In PHMA, require use of native seeds for restoration 

based on availability, adaptation (ecological site potential), and 

probability of success. Nonnative species would be considered 

when determined to be necessary for emergency stabilization

and where required to facilitate natural succession of desired 

native vegetative communities.

Action: No similar action. Action: In PHMA, design post restoration management to ensure 

long-term persistence. This could include changes in livestock 

grazing management and travel management to achieve and 

maintain the desired condition of the restoration that benefits 

GRSG.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to PHMA and 

GHMA.

Action: In PHMA, design post restoration management to 

ensure long-term persistence. This could include changes in 

current resource management to achieve and maintain the 

desired condition of the restoration that benefits GRSG. 

Modifications to livestock grazing would be made in 

accordance with BLM grazing regulation 43 CFR, Part 4130.3-
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Detailed Description of Draft Alternatives)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-71

Table 2-5

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

3, and after consultation, cooperation, and coordination with 

owners or lessees having lands or managing resources within 

the affected allotment(s), affected cooperative state grazing 

districts and the interested public. Temporary or long-term 

adjustments in post-restoration livestock use would be 

implemented by documented agreement or by the decision of 

the authorized officer in accordance with BLM grazing 

regulation 43 CFR, Part 4160.

Action: No similar action. Action: In PHMA, consider potential changes in climate when 

proposing restoration seeding of native plants. Consider 

collection from the warmer component of the species’ current 

range when selecting native seed.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to PHMA and 

GHMA.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

Action: Choose appropriate seed mix for the location.

Action: The BLM would manage for succulent vegetation, 

including a variety of forbs, and would maintain big and silver 

sage on GRSG wintering and nesting areas with a canopy 

coverage (line intercept) of 15 to 50% and an effective height 

of 12 inches (BLM 1994).

Action: In PHMA, restore native or desirable plants and create 

landscape patterns that most benefit GRSG.

Action: In PHMA and GHMA, exotic seedings would be 

rehabilitated, interseeded, and restored to recover sagebrush 

in areas to expand occupied habitats.

Action: In PHMA, restore native (or desirable) plants and 

create landscape patterns that most benefit GRSG. 

Consideration for other threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species would be evaluated, in addition to GRSG, when 

creating landscape habitat patterns.

Action: No similar action. Action: Make reestablishment of sagebrush cover and desirable 

understory plants (relative to ecological site potential) the 

highest priority for restoration in PHMA.

Action: No similar action. Action: Make reestablishment of suitable GRSG habitat a high 

priority for restoration. Other restoration efforts within the 

field office may take precedence over sagebrush habitat 

projects, based on future threatened and endangered species

listing decisions, funding sources and requirements, access to 

sites, landowner, and other agency cooperation, potential 

project success, as well as others. Decisions regarding 

restoration of habitats within the field office would remain at 

the discretion of the authorized officer.

Action: No similar action. Action: In PHMA, in fire prone areas where sagebrush seed is 

required for GRSG habitat restoration, consider establishing 

seed harvest areas that are managed for seed production and are 

a priority for protection from outside disturbances.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to PHMA and 

GHMA.

Action: In PHMA of increased fire frequency, where sagebrush 

seed is required for GRSG habitat restoration, consider 

establishing seed harvest areas that are managed for seed 

production that receive a priority for protection from outside 

disturbances.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Action: No similar action. Action: As described in Appendix E, PHMA areas for GRSG 

with at least 4,000 acres of contiguous BLM surface ownership 

would be designated as ACECs, totaling 98,091 acres. See 

Figure 2-25, Area of Critical Environmental Concern –

Alternative C, in Appendix A).

Action: No similar action.

Action: BLM would continue to manage 2,674 acres as the 

Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC to protect its unique pine 

forest and shale landscape. 

Management actions are as follows:

 Limit motorized travel to existing routes and trails

 Manage as ROW avoidance area

 Prohibit timber harvest

 Close to fluid minerals leasing

Action: BLM would continue to manage 2,674 acres as the Acid 

Shale-Pine Forest ACEC to protect its unique pine forest and 

shale landscape.

Action: In addition to those management actions listed in 

Alternative A, management actions would include conservation 

measures consistent with the identified management actions and 

constraints identified for PHMA under this alternative.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

BLM 1984: Headwaters Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision

BLM 1994: Judith Resource Area Resource Management Plan

BLM 2003a: Fire/Fuels Management Plan Environmental Assessment/Plan Amendment for Montana and the Dakotas

BLM 2003b: Off-Highway Vehicle Record of Decision and Proposed Plan Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota
This page intentionally left blank.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-73

2.11 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS

The following alternatives were considered but were not carried forward for 

detailed analysis because (1) they would not fulfill requirements of FLPMA or 

other existing laws or regulations, (2) they did not meet the purpose and need, 

(3) they were already part of an existing plan, policy, or administrative function, 

or (4) they did not fall within the limits of the planning criteria. FLPMA requires 

the BLM to manage BLM-administered lands and resources in accordance with 

the principles of multiple use and sustained yield.

2.11.1 National Technical Team Conservation Measures Not Applicable to 

Lewistown Field Office

No management actions from A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures (NTT 2011) concerning wild horse and burros were 

carried forward. This is because there are no wild horse or burro herds 

managed by the LFO.

2.11.2 Elimination of Livestock Grazing from BLM Lands 

An alternative that proposes to make the entire planning area unavailable for 

livestock grazing would not meet the purpose and need of the Lewistown Field 

Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS. NEPA requires that agencies study, 

develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of 

action in any proposal that involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative 

uses of available resources. An alternative that would eliminate grazing from the 

public lands in the absence of an unresolved conflict is inconsistent with the 

policy objectives of the planning area. The BLM manages grazing on the public 

rangelands by statutory authority, i.e. the Taylor Grazing Act, FLPMA, and the 

Public Rangelands Improvement Act. Under theses statutes, the BLM is 

required to develop regulations to manage public land resources on a multipleuse and sustained yield basis. Management of grazing on BLM-administered land 

within the planning area would be in accordance with the grazing administration 

regulations found in 43 CFR Part, 4100. The purpose of the grazing regulations 

is to manage the livestock grazing program as an integral part of the overall 

multiple-use of the public lands.

No issues or conflicts have been identified during this land use planning effort 

that require the complete elimination of livestock grazing within the planning 

area for their resolution (BLM Washington Office IM 2012-169) (BLM 2012c). 

Livestock removal and use adjustment where appropriate have been 

incorporated in this planning effort. Because the BLM has considerable 

discretion through its grazing regulations to determine and adjust stocking 

levels, seasons-of-use, and grazing management activities, and to allocate forage 

to uses of the BLM-administered lands in RMPs, the analysis of an alternative to 

entirely eliminate grazing is not needed.

In accordance with the BLM’s H-1601-1 Land Use Planning Handbook and BLM 

Washington Office IM No. 2012-169, the BLM considered a range of 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis)

2-74 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

alternatives with respect to both areas that were available or unavailable for 

livestock grazing and the amount of forage allocated to livestock on a planning 

area-wide basis. An alternative eliminating livestock grazing in all allotments in 

PHMA and GHMA was developed. On allotments outside of PHMA and GHMA, 

no multiple-use conflicts or issues were identified that would affect GRSG

habitat conditions or management. The range of alternatives considered includes 

a meaningful reduction in livestock grazing, both through a reduction in areas 

available to livestock grazing and forage allocation.

The majority of the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS 

planning area is located in the northwestern portion of the Great Plains 

Ecoregion (EPA 2010a) and the rangelands in the planning area are classified as 

mixed-grass prairie. The rangelands of the Great Plains have a long evolutionary 

history of grazing and grazing is accepted by grassland ecologists as a keystone 

process of the grassland ecosystem (Fuhlendorf and Engle 2001; Milchunas, et al. 

1988; Knapp et al. 1999). There is also agreement among many scientists and 

natural resource managers that some level of grazing disturbance is necessary to 

assure the ecological integrity of the mixed-grass prairie ecosystem (Parks 

Canada 2002).

Current resource conditions on BLM-administered land, including range 

vegetation, watershed, and wildlife habitat, as reflected in land health 

assessments, do not warrant prohibition of livestock grazing throughout the 

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

evaluations, inventories, and monitoring data (vegetative and levels of use) have 

been the basis for increasing or decreasing permitted use. Through this process,

the planning area has changed the grazing allocations on allotments to ensure 

that the healthy ecological systems are provided for future generations.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-75

2.12 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table 2-6 presents a comparison summary of impacts on GRSG from management actions proposed for the 

Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment. Section 4.3, Greater Sage-Grouse, in Chapter 4 provides a 

more detailed impact analysis.

Table 2-6

Summary of Impacts on GRSG1

Resource/Resource Use Alternatives A—D and Proposed Plan Amendment

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from Oil and Gas 

Development

Alternatives B, C, D, and the Proposed Plan Amendment would apply RDFs (Appendix C for Alternatives B 

and C, and Appendix D for Alternative D and the Proposed Plan Amendment) as COAs where appropriate 

and necessary to drilling permits for currently leased federal minerals. No new leases, or reissuing of expired 

leases, would be issued in PHMA and GHMA under any alternative, based on an existing RMP protest 

resolution, which requires deferring nominated lease parcels if a special stipulation is required to protect 

important wildlife values.

Avoiding future leasing in PHMA or GHMA, along with the COAs required for current leases, would address 

the objective in the COT report [USFWS 2013]) to design energy development to ensure that it will not 

impinge on stable or increasing GRSG population trends. The Proposed Plan Amendment would provide 

additional protections for GRSG and habitat by implementing density and disturbance caps, adaptive 

management, lek buffers, and regional mitigation, which would further support the COT report objectives.

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from Infrastructure

Overall, Alternative A would have the least protections for GRSG and GRSG habitat from development of 

infrastructure. Alternative B would have more restrictions on route construction and upgrades, as well as 

ROWs, than Alternatives A and D, but fewer than Alternative C (some actions under Alternative D are the 

same as under Alternative B; see Table 2-4). The Proposed Plan Amendment would protect the largest 

amount of GRSG habitat from infrastructure impacts.

Alternatives B and C exclude PHMA from new ROWs (the Proposed Plan Amendment excludes wind and 

solar). This responds directly to the need identified in the COT report (USFWS 2013) to stop population 

decline and habitat loss by eliminating activities known to negatively impact GRSG and their habitats. 

Beneficial impacts are from the reduction in the threat of habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation on 

BLM-administered lands. Potential adverse indirect effects in GRSG habitat could increase if these activities 

were excluded from BLM-administered lands because they would still occur on private land without BLM 

 

1

For a full disclosure of impacts on GRSG, refer to Section 4.3.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-76 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-6

Summary of Impacts on GRSG1

Resource/Resource Use Alternatives A—D and Proposed Plan Amendment

RDFs guidance. Ownership patterns in LFO (highly fragmented, with public land comprising approximately 

17% of the planning area) could substantially increase the length of infrastructure required to enclose BLM 

ROW exclusion areas. Alternative D and the Proposed Plan Amendment would designate PHMA and GHMA

as ROW avoidance areas because most PHMA and GHMA within the planning area are on private lands. The 

potential to concentrate infrastructure development where appropriate, and to use RDFs, would increase 

direct beneficial effects from infrastructure on GRSG on BLM-administered lands; however, it could 

substantially reduce potential indirect adverse effects on a much greater area of adjacent land not 

administered by the BLM. The benefits of maintaining or improving habitat on most of the PHMA would 

exceed the costs on BLM-administered lands and would be more likely to perpetuate a viable GRSG 

population. Reducing impacts on more of the existing habitat within the planning area is a reason for the 

ROW avoidance areas rather than ROW exclusion areas in PHMA and GHMA under Alternative D and the 

Proposed Plan Amendment. All alternatives and the Proposed Plan Amendment would require collocating

new ROWs with existing ROWs in GHMA. Alternative D and the Proposed Plan Amendment would require 

this of new ROWs in PHMA also because new ROWs are not excluded in PHMA.

The action alternatives are in agreement with the following conservation objectives/options in the COT 

report for infrastructure:

1. Avoid developing infrastructure within PACs (objective).

2. Avoid constructing these features in GRSG habitat, both within and outside of PACs (option).

3. Remove transmission lines and roads that are duplicative or are not functional (option).

4. Construct transmission line towers to severely reduce or eliminate nesting and perching by avian 

predators, most notably ravens, thereby reducing human subsidies to those species (option).

The Proposed Plan Amendment would provide additional protections to GRSG and habitat by implementing 

density and disturbance caps, adaptive management, lek buffers, and regional mitigation, which would further 

support the COT report objectives.

Summary of Impacts from 

Recreation

Recreational uses in GRSG habitat include dispersed (e.g., hiking and camping) and group activities. 

Recreation is a limited threat in the LFO populations. OHV use is the most potentially damaging recreational 

use of GRSG habitat, but OHVs are limited to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails on BLM-administered

lands within the LFO. BLM regulations allow for area, road or trail closures where OHVs are causing, or 

would cause considerable adverse effects on wildlife and its habitat. Alternatives B and D would restrict 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-77

Table 2-6

Summary of Impacts on GRSG1

Resource/Resource Use Alternatives A—D and Proposed Plan Amendment

issuance of SRPs for group recreation to activities neutral or beneficial to GRSG habitat. The Proposed Plan 

Amendment would also reduce potential disturbances by not constructing recreation facilities in PHMA 

unless there would be a conservation gain to GRSG. All alternatives would respond to the COT objective 

that recreation activities should maintain healthy native sagebrush communities based on local ecological 

conditions and with consideration of drought conditions.

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from 

Agriculture/Urbanization

Although agriculture and urbanization have been identified as threats within the LFO planning area, including 

both the Yellowstone Watershed (agricultural conversion) and Belt Mountain (urbanization) populations, the 

BLM has no direct management authority over those types of activities on private lands. Under Alternatives B

and D, and the Proposed Plan Amendment, the BLM would take advantage of opportunities to consolidate 

GRSG habitat through land exchange if the action would benefit GRSG. Alternative C would allow for no 

disposal of PHMA or GHMA, regardless of benefits to GRSG. The LFO may have limited indirect abilities to 

influence these threats through maintaining appropriate authorized uses (grazing, ROWs, recreation, energy 

development) of BLM-administered lands that allow for the maintenance of habitat objectives. One example 

is to maintain appropriate levels of livestock grazing, which could discourage the conversion of GRSG habitat 

on private land to nonnative pasture or cropland.

As a result of removal of grazing from PHMA and GHMA in Alternative C, there is the potential for 

increased conflicts between grazing and other land uses on adjacent non-federal lands. For example, under 

this alternative, if permittees and lessees were to lose forage currently provided on BLM-administered lands, 

ranchers may try to increase forage production on their private and other leased lands, potentially 

accelerating loss of GRSG habitat on those lands.

Regarding the following conservation objectives/options identified in the COT report specific to 

infrastructure:

 Limit urban and exurban development in GRSG habitat and maintain intact native sagebrush plant 

communities (objective).

 Acquire and manage GRSG habitat to maintain intact ecosystems (option).

Alternative D and the Proposed Plan Amendment meet the objectives best because of their flexibility. 

Alternative B meets the objectives but its focus on ROW exclusion areas could lead to greater impacts on 

non-BLM-administered lands. Alternative C is in agreement with the first objective, but the consequences of 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-78 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-6

Summary of Impacts on GRSG1

Resource/Resource Use Alternatives A—D and Proposed Plan Amendment

its limitations on grazing, including increased fencing and reduced weed control, would not maintain intact 

GRSG habitat.

Summary of Impacts from 

Conifer Encroachment

Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment would address conifer encroachment using vegetation 

management approaches to habitat restoration. Two conifer removal projects are currently underway in the 

Belt Mountains and Crooked Creek areas. Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment would 

prioritize restoration, including conifer removal, which is a limited threat in LFO. All alternatives and the 

Proposed Plan Amendment would meet the COT report objective to remove pine and juniper from areas of 

sagebrush most likely to support GRSG at a rate at least equal to the rate of incursion.

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from Grazing

GRSG habitat considerations within livestock grazing allotments would be similar across Alternatives B, C, D 

and the Proposed Plan Amendment. Range improvement restrictions are the same under Alternatives B and 

D and the Proposed Plan Amendment. Under Alternative C (no grazing), the need for increased fencing on 

private land in order to prevent livestock trespass would result in indirect impacts on GRSG, including 

increased fragmentation, increased potential for wildfire from fine fuel buildup, increased collision with 

fences, and increased raptor predation. An indirect impact from excluding livestock grazing from BLMadministered lands under Alternative C is the potential conversion of adjacent private grazing lands to 

agriculture or other land uses. This is especially a concern in areas with a mosaic of ownership boundaries, 

which would decrease available habitat for GRSG that inhabit rangeland outside of BLM-administered lands. In 

the long term, removing grazing permits on federal land could cause ranches to be converted to residential 

or agricultural use, leading to a loss of GRSG habitat on adjacent private lands. Additionally, under Alternative 

C the BLM would lose the current or potential treatment of existing or new infestations of noxious weeds

because these weeds are currently treated through agreements with permittees to spray, under the terms 

and conditions of grazing permits or leases. 

Under Alternative A, grazing would be managed to achieve the standards of rangeland health, which would 

address GRSG habitat requirements under most scenarios. However, the potential for project infrastructure 

up to 0.25 mile of leks under Alternative A could cause fragmentation, raptor perches, and inappropriate 

fence locations and designs. Alternatives B and D would also manage grazing to achieve the standards of 

rangeland health. Under the Proposed Plan Amendment, grazing permits in SFA would be prioritized for 

review to benefit GRSG habitat. These alternatives also put specific focus on GRSG habitat requirements in 

PHMA to minimize adverse impacts from livestock and project infrastructure. (An example would be 

implementing a rest-rotation grazing system to increase residual grass heights, but additional fencing would be 

required to implement the rotation. Proper sighting and marking the fences reduces, but does not eliminate, 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-79

Table 2-6

Summary of Impacts on GRSG1

Resource/Resource Use Alternatives A—D and Proposed Plan Amendment

impacts on GRSG. The assumption is that GRSG would benefit more from taller grasses in a rest-rotation 

grazing system than they would from being harmed by additional fencing.) Because Alternative C closes 

PHMA and GHMA to grazing, fine fuels could increase and weed control would be reduced. In addition, 

potential actions taken on private land to compensate for loss of public grazing might affect GRSG habitat and 

could be substantial (for example, hundreds of miles of new fencing could be constructed to hold livestock 

on private lands).

Alternatives B, C and D, and the Proposed Plan Amendment would respond to the COT report objectives of 

meeting ecological conditions to maintain or restore healthy sagebrush shrub and native perennial grass and 

forb communities, and to conserve the essential habitat components for GRSG, including nesting cover and 

shrub cover.

Alternatives B and D, and the Proposed Plan Amendment would also respond to the COT objective of 

minimizing impacts on GRSG from fences and sagebrush conversion to agriculture. However Alternative C 

(no grazing) would require additional fencing to restrict no-grazing areas in GRSG habitat and thus would not 

meet this objective. As a result of removal of grazing from PHMA and GHMA in Alternative C, there is the 

potential for increased conflicts between grazing and other land uses on adjacent non-federal lands. For 

example, under this alternative, if permittees and lessees were to lose forage currently provided on BLMadministered lands, ranchers may try to increase forage production on their private or other leased lands, 

potentially accelerating loss of GRSG habitat on those lands.

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from Invasive Species

Due to climate conditions, annual grasses do not currently threaten the planning area, unlike the current 

situation in the Great Basin. Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan Amendment, the spread of weeds 

would be managed using integrated vegetation management as resources allow. The action alternatives 

respond to the COT report objective of implementing actions to maintain and restore healthy sagebrush 

communities. Alternative C prioritizes restoration of infestations, but limits treatments for addressing weeds 

by eliminating grazing; currently the BLM treats noxious weeds through agreements with grazing permittees. 

Eliminating grazing in Alternative C would also increase fine fuels, which would increase the probability of 

wildfire and associated weeds.

Summary of Impacts on 

GRSG from Disease

See RDFs in Appendix C for Alternatives B and C, and in Appendix D for Alternative D and the Proposed 

Plan Amendment, for a description of RDFs to reduce the threat of West Nile virus.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-80 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-6

Summary of Impacts on GRSG1

Resource/Resource Use Alternatives A—D and Proposed Plan Amendment

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from Wildfire and 

Fuels Treatment

Alternative A manages wildlfire effectively but Alternatives B, C and D, and the Proposed Plan Amendment 

would provide additional protection to sagebrush habitat during fire management. Under all alternatives, 

except Alternative C, and the Proposed Plan Amendment, anticipated threats from wildfire remain constant 

(estimated 2,000 acres burned over a decade). Alternative C would have slightly increased threats from 

wildfire relative to the other alternatives due to the increase in fine fuel loading resulting from reduced 

grazing. All alternatives and the Proposed Plan Amendment would respond to the COT report objective of 

retaining and restoring healthy native sagebrush plant communities by limiting prescribed fire and prioritizing 

wildlife suppression in GRSG habitat areas.

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from Solid Mineral 

Development

All the action alternatives respond to the COT report objective to maintain GRSG populations with no net 

loss of GRSG habitat in areas affected by mining. Alternatives B and C, and the Proposed Plan Amendment 

would be more protective of GRSG and habitat than Alternatives A and D, though Alternative D has 

reclamation actions in common with Alternative B. Effective mitigation for existing mining claims and salable 

mineral sites is similar across Alternatives B, C, D and the Proposed Plan Amendment. Alternative D and the 

Proposed Plan Amendment provide a greater number of RDFs to be considered as necessary and 

appropriate to mitigate impacts. The Proposed Plan Amendment would provide additional protections to 

GRSG and habitat by implementing density and disturbance caps, adaptive management, lek buffers, and 

regional mitigation, which would further support the COT report objectives.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-81

2.13 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table 2-7 presents a comparison summary of impacts from management actions proposed for Alternatives A – D and 

the Proposed Plan Amendment. Chapter 4 provides a more detailed impact analysis.

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE

See Table 2-6 for summary of impacts on GRSG.

LANDS AND REALTY

No impacts, decision area 

would remain open to 

ROWs.

233,219 acres (PHMA) 

managed as ROW

exclusion area and 112,341 

acres managed as ROW 

avoidance area would 

prohibit or restrict new 

ROW authorizations. 

Could extend processing 

time for renewals of 

existing ROW 

authorizations and make 

siting of new linear or 

block ROWs more difficult.

Exclusion areas could 

potentially shift 

development onto private 

land.

345,560 acres (PHMA and 

GHMA) managed as ROW

exclusion area. In addition, 

prohibiting new road 

construction within 4 miles 

of active leks would limit 

development to 21% of the 

decision area. Exclusion 

areas could potentially shift 

development onto private 

land.

233,219 acres (PHMA)

managed as ROW

avoidance area would 

result in increased 

application processing time 

and costs due to the 

potential need to relocate 

facilities or due to greater 

design, mitigation, and 

siting requirements.

345,560 acres 

(PHMA and GHMA) 

managed as ROW 

avoidance for major 

ROWs, combined 

with additional RDFs 

for certain types of 

ROWs, would result 

in increased 

application processing 

time and costs due to 

the potential need to 

relocate facilities or 

due to greater design, 

mitigation, and siting 

requirements. Minor 

ROWs would be less 

impacted since 

PHMA would be 

managed as avoidance 

 

1

For a full discussion of impacts for any of the resources, refer to the appropriate section in Chapter 4.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-82 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

areas and GHMA as 

open with the 

application of RDFs.

Adaptive 

management, density 

ad disturbance caps, 

regional mitigation, 

and lek buffers could 

limit future 

authorizations in 

certain areas.

VEGETATION (INCLUDING NOXIOUS WEEDS; RIPARIAN AND WETLANDS)

ROW development would 

continue to impact 

vegetation.

ROW exclusion areas in 

PHMA (233,219 acres) 

would preclude loss or 

alteration of vegetation, 

and spread of invasive 

weeds in these areas from 

development. ROW 

avoidance areas in GHMA

(112,341 acres) would 

likely reduce these types of 

disturbances to vegetation 

in these areas. Potential 

indirect impacts on 

vegetation from developing 

on private lands.

ROW exclusion areas in 

PHMA and GHMA (345,560

acres) would preclude loss 

or alteration of vegetation, 

and spread of invasive weeds

from development in these 

areas. Indirect impacts on 

vegetation on private lands 

similar to Alternative B.

ROW avoidance areas in 

PHMA (233,219 acres) 

would reduce, but not 

eliminate loss or alteration 

of vegetation, and spread 

of invasive weeds from 

development in these 

areas.

ROW avoidance 

areas in PHMA and 

GHMA (345,560

acres) would reduce 

future impacts from 

human disturbance 

and infrastructure 

from development in 

these areas. ROW 

exclusion areas in 

PHMA (233,219

acres) for wind and 

solar energy would 

preclude impacts 

from these types of 

developments.

Adaptive 

management, density 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-83

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

and disturbance caps, 

regional mitigation, 

and lek buffers offer 

incidental protection 

for vegetation by 

maintaining or 

restoring habitat and 

by limiting habitat 

disturbance in certain 

areas.

Grazing practices may have 

negative, neutral, or positive 

effects on vegetation; land 

health assessments and 

other management 

evaluations would be 

intended to identify areas of 

concern to maintain or 

improve rangeland health,

which would improve 

vegetation condition.

Incorporating GRSG habitat 

objectives and management 

considerations into 

livestock grazing 

management would reduce, 

but would not eliminate, 

impacts from grazing on 

vegetation communities.

Grazing would be eliminated 

in PHMA and GHMA

(reducing available AUMs). 

Livestock use of riparian

zones would be limited to 

maintain PFC and benefit 

wildlife habitat. The 

reduction in grazing AUMs 

could ultimately reduce 

rangeland health by 

facilitating spread of weeds 

and fuel buildup.

Grazing management

would be similar to 

Alternative B, with 

increased collaboration 

with stakeholders, 

guidance for prioritization 

of efforts, and increased 

tools available to improve 

flexibility in management.

Impacts from 

livestock grazing 

management would 

be similar to 

Alternative D. 

Habitat quality would 

be improved and 

protected through 

addressing areas not 

meeting Land Health 

Standards and 

implementation of 

RDFs.

Development of existing 

fluid mineral leases would 

continue to cause impacts on 

vegetation, including removal 

or degradation of vegetation 

and potential spread of 

invasive species.

RDFs required as COAs on 

existing fluid mineral leases 

in PHMA would reduce the 

impacts on vegetation

compared to Alternative A.

RDFs required as COAs on 

existing fluid mineral leases 

in PHMA and GHMA would 

reduce the impacts on 

vegetation compared to 

Alternative A.

Reduction of impacts from 

applying RDFs similar to 

Alternative B.

Impacts would be 

similar to those 

under Alternative D.

Additional 

restrictions on 

geophysical 

exploration within 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-84 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

PHMA would have a 

beneficial incidental 

impact on vegetation 

in the planning area.

Adaptive 

management, density 

and disturbance caps, 

regional mitigation, 

and lek buffers offer 

incidental protection 

for vegetation by 

maintaining or 

restoring habitat and 

by limiting habitat 

disturbance in certain 

areas.

Noxious weeds on affected 

grazing allotments would be 

controlled through weed 

control cooperative range 

improvement project 

agreements.

The holder of a ROW would

be responsible for weed 

control on disturbed areas 

within the limits of the 

ROW. The holder would be 

responsible for controlling 

invasive weeds control for 

the life of the ROW plus 3 

Impacts would be the same 

as those under Alternative 

A.

The BLM would control all 

noxious weeds on all 

affected grazing allotments.

Impacts from weed control 

in ROWs would be the same 

as those under Alternative 

A.

Impacts would be the 

same as those under 

Alternative A.

Impacts would be the 

same as those under 

Alternative A.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-85

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

years. The holder is 

responsible for consultation 

with the authorized officer 

or local authorities for 

acceptable weed control 

methods.

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGY

Few restrictions on fire and 

fuels management would 

have the fewest impacts on 

fire. Due to the flexibility in 

management of prescribed 

and wildland fires, fire 

suppression costs are likely 

to be lower compared with 

all action alternatives.

Restrictions in PHMA

(233,219 acres) could 

impact ability to efficiently 

manage fuels and could 

increase costs of vegetation 

management and fire 

suppression.

Impacts from seasonal 

closures and restrictions 

would be similar to 

Alternative B but would 

apply to both the GHMA and 

PHMA (345,560 acres). The 

limitations would be more 

restrictive under this 

alternative, resulting in the 

greatest impacts on the fire 

and fuels management 

program.

Impacts would be similar 

to those described in 

Alternative C, with 

restrictions on fuels 

treatment options in both 

the PHMA and GHMA

(345,560 acres). Fire 

suppression actions and 

related impacts would be 

the same as described 

under Alternative C.

Burn plans and 

additional NEPA 

analysis for 

prescribed fire could 

impact the efficiency 

with which fuels are 

managed. Prescribed 

fire has played only a 

minor role in 

vegetation 

management in the 

past; therefore, 

impacts would be 

only slightly greater 

than Alternatives B, 

C, and D.

Lack of restrictions on 

resource uses such as 

mineral development, ROW

development, and recreation 

could mean greater risk of 

human-induced ignition 

which could result in an 

Limitations on resource 

uses such as recreation, 

mineral development, and 

ROW authorizations in 

PHMA would decrease the 

chance of human ignition 

and consequently decrease 

Limitations on resource uses 

such as recreation, mineral 

development, and ROW

authorizations would occur, 

but would include PHMA

and GHMA; therefore, the 

risk of human caused ignition 

Impacts from recreation, 

mineral development, and 

ROW authorizations

would be similar to those 

under Alternative B.

Impacts would be 

similar to those 

described in 

Alternative D. 

Additional restriction 

on development 

including the density 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-86 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

increased need for fire 

management.

wildfire risk. would be decreased in both 

of these areas.

and disturbance caps, 

additional ROW 

exclusion and 

avoidance areas, and 

restrictions on new 

recreation facilities 

would decrease the 

chance of human 

ignition and 

consequently 

decrease wildfire 

risk.

FLUID MINERALS

Existing oil and gas leases 

would continue to be 

developed according to their 

lease terms. COAs could be 

applied on a case-by-case 

basis.

All existing leases on 

federal oil and gas estate in 

PHMA (233,219 acres) 

would be subject to RDFs 

and conservation measures 

applied as COAs. These 

COAs would place 

additional limits on siting, 

design, and operations of 

fluid mineral development.

Similar to Alternative B 

except that COAs would be 

applied to existing leases in 

PHMA and GHMA (345,560 

acres).

Similar to Alternative C,

COAs would be applied to 

existing leases in PHMA

and GHMA (345,560 

acres), except with greater 

flexibility for site-specific 

modifications.

Similar to Alternative 

D, COAs would be 

applied to existing 

leases in PHMA and 

GHMA (345,560 

acres). Adaptive 

management, density 

and disturbance caps, 

regional mitigation, 

and lek buffers would 

also potentially 

restrict siting.

SOLID LEASABLE MINERALS

Constraints and closures 

would cover the smallest 

area of any alternative; 

approximately 2,535 acres 

All PHMA (284,337 acres, 

or 62% of the solid 

minerals decision area) 

would be closed to 

Impacts would be similar to 

Alternative B except that 

more acres (457,774 acres, 

or 100% of the solid minerals 

Management of solid 

leasable minerals would be 

similar to Alternative A, 

except that new 

Impacts would be 

similar to Alternative 

B. Adaptive 

management, density 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-87

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

(less than 1%) of the federal 

solid mineral estate would 

remain closed to solid 

minerals, precluding future 

leasing in these areas.

nonenergy solid mineral 

leasing.

RDFs on existing 

nonenergy solid mineral 

leases in PHMA would 

place limitations on road 

design, construction, and 

use; restrict operations to 

minimize surface 

disturbance; limit 

construction; maximize 

reclamation efforts to meet 

GRSG habitat needs; and 

place other standards and 

restrictions on solid 

mineral operations.

decision area) would be 

closed to nonenergy solid 

mineral leasing, and more 

acres with existing leases 

would be subject to the 

mandatory application of the 

solid mineral RDFs.

prospecting permits would 

be subject to the RDFs.

and disturbance caps, 

regional mitigation, 

and lek buffers would 

also potentially 

restrict siting.

SOLID MINERALS (LOCATABLE MINERALS)

Approximately 5,971 acres 

(approximately 1% of the 

total federal solid mineral 

estate for locatable minerals

in the decision area) would 

remain withdrawn to the 

location of mining claims.

BLM would recommend to 

withdrawal an additional 

281,900 acres. However, 

there is no known locatable 

mineral potential in GRSG 

habitat, so no effect on 

locatable minerals is 

anticipated.

BLM would recommend to 

withdrawal an additional 

457,774 acres. However, 

there is no known locatable 

mineral potential in GRSG 

habitat, so no effect on 

locatable minerals is 

anticipated.

Management would be 

similar to that under 

Alternative A except that 

RDFs and conservation 

measures could be applied 

to any Notice or Plan of 

Operations where 

possible. However, there 

is no known locatable 

mineral potential in GRSG 

habitat, so no effect on 

locatable minerals is 

anticipated.

The BLM would 

recommend for 

withdrawal an 

additional 53,440

acres. However, 

there is no known 

locatable mineral 

potential in GRSG 

habitat, so no effect 

on locatable minerals 

is anticipated.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-88 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

SOLID MINERALS (SALABLE MINERALS)

Constraints and closures 

would cover the smallest 

area of any alternative (2,535

acres closed to the 

disposition of salable 

minerals and 0 acres 

managed as ROW exclusion

area), resulting in the fewest 

restrictions on the 

disposition of salable 

minerals.

Construction of new roads 

in ROW exclusion and 

avoidance areas would 

likely decrease, thereby 

decreasing demand for 

salable minerals needed for 

construction and 

maintenance.

Approximately 284,337

acres of federal mineral 

estate in PHMA (62% of 

the solid minerals decision 

area) would be closed to 

salable mineral disposal.

Solid mineral RDFs would 

apply to existing salable 

mineral operations in 

PHMA and would place 

limitations on road design, 

construction, and use; 

restrict operations to 

minimize surface 

disturbance; limit 

construction; maximize 

reclamation efforts to meet 

GRSG habitat needs; and 

place other standards and 

restrictions on solid 

mineral operations.

Because all PHMA and 

GHMA would be closed to 

salable minerals disposal, the 

ROW exclusion areas would 

not impact the salable 

minerals program.

Approximately 457,774 acres 

of federal mineral estate in 

PHMA and GHMA (100% of 

the solid minerals decision 

area) would be closed to 

salable mineral disposal, the 

most of any alternative.

Similar to Alternative B, 

RDFs would be applied to 

salable mineral operations in 

PHMA and GHMA. Because 

more acres would be within 

PHMA and GHMA under 

Alternative C, the impacts of 

applying these RDFs would 

increase.

Construction of new roads 

in ROW areas would likely 

decrease, thereby 

decreasing demand for 

salable minerals needed 

for construction and 

maintenance.

No additional lands would 

be closed to the 

disposition of salable 

minerals or managed as 

ROW exclusion area.

Impacts from RDFs placed 

on solid minerals would be 

the same as Alternative B.

Construction of new 

roads in ROW areas 

would likely 

decrease, thereby 

decreasing demand 

for salable minerals 

needed for 

construction and 

maintenance.

Approximately 

284,337 acres of 

federal mineral estate

in PHMA (62% of the 

solid minerals 

decision area) would 

be closed to salable 

mineral disposal. 

Impacts would be 

mitigated because 

new free use permits 

and expansion of 

existing pits would 

still be allowed in 

PHMA.

Adaptive 

management, density 

and disturbance caps, 

regional mitigation, 

and lek buffers could 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-89

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

impact salable 

mineral activities by 

preventing new 

surface development.

COMPREHENSIVE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT

Existing travel opportunities 

for motorized travel would 

be maintained and there 

would be no impact on 

travel management.

Impacts on travel would be 

slightly greater than 

Alternative A because 

future enhancements to the 

route network would be 

limited.

Prohibiting new road 

construction within 4 miles 

of active GRSG leks would

result in the closure of 

274,435 acres (79% of the 

decision area) to new road 

construction. This action, 

along with limitations on 

route enhancements in 

PHMA and GHMA, would 

result in site-specific loss of 

access and diminished route 

network quality.

Impacts on travel under 

Alternative D would be 

similar to Alternative B. 

During route designation 

and travel planning, 

management would 

minimize impacts on travel 

and transportation 

management.

Impacts would be 

similar to those 

under Alternative D.

Adaptive 

management, density 

and disturbance caps, 

regional mitigation, 

and lek buffers could 

limit travel route 

miles and the types 

of activities allowed 

on those routes.

RECREATION

The planning area would be 

closed to cross-country 

motorized travel; therefore, 

limiting recreational OHV

use to existing routes.

Impacts from CTTM would 

be slightly greater than 

Alternative A because 

future enhancements to the 

route network and impact 

motorized travel would be 

limited.

Limitations on new road 

construction within 4 miles 

of active leks, along with 

limitations on route 

enhancements in PHMA and 

GHMA, would limit 

opportunities for increased 

recreational access.

Impacts from CTTM

would be similar to those 

under Alternative B.

Impacts from CTTM

would be similar to

those under

Alternative B.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-90 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

BLM would continue to 

manage for dispersed 

recreation activities. The 

BLM would continue to issue 

SRPs on a case-by-case basis.

Impacts from recreation 

management would be 

similar to those under 

Alternative A, with the 

exception that in PHMA

(233,219 acres) the BLM 

would only allow SRPs that 

have a neutral or beneficial 

effect on PHMA. This could 

result in a reduction in the 

number or type of 

recreation opportunities in 

PHMA permitted through 

SRPs.

There would be no impacts 

from recreation 

management.

Impacts would be similar 

to those under Alternative 

B.

Impacts would be 

similar to those 

under Alternative B, 

except that 

restricting new 

recreation facilities in 

PHMA that do not 

result in a net 

conservation gain 

could reduce long 

term the recreational 

opportunities and 

activities in these 

areas.

Potential impacts on 

recreation during 

construction and operation 

of facilities in ROWs.

A long-term reduction in 

the amount of acres 

dedicated to ROWs and 

above-ground linear 

features would improve 

recreation opportunities.

Managing areas as ROW

exclusion in the PHMA and 

GHMA (345,560 acres), with 

the exception of 843 acres 

of unitized areas, would 

protect recreational 

opportunities in those areas 

and protect the desired 

settings in the Judith Valley 

Special Recreation 

Management Area (SRMA) 

and 11 Extensive Recreation 

Management Areas (ERMAs).

Designation of the PHMA

(233,219 acres) as a ROW

avoidance area would 

benefit recreation activities 

in undeveloped settings. 

Limitations on ROW 

development would also 

preserve the existing 

recreation settings in each 

of the 11 ERMAs in 

PHMA.

Impacts would be 

similar to those 

under Alternative D, 

except that there 

would be additional 

restrictions on major

ROWs in GHMA. 

This would provide a 

greater benefit to 

recreation that take 

place in undeveloped 

settings by further 

limiting the type of 

development allowed 

in these areas.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-91

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

Adaptive 

management, density 

and disturbance caps, 

regional mitigation, 

and lek buffers could 

limit future 

placement of 

recreation facilities in 

certain areas.

However, these same 

actions, along with 

management 

responses to 

adaptive management 

hard triggers, could 

limit other types of 

development that 

could conflict with 

recreation 

opportunities and 

activities.

Impacts on recreation users 

from mineral development 

would include activities and 

disturbance related to 

exploration, development, 

and operations.

Restriction such as timing 

limitations on fluid mineral

development in PHMA

(233,219 acres) and closure 

of all PHMA areas to salable 

mineral disposal, would 

decrease the potential for 

development conflicting 

with recreation users.

Impacts from mineral 

development would be 

similar to those under 

Alternative B, but would 

apply to both the PHMA and 

GHMA (345,560 acres).

Impacts from minerals 

development would be 

similar to those under 

Alternative B.

Impacts would be 

similar to those 

under Alternative D, 

except that PHMA 

would be closed to 

new mineral material 

sales. This would 

provide a greater 

level of protection 

for recreation 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-92 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

activities and 

opportunities by 

limiting surface 

disturbance in these 

areas.

Adaptive 

management, density 

and disturbance caps, 

regional mitigation, 

and lek buffers could 

limit future 

placement of 

recreation facilities in 

certain areas. 

However, these same 

actions, along with 

management 

responses to 

adaptive management 

hard triggers, could 

limit other types of 

development that 

could conflict with 

recreation 

opportunities and 

activities.

RANGE MANAGEMENT

Lands would be maintained 

and restored to maintain 

healthy ecological conditions, 

Additional conservation 

measures specific to GRSG 

habitat would be 

All PHMA and GHMA would 

be closed to grazing, 

resulting in a total closure of 

Impacts on grazing systems 

would be similar to those 

described in Alternative B.

Impacts on grazing 

systems would be 

similar to those 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-93

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

and efforts to manage BLMadministered rangeland 

would be directed first to 

allotments not meeting 

rangeland health standards 

due to current livestock

grazing.

In general, Alternative A also 

has the fewest surface use 

restrictions that would limit 

range improvements and 

livestock management. As a 

result, permittees/lessees

would have the greatest 

flexibility for management. 

Adjustments to grazing 

system, class of livestock and 

other lease/permit 

conditions would be made 

upon renewal of the grazing 

authorization as required by 

site specific conditions;

therefore, impacts would 

occur at this point.

incorporated consistent 

with management and 

constraints.

Completion of land health 

assessments during renewal 

of grazing permits/leases 

would be prioritized within 

PHMA. As a result, impacts 

on range management 

would be most likely to 

occur in these areas.

Structural range 

improvements would be 

allowed in PHMA but costs 

and time to construct these 

structures may be 

increased due to GRSG 

conservation measures; full 

utilization of permitted 

AUMs may be impacted.

337,165 acres and a 

reduction of 69,408 AUMs of 

forage available for grazing. 

Closure of the areas to 

grazing has the potential to 

result in economic impacts 

on lessees/permittees.

Closures would also impact

the effectiveness of current 

seasonal grazing rotations or 

other management strategies 

that utilize both BLMadministered and private 

lands.

Similar to Alternative B, 

the BLM would prioritize 

completion of land health 

assessments in PHMA.

described under

Alternatives B and D.

The BLM would 

prioritize completion 

of land health 

assessment and 

determination for 

allotments not 

meeting land health 

standards in PHMA, 

focusing on riparian 

areas. Adjustments 

to grazing 

management or 

authorized grazing 

use level would 

follow the priority 

schedule and would 

be tailored to achieve 

Land Health 

Standards and 

specific management 

thresholds based on 

GRSG habitat 

objectives. Impacts 

would occur on an 

allotment scale as 

management changes 

were implemented. 

The level and 

intensity of impacts 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-94 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

would vary on a sitespecific basis.

Adaptive 

management 

measures could 

modify grazing 

strategies outside of 

the permit renewal

schedule if certain 

GRSG habitat 

triggers were met 

(per Section 2.7.1).

There is some potential for 

disturbance or conflicts with 

livestock grazing from other 

resource uses, including 

recreational activities, ROW

development (limited 

disturbance in 9,708 acres of 

ROW avoidance area) and 

mineral development (45,012 

acres open to grazing and 

fluid mineral development).

Potential for disturbance or 

conflicts with livestock 

grazing from other resource 

uses would be reduced in 

this alternative as compared 

to Alternative A, including 

recreational activities, fire, 

ROW development (limited 

disturbance in 106,508 acres 

of ROW avoidance areas 

and 230,501 of ROW 

exclusion areas) and mineral 

development (29,778 acres 

of existing fluid mineral

development leases are 

open to livestock grazing in 

PHMA, 33% less than 

Alternative A).

Impacts on livestock grazing 

from various resources and 

resource uses would be 

limited due to the closure of 

PHMA and GHMA to 

grazing. Impacts on grazing in 

areas outside of PHMA and 

GHMA could be increased 

should grazing or 

development increase in 

intensity in these areas.

Potential for disturbance 

or conflicts with livestock 

grazing from other 

resource uses would be 

similar to Alternative B, 

including recreational 

activities, fire, ROW

development (240,087 

acres would be proposed 

as a ROW avoidance area 

within area open to 

livestock grazing in PHMA

or GHMA) and the same 

as Alternative B for 

mineral development.

Potential for 

disturbance or 

conflicts with 

livestock grazing 

from other resource 

uses would be similar 

to those under 

Alternatives B and D.

Additional limits 

would be imposed on 

ROW development 

in GHMA (106,495

acres ROW 

avoidance area within 

area open to 

livestock grazing). 

The addition of the

density and 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-95

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

disturbance caps on 

human disturbance 

would further limit 

the potential for 

disturbing livestock 

grazing from mineral 

and ROW 

development.

Noxious weeds on affected 

grazing allotments would be 

controlled through 

cooperative range

improvement project 

agreements.

Impacts would be the same 

as those under Alternative 

A.

The BLM would control all 

noxious weeds on grazing 

allotments.

Impacts would be the 

same as those under 

Alternative A.

Impacts would be the 

same as those under 

Alternative A.

AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

Impacts on values of the 

existing Acid Shale-Pine 

Forest ACEC would 

continue from authorized 

land uses, including grazing, 

recreation, and motorized 

use. Managing the ACEC as 

ROW avoidance area would 

protect the relevant and 

important values.

Impacts would be the same 

as those under Alternative 

A.

Management for the Acid 

Shale-Pine Forest ACEC

would continue to be 

tailored to protect the 

relevant and important 

values for which the ACEC 

was originally designated.

Establishing a GRSG ACEC

would provide restrictions 

on authorized land uses 

within the new ACEC.

Impacts would be the 

same as those under 

Alternative A.

Impacts would be the 

same as those under 

Alternative A.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-96 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

AIR QUALITY

No changes to visibility and 

human health would occur.

Fires would be less likely to 

occur, resulting in fewer 

impacts on air resources, 

including visibility and 

human health, compared 

with Alternative A.

Impacts on air resources 

from fire and fuels 

management would be 

similar to those described 

under Alternative B, except 

restrictions would be applied 

to PHMA and GHMA. 

However, grazing may 

reduce fine fuel buildup, so 

removing it could increase 

the occurrence of large 

wildfires, given the potential 

impact on weed control.

Impacts would be similar 

to those described under 

Alternative B. Placing an 

emphasis on improving

habitat may reduce the 

risk of significant wildfires, 

resulting in fewer impacts 

on air resources, including 

visibility and human health.

Impacts would be 

similar to those 

under Alternative B. 

Closing acres to 

nonenergy leasable 

mineral exploration 

and development and 

salable mineral 

disposal could 

decrease emissions 

from fuel 

combustion, 

construction 

equipment, and 

surface disturbance. 

Fire risk would be 

reduced, which 

would reduce 

impacts on human 

health, as compared 

to Alternative A.

No changes to criteria air 

pollutant or hazardous air 

pollutant emissions would 

occur.

Closing areas with 281,900

acres of solid mineral 

potential to development 

would have the potential to 

result in fewer impacts on 

air resources, including 

visibility and human health.

Closing 457,774 acres to 

salable material disposal and 

nonenergy solid mineral 

leasing would have the 

potential to result in fewer 

impacts on air resources, 

including visibility and human 

health.

Impacts from solid 

minerals would be the 

same as those under 

Alternative A.

Closing 281,900

acres to salable

mineral disposal and 

nonenergy leasable 

mineral exploration 

and development 

could result in fewer 

impacts on air 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-97

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

resources, including 

visibility and human 

health.

CLIMATE

No changes to greenhouse 

gas (GHG) emissions would 

occur.

Fires would be less likely to 

occur, resulting in fewer 

GHG emissions, because 

management actions would 

decrease the risk of humancaused ignitions and 

increase the level of fire 

suppression in the PHMA

(233,219 acres).

Impacts from fire and fuels 

management would be 

similar to those described 

under Alternative B, except 

restrictions on both 

resource use and fuels 

treatment options would be 

applied to the PHMA and 

GHMA (345,560 acres).

However, grazing may 

reduce fine fuel buildup, so 

removing it could increase 

the occurrence of large 

wildfires, given the potential 

impact on weed control.

Impacts would be similar 

to those described under 

Alternative B. Placing an 

emphasis on improving

habitat may reduce the 

risk of significant wildfires, 

resulting in fewer GHG 

emissions.

Impacts would be the 

same as those 

described under 

Alternative D.

No changes to GHG

emissions would occur.

Closing areas with 281,900

acres of solid mineral 

potential to development 

would have the potential to 

result in fewer releases of 

GHGs.

Closing 457,774 acres to 

salable material disposal and 

nonenergy solid mineral 

leasing would have the 

potential to result in fewer 

emissions of GHGs.

Impacts from solid 

minerals would be the 

same as those under 

Alternative A.

Closing 281,900

acres to salable 

mineral disposal and 

nonenergy leasable 

mineral exploration 

and development 

could result in fewer 

releases of GHGs.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-98 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

SOIL RESOURCES

Motorized use of existing 

roads and trails would result 

in the potential for 

disturbance and compaction 

of soils.

Some reduction in routes 

and limitations on new 

routes, as well as upgrades 

to existing routes, could 

result in the potential for 

reduction of disturbance 

and compaction of soils in 

the PHMA (233,219 acres).

Impacts on soil resources 

would be similar to those 

under Alternative B, 

although impacts would be 

further reduced since 

protections would apply to 

both the PHMA and GHMA

(345,560 acres) and the BLM 

would apply additional 

mitigation requirements.

Impacts on soil resources 

from travel would be 

similar to those described 

under Alternative B.

Impacts would be the 

same as those 

described under 

Alternative D.

Soil conditions could 

continue to be degraded 

where land use 

authorizations were 

approved.

Managing 233,219 acres as 

ROW exclusion areas and 

122,341 acres as ROW 

avoidance areas would 

reduce impacts on soil 

resources from surface 

disturbing activities related 

to ROW development.

Managing 345,560 acres as 

ROW exclusion areas would 

reduce impacts on soil 

resources from surface 

disturbing activities related 

to ROW development.

Managing 233,219 acres as 

ROW avoidance areas 

would reduce impacts on

soil resources from 

surface disturbing activities 

related to ROW 

development.

ROW avoidance in 

PHMA and GHMA 

(345,560 acres) for 

major ROWs, and in

GHMA (112,341) for 

minor ROWs would 

reduce the impacts 

on soil resources 

from surfacedisturbing activities 

related to ROW 

development. 

Additionally, the 

PHMA (233,219 

acres) would be 

managed as ROW 

exclusion to wind 

and solar energy 

ROWs, reducing 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-99

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

disturbance and 

compaction impacts.

Adaptive 

management, density 

and disturbance caps, 

regional mitigation, 

and lek buffers offer 

incidental protection 

for soil resources by 

reducing the

disturbance in certain 

areas.

Grazing would continue to 

alter vegetative and 

biological soil crust 

communities.

Impacts from grazing would 

be similar to those under 

Alternative A with the 

addition of GRSG habitat 

objectives and management 

considerations 

incorporated into all BLM 

AMPs within the PHMA

(233,219 acres), and the 

option of voluntary 

retirement of permitted 

grazing uses in the PHMA, 

which could further reduce 

soil compaction, soil 

erosion, and vegetation 

loss.

Removal of grazing in the 

PHMA and GHMA (345,560 

acres) would provide the 

potential for soil health to 

improve in areas where 

Rangeland Health Standards 

(Appendix F) are not met 

due to current livestock 

grazing.

Additional incorporation 

of GRSG habitat objectives 

into all AMPs, and the 

addition of GRSG 

management 

considerations into AMPs 

of allotments on the 

PHMA (233,219 acres), 

along with improving the 

GHMA (112,341 acres)

habitats for GRSG could 

improve soil conditions in 

these areas.

Impacts would be the 

same as those 

described under 

Alternative D.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-100 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

Impacts on soils associated 

with development of existing 

fluid mineral leases would 

continue.

RDFs and conservation 

measures applied as COAs 

on existing leases in the 

PHMA (233, 219 acres) 

would include surface use 

restrictions on existing 

federal leases, which would 

protect portions of the 

decision area from the soil 

impacts associated with oil 

and gas exploration, 

development, and 

production.

RDFs and conservation 

measures applied as COAs 

on existing fluid mineral

leases in the PHMA and 

GHMA (345,560 acres), 

which would protect more 

areas from the soil impacts.

RDFs and conservation 

measures applied as COAs 

on existing leases in the 

PHMA and GHMA

(345,560 acres), which 

would protect more areas

from the soil impacts.

Impacts would be 

similar to those 

under Alternative D. 

Additional 

restrictions on 

geophysical 

exploration within 

PHMA would have a 

beneficial incidental 

impact on soil 

resources in the 

planning area.

Adaptive 

management, density 

and disturbance caps, 

regional mitigation, 

and lek buffers offer 

incidental protection 

for soil resources by 

reducing 

disturbances in 

certain areas.

Impacts on soils associated 

with development of solid 

minerals would continue.

Impacts on soil resources 

from solid mineral 

development would be less 

than Alternative A with 

281,900 acres closed to 

mineral entry. RDFs would 

place limitations on road 

design, construction, and 

Impacts from solid minerals 

would be the least of all the 

alternatives with all GRSG 

habitat areas (457,774 acres) 

managed as closed to 

mineral entry. Salable 

mineral pits within the 

PHMA (233,219, acres) 

Impacts on soil resources

from solid mineral 

development would be 

less than under Alternative 

A with 453,969 acres 

closed to mineral entry.

RDFs would place 

limitations on road design, 

Impacts on soil 

resources from solid 

mineral development 

would be similar to 

those under 

Alternative A. RDFs 

would place 

limitations on road 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-101

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

use; restrict operations to 

minimize surface 

disturbance.

would be restored, which 

would increase soil health 

more than Alternative A. 

RDFs would place limitations 

on road design, construction, 

and use; restrict operations 

to minimize surface 

disturbance.

construction, and use; 

restrict operations to 

minimize surface 

disturbance.

design, construction, 

and use; operations

would be restricted

to minimize surface 

disturbance.

Adaptive 

management, density 

and disturbance caps, 

regional mitigation, 

and lek buffers offer 

incidental protection 

for soil resources by 

reducing disturbance 

in certain areas.

WATER RESOURCES

Impacts from human-made 

runoff of soils and chemicals 

into waterways would 

continue as a result of ROW

development.

Impacts from human-made 

runoff of soils and 

chemicals into waterways 

would be less than 

Alternative A with 233,219 

acres (PHMA) managed as 

ROW exclusion areas.

Impacts from human-made 

runoff of soils and chemicals 

into waterways from ROW

development would be the 

least of all the alternatives 

with PHMA and GHMA

(345,560 acres) managed as 

ROW exclusion area.

Impacts from ROW

development would be 

similar to those under 

Alternative A.

ROW avoidance 

areas in the PHMA 

and GHMA (345,560

acres) and in the 

GHMA (122,341) for 

minor ROWs, would 

reduce runoff and 

contamination of

water resources 

from surfacedisturbing activities 

related to ROW 

development. 

Additionally, the 

PHMA (233,219 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-102 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

acres) would be 

managed as ROW 

exclusion to wind 

and solar energy 

ROWs, reducing 

these same types of

impacts.

Adaptive 

management, density 

and disturbance caps, 

regional mitigation, 

and lek buffers offer 

incidental protection 

for water resources 

by reducing runoff 

and contamination in 

certain areas.

The BLM would continue to 

maintain the PFC of riparian

and wetland areas. Water 

sources would be developed 

where needed (as indicated 

by monitoring) to improve 

GRSG habitat. Waters used 

by GRSG that are adversely 

affected by uncontrolled 

livestock use would be 

fenced.

Incorporating GRSG habitat 

objectives and management 

considerations into 

livestock grazing 

management could reduce, 

but would not eliminate, 

impacts from grazing on 

water resources. Impacts 

would be similar to those 

under Alternative A.

Reduced grazing AUMs could 

increase the potential for 

cleaner surface flows into 

waterways and improve 

access to water sources.

Impacts would be similar 

to Alternative A but 

additional range 

improvements in PHMA

could improve water 

resources.

Impacts would be the 

same as those 

described under 

Alternative D.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-103

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

Impacts from human-made 

runoff of soils and chemicals 

into waterways associated 

with development of existing 

fluid mineral leases would 

continue. 

Impacts from fluid mineral

development would be less 

than those under 

Alternative A. All existing 

leases on federal oil and gas 

estate in the PHMA

(233,219 acres) would be 

subject to RDFs applied as 

COAs.

Impacts from fluid mineral

development would be the 

least of all the alternatives. 

All existing leases on federal 

oil and gas estate in the 

PHMA and GHMA (345,560 

acres) would be subject to 

RDFs applied as COAs.

Impacts from 

implementing RDFs as 

COAs in the PHMA and 

GHMA (345,560 acres) 

would be similar to those 

under Alternative C.

Impacts would be 

similar to those 

under Alternative D. 

Additional 

restrictions on 

geophysical 

exploration within 

PHMA would have a 

beneficial incidental 

impact on water

resources in the 

planning area.

Adaptive 

management, density 

and disturbance caps, 

regional mitigation, 

and lek buffers offer 

incidental protection 

for water resources 

by reducing 

disturbance in certain 

areas.

Impacts on water resources 

associated with development 

of solid minerals would 

continue.

Impacts on water

resources from solid 

mineral development would 

be less than Alternative A 

with 279,097 acres closed 

to mineral entry. RDFs 

would place limitations on 

road design, construction, 

Impacts from solid minerals 

would be the least of all the 

alternatives with the PHMA

and GHMA (345,560 acres) 

managed as closed to 

mineral entry. Salable 

mineral pits within the 

PHMA (233,219 acres) 

Impacts on water

resources from solid 

mineral development 

would be less than 

Alternative A with 453,969 

acres closed to mineral 

entry. RDFs would place 

limitations on road design, 

Impacts on water

resources from solid 

mineral development 

would be less than 

Alternative A, with 

281,854 acres closed 

to mineral entry. 

RDFs would place 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-104 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

and use; restrict operations 

to minimize surface 

disturbance.

would be restored, which 

would increase soil health 

more than Alternative A. 

RDFs would place limitations 

on road design, construction, 

and use; restrict operations 

to minimize surface 

disturbance.

construction, and use; 

restrict operations to 

minimize surface 

disturbance.

limitations on road 

design, construction, 

and use; operations

would be restricted

to minimize surface 

disturbance.

Adaptive 

management, density 

and disturbance caps, 

regional mitigation, 

and lek buffers offer 

incidental protection 

to water resources 

by reducing 

disturbance in certain 

areas.

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES—OTHER SPECIES OF ISSUE

Travel may result in human 

disturbance, degradation of 

habitat, or mortality of 

special status species.

Route construction in the 

PHMA (233,219 acres)

would be limited to 

realignments of existing 

roads, or built or upgraded 

to minimum standards 

necessary, which would 

reduce impacts from

disturbance, changes to 

habitat, and mortality on 

special status species in 

these areas.

Additional restrictions on 

new road construction in the 

PHMA and GHMA (345,560 

acres) would reduce impacts 

from disturbance, changes to 

habitat, and mortality on 

special status species in these 

areas.

Impacts from travel would 

be similar to those under 

Alternative B, with 

increased management 

flexibility incorporated to 

improve management and 

target those areas that 

need most protection.

Impacts would be the 

same as those under 

Alternative D.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-105

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

9,708 acres of habitat would 

continue to be managed as 

ROW avoidance area which 

would protect special status 

species from human-related 

disturbance and habitat 

alteration.

ROW exclusion areas in 

the PHMA (233,219 acres) 

would preclude future 

impacts from human 

disturbance and 

infrastructure in these 

areas. Additionally, ROW 

avoidance areas (112,341 

acres) in the GHMA would 

further reduce these 

impacts. However, due to 

the large aerial extent and 

variety of ownerships (nonBLM) within the PHMA

(974,735 acres) and the 

GHMA (899,659 acres), 

impacts on special status 

species would still continue 

to occur. Potential indirect 

impacts on special status 

species from developing on 

private lands.

ROW exclusion areas in the 

PHMA and GHMA (345,560 

acres) would preclude future 

impacts from human 

disturbance and 

infrastructure in these areas.

Potential indirect impacts on

special status species from 

developing on private lands.

ROW avoidance areas in 

the PHMA (233,219 acres) 

would reduce future 

impacts from human 

disturbance and 

infrastructure from 

development in these 

areas. Impacts from ROW 

development in the 

GHMA (112,341 acres) 

would be mitigated.

ROW avoidance 

areas (366,032 acres) 

would reduce future 

impacts from human 

disturbance and 

infrastructure from 

development in these 

areas. ROW 

exclusion areas in the 

PHMA (233,219 

acres) for wind and 

solar energy would 

preclude impacts 

from these types of 

developments.

Livestock grazing practices 

could have negative, neutral 

or positive effects on special 

status species through 

development and monitoring 

of AMPs or similar grazing 

plans. Grazing systems 

would consider restricting 

livestock from riparian areas 

Incorporating GRSG habitat 

objectives and management 

considerations into 

livestock grazing 

management would reduce, 

but would not eliminate, 

impacts from grazing on 

vegetation communities. 

These efforts would also 

Grazing would be removed

from 337,165 acres of 

grazing lands, which would 

include the removal of 

69,408 AUMs. This action 

would likely reduce the 

impacts on special status 

species from grazing. 

However, removal of grazing 

If an effective grazing 

system meeting GRSG 

habitat objectives is not in 

place, the permit renewal 

process would examine at 

least one alternative to 

restore this habitat. This 

could benefit special status 

species which occupy 

Impacts from 

livestock grazing 

management would 

be similar to those 

under Alternative D. 

Habitat quality would 

be improved and 

protected through 

addressing areas not 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-106 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

which would decrease 

impacts on riparian 

vegetation health and 

therefore increase the 

availability of wildlife special 

status species.

promote the health of 

potential habitats, including 

sagebrush steppe, riparian

areas, and wet meadows.

could allow for noxious 

weeds to spread and fuels to 

accumulate leading to an

increase in wildfire risk. Also, 

these actions could further 

fragment the landscape with 

mixed land practices and 

water uses.

GRSG habitat. meeting Land Health 

Standards and 

implementing RDFs.

Fluid mineral development of 

existing leases would 

continue to cause impacts on

special status species related 

to surface disturbance and 

occupancy.

Applying RDFs as COAs to 

existing leases in the PHMA

(233,219 acres) would 

reduce impacts on special 

status species and their 

habitats from activities 

related to surface 

disturbance and occupancy.

Impacts from fluid minerals

would be similar to 

Alternative B except that 

COAs would be applied to 

existing leases in both the 

PHMA and GHMA (345,560 

acres).

Impacts from fluid minerals

would be the same as 

those under Alternative B.

Impacts from fluid 

minerals would be 

the same as those 

under Alternative B.

WILDLIFE

Travel may result in human 

disturbance, degradation of 

habitat, or mortality of 

wildlife.

Route construction in the 

PHMA would be limited to 

realignments of existing 

roads, or built or upgraded 

to minimum standards 

necessary, which would 

reduce impacts from 

disturbance, changes to 

habitat, and mortality on 

wildlife in these areas.

Additional restrictions on 

new road construction in the 

PHMA and GHMA (345,560 

acres) would reduce impacts 

from disturbance, changes to 

habitat, and mortality on 

wildlife in these areas.

Impacts from travel would 

be similar to those under 

Alternative B, with 

increased management 

flexibility incorporated to 

improve management and 

target those areas that 

need most protection.

Impacts from travel 

would be the same as 

those under

Alternative D.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-107

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

9,708 acres of habitat would 

continue to be managed as 

ROW avoidance area which 

would protect wildlife from 

human-related disturbance 

and habitat alteration.

ROW exclusion areas in 

the PHMA (233,219 acres) 

would preclude future 

impacts from human 

disturbance and 

infrastructure in these 

areas. Additionally, ROW 

avoidance areas (112,341 

acres) would be included 

for the GHMA, further 

reducing these impacts. 

However, due to the large 

aerial extent and variety of 

ownerships (non-BLM) 

within the PHMA (974,735 

acres) and GHMA (899,659 

acres), impacts on wildlife 

would still continue to 

occur. Potential indirect 

impacts on wildlife from 

developing on private lands.

ROW exclusion areas in the 

PHMA and GHMA (345,560 

acres) would preclude future 

impacts from human 

disturbance and 

infrastructure in these areas.

Potential indirect impacts on

wildlife from developing on 

private lands.

ROW avoidance areas in 

the PHMA (233,219 acres) 

would reduce future 

impacts from human 

disturbance and 

infrastructure from 

development in these 

areas. Impacts from ROW 

development in GHMA

(112,341 acres) would be 

mitigated.

ROW avoidance 

areas in the PHMA 

and GHMA (366,045 

acres) would reduce

future impacts from 

human disturbance 

and infrastructure 

from development in 

these areas. ROW 

exclusion areas in the 

PHMA for wind and 

solar energy would 

preclude impacts 

from these types of 

developments.

Livestock grazing practices 

could have negative, neutral 

or positive effects on wildlife 

through development and 

monitoring of AMPs or 

similar grazing plans. Grazing 

systems would consider 

restricting livestock from 

riparian areas which would 

decrease impacts on riparian 

Incorporating GRSG habitat 

objectives and management 

considerations into 

livestock grazing 

management would reduce, 

but would not eliminate, 

impacts from grazing on 

vegetation communities. 

These efforts would also 

promote the health of 

Grazing would be removed

from 337,165 acres of 

grazing lands, which would 

include the removal of 

69,408 AUMs. This action 

would likely reduce the 

impacts on wildlife from 

grazing. However, removal 

of grazing could allow for 

noxious weeds to spread and 

If an effective grazing 

system meeting GRSG 

habitat objectives is not in 

place, the permit renewal 

process would examine at 

least one alternative to 

restore this habitat. This 

could benefit wildlife which 

occupy GRSG habitat.

Impacts from 

livestock grazing 

management would 

be similar to those 

under Alternative D. 

Habitat quality would 

be improved and 

protected through 

addressing areas not 

meeting Land Health 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-108 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

vegetation health and 

therefore increase the 

availability of wildlife habitat.

potential habitats, including 

sagebrush steppe, riparian

areas, and wet meadows.

fuels to accumulate leading 

to an increase in wildfire 

risk. Also, these actions 

could further fragment the 

landscape with mixed land 

practices and water uses.

Standards and 

implementing of 

RDFs.

Fluid mineral development of 

existing leases would 

continue to cause impacts on

wildlife related to surface 

disturbance and occupancy.

Applying RDFs as COAs to 

existing leases in the PHMA

(233,219 acres) would 

reduce impacts on wildlife 

and their habitats from 

activities related to surface 

disturbance and occupancy.

Impacts from fluid minerals

would be similar to those 

under Alternative B except 

that COAs would be applied 

to existing leases in both the 

PHMA and GHMA (345,560 

acres).

Impacts from fluid minerals

would be the same as 

those under Alternative B.

Impacts from fluid 

minerals would be 

the same as those 

under Alternative B.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Zero acres of lands with 

“Good” or better wind 

potential would be affected 

by ROW exclusion or 

avoidance areas. All lands 

with such potential would 

continue to be open for 

ROW applications on a caseby-case basis.

Seventy percent of lands 

with “Good” or better 

wind potential that are 

open for ROW applications 

under Alternative A would 

become ROW exclusion 

areas under Alternative B 

and would be closed.

5,595 fewer acres available 

for wind development 

without substantial 

restrictions. Nine percent

of lands with “Good” or 

better wind potential 

available for ROW

Seventy-nine percent of 

lands with “Good” or better 

wind potential that are open 

for ROW applications under 

Alternative A would become 

ROW exclusion areas and 

would be closed.

Seventy-nine percent of 

lands with “Good” or 

better wind potential that 

are open for ROW

applications under 

Alternative A would 

become ROW avoidance 

areas and would be subject 

to substantial restrictions 

compared to Alternative 

A.

Seventy percent of 

lands with “Good” or 

better wind potential 

that are open for 

ROW applications 

under Alternative A 

would become ROW 

exclusion areas 

under Alternative B 

and would be closed.

Fifty-nine hundred

fewer acres available 

for wind 

development without 

substantial 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-109

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

applications within the 

decision area would be 

subject to substantial 

restrictions when 

compared with Alternative 

A.

restrictions. Nine 

percent of lands with 

“Good” or better 

wind potential 

available for ROW

applications within 

the decision area 

would be subject to 

substantial 

restrictions, when 

compared with 

Alternative A.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Use of allocated forage on 

allotments in the planning 

area would generate an 

estimated 201 total jobs 

(direct, indirect, and 

induced) and $2.8 million in 

labor income (direct, 

indirect, and induced) in the 

five county economic impact 

areas, which includes 

Chouteau, Fergus, Judith, 

Meagher and Petroleum 

counties. This figure includes 

direct contributions of 128 

jobs, which equates to about 

29% of employment in the 

agricultural economic sector 

It is anticipated that current 

economic contributions 

from allocated grazing on 

allotments covered under 

this RMPA would continue 

as described under 

Alternative A. Reductions 

in allotted grazing could, 

however, occur with 

voluntary retirement of 

allotments which would 

reduce economic 

contributions.

This alternative may limit 

new ROWs or energy 

development within the 

planning area (233,219 

As a result of the reductions 

in allocated forage, estimated 

employment decrease from 

201 to 66 total jobs (direct, 

indirect, and induced) and 

labor income would 

decrease from $2.8 million 

to $931,000 (direct, indirect, 

and induced) on an average 

annual basis within the 

impact area economy. This 

estimate includes a direct 

employment decrease from 

128 jobs to 42 jobs, which 

would correspond to a 

decrease from 29% to 10%

of employment in this sector. 

It is anticipated that 

current economic 

contributions from 

allocated grazing on 

allotments covered under 

this RMPA would continue 

as described under 

Alternative A.

Impacts from new ROWs

or energy development 

within the planning area 

would be as described in 

Alternative B. 

Impacts on recreation 

would be the same as 

discussed under 

Impacts would be the 

same as those under 

Alternative D.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-110 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

for the area.

Land use authorizations 

would continue to support 

area communities and 

economies.

Economic contributions 

from recreation would 

continue at current levels; 

approximately 8 jobs (direct, 

indirect, and induced) are 

associated with wildlife 

related recreation, and 12 

jobs (direct, indirect, and 

induced) are associated with 

non-wildlife related 

recreation in the five-county 

impact area; approximately 

1% of employment in sectors 

specifically attributable to 

tourism and recreation.

Well-being and non-market 

values associated with GRSG 

habitat would continue at 

current levels, but are likely 

to be less than that of action 

alternatives.

acres or 39% of the 

decision area would be 

designated as exclusion 

areas for new ROW 

permits) and would 

consequently support 

communities and 

economies less than under 

Alternative A.

If future SRP applications 

were denied (if not found 

to be neutral or beneficial 

to GRSG), there would be 

a less organized hunting 

opportunities on BLMadministered land in the 

decision area as compared 

with Alternative A. As a 

result economic 

contributions could be less 

than current contributions 

depicted under Alternative 

A.

As a result of protective 

measures for GRSG 

habitat, well-being nonmarket values associated 

with GRSG habitat would 

be protected to a greater 

degree than Alternative A.

Decreases may not be as 

large predicted since actual 

use of allotments used in 

analysis of current conditions 

is below the permitted level 

of use. In addition, the 

decrease portrayed here 

could be less if alternative 

sources of forage is found 

for willing permittees.

This alternative may limit 

new ROWs or energy 

development within the 

planning area (345,560 acres 

of the decision area would 

be designated as exclusion 

for new ROW permits) and 

would consequently provide 

less support to communities 

and economies than under 

Alternative A.

If changes to recreation 

access occurred, there 

would be a reduction in 

recreation visitation on BLMadministered land in the 

decision area. As a result, 

economic contributions 

could be less than 

Alternative A.

Alternative B.

Restoration projects 

associated with threatened 

and endangered species

would be considered when 

prioritizing projects. As a 

result, well-being and nonmarket values associated 

with GRSG habitat would 

be less than Alternatives B 

and C. Due to uncertainty 

in how restoration 

projects are prioritized; a 

relative comparison to 

Alternative A cannot be 

made.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 2-111

Table 2-7

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A—D and the Proposed Plan Amendment1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

Policies would promote 

expansion of GRSG habitat. 

As a result, well-being and 

non-market values associated 

with GRSG habitat would be 

protected to a greater 

degree than the other 

alternatives.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

While minority and low-income populations may exist in the area, none the alternatives are expected to have a disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on these communities. Impacts on local communities are expected to be negligible, and there is 

no reason to suspect that any impacts would disproportionately affect minority and low income populations.
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 3

Affected Environment

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

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

3.1 Changes between the Draft EIS and the 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 Greater Sage-Grouse ................................................................................................................... 3-5

3.4.1 Predation.......................................................................................................................... 3-7

3.4.2 Conditions of the Planning Area .............................................................................. 3-11

3.4.3 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands ............................................................... 3-19

3.4.4 Trends ............................................................................................................................ 3-23

3.5 Lands and Realty ......................................................................................................................... 3-23

3.5.1 Conditions of the Planning Area .............................................................................. 3-25

3.5.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands ............................................................... 3-27

3.5.3 Trends ............................................................................................................................ 3-31

3.6 Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands) .................................... 3-31

3.6.1 Conditions of the Planning Area .............................................................................. 3-31

3.6.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands ............................................................... 3-36

3.6.3 Trends ............................................................................................................................ 3-40

3.7 Wildland Fire Management and Ecology ............................................................................... 3-41

3.7.1 Conditions of the Planning Area .............................................................................. 3-42

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

3.7.3 Trends ............................................................................................................................ 3-47

3.8 Fluid Minerals ............................................................................................................................... 3-47

3.8.1 Conditions of the Planning Area .............................................................................. 3-47

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

3.8.3 Trends ............................................................................................................................ 3-53

3.9 Solid Leasable Minerals .............................................................................................................. 3-53

3.9.1 Conditions of the Planning Area .............................................................................. 3-54

3.9.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands ............................................................... 3-54

3.9.3 Trends ............................................................................................................................ 3-54

3.10 Locatable Minerals ...................................................................................................................... 3-55

3.10.1 Conditions of the Planning Area .............................................................................. 3-55

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

3.10.3 Trends ............................................................................................................................ 3-55

3.11 Salable Minerals ........................................................................................................................... 3-56

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

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

3.11.3 Trends ............................................................................................................................ 3-57

3.12 Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management ................................................ 3-57

3.12.1 Conditions of the Planning Area .............................................................................. 3-57

3.12.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands ............................................................... 3-59

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

3.13 Recreation .................................................................................................................................... 3-60

3.13.1 Conditions of the Planning Area .............................................................................. 3-60

3.13.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands ............................................................... 3-61

3.13.3 Trends ............................................................................................................................ 3-63
Table of Contents 

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

3.14 Range Management ..................................................................................................................... 3-64

3.14.1 Conditions of the Planning Area .............................................................................. 3-65

3.14.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands ............................................................... 3-67

3.14.3 Trends ............................................................................................................................ 3-71

3.15 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ............................................................................ 3-72

3.15.1 Conditions of the Planning Area .............................................................................. 3-72

3.15.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands ............................................................... 3-73

3.15.3 Trends ............................................................................................................................ 3-73

3.16 Air Resources .............................................................................................................................. 3-73

3.16.1 Conditions of the Planning Area .............................................................................. 3-74

3.16.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands ............................................................... 3-78

3.16.3 Trends ............................................................................................................................ 3-79

3.17 Climate .......................................................................................................................................... 3-79

3.17.1 Conditions of the Planning Area .............................................................................. 3-80

3.17.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands ............................................................... 3-81

3.17.3 Trends ............................................................................................................................ 3-81

3.18 Soil Resources ............................................................................................................................. 3-82

3.18.1 Conditions of the Planning Area .............................................................................. 3-82

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

3.18.3 Trends ............................................................................................................................ 3-86

3.19 Water Resources ........................................................................................................................ 3-87

3.19.1 Conditions of the Planning Area .............................................................................. 3-87

3.19.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands ............................................................... 3-87

3.19.3 Trends ............................................................................................................................ 3-93

3.20 Special Status Species—Other Species of Issue .................................................................. 3-94

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

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

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

3.21 Fish and Wildlife .......................................................................................................................... 3-96

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

3.21.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands ............................................................... 3-97

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

3.22 Renewable Energy ...................................................................................................................... 3-98

3.22.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ........................................................................... 3-100

3.22.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands ............................................................ 3-100

3.22.3 Trends ......................................................................................................................... 3-101

3.23 Social and Economic Conditions .......................................................................................... 3-101

3.23.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 3-102

3.24 Environmental Justice .............................................................................................................. 3-108

3.24.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 3-109

TABLES Page 

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

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-BLM-Administered Lands in the Lewistown Field Office ....................................................... 3-13
3. Affected Environment 

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

3-4 Acres of GH within Each Vegetation Type on BLM-Administered Lands and 

Non-BLM-administered 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

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
Table of Contents 

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

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

DIAGRAMS Page 

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 (see Appendix A)

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 
June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-1

CHAPTER 3

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT EIS AND THE FINAL EIS

 A discussion of predators and predation was added in Section 

3.4.1, Predation. Range-wide and Montana-specific average vitality 

rates for GRSG are provided in Table 3-1.

 Section 3.6.1, Conditions of the Planning Area, was revised as 

follows:

– A discussion of forest communities was added.

– The Montana Noxious Weed List was updated.

– A discussion of cheatgrass within the planning area was 

added.

 Section 3.6.3, Trends, was revised as follows:

– Recent conifer removal projects were added.

– Discussion of climate change was added.

 Drilling and production statistics were updated in Section 3.8.1, 

Conditions of the Planning Area.

 Air Quality Data were updated in Section 3.16.1, Conditions of 

the Planning Area.

 Special status species listing data were updated in Section 3.20.1, 

Conditions of the Planning Area.

3.2 INTRODUCTION

This chapter documents the existing conditions and trends of resources in the 

planning area that may be affected by implementing any of the proposed 

alternatives described in Chapter 2. The affected environment provides the 

context for assessing potential impacts as described in Chapter 4.
3. Affected Environment (Introduction)

3-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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

RMPA/EIS is composed of BLM; Forest Service; USFWS; US Department of 

Defense; State of Montana; and private lands (refer to Table 1-1) in Chouteau, 

Fergus, Judith Basin, Meagher, and Petroleum Counties in central Montana. A 

map of the planning area is provided as Figure 1-1 in Appendix A.

Though the planning area includes private lands, decisions are only made for 

BLM federal surface and federal minerals in this RMPA. Management direction 

and actions outlined in this EIS apply only to these BLM-administered lands in 

the planning area and to federal mineral estate under BLM jurisdiction that may 

lie beneath other surface ownership.

3.3 ORGANIZATION OF CHAPTER 3

This chapter contains sections describing the biological, physical, and human 

resources of the planning area affected by implementing the alternatives outlined 

in this EIS. The following critical elements of the human environment and 

resource programs are not present; do not have specific GRSG conservation 

goals, objectives, or management actions identified in the alternatives; or are not 

directly affected by the alternatives presented in this EIS:

 Visual Resources

 Cultural and Historic Resources

 Paleontological Resources

 Tribal Interests

 National Historic Trails

 Wild and Scenic Rivers

Implementation of any of the alternatives would result in general and 

unquantifiable indirect beneficial effects for the above resource programs in 

terms of greater protection through new restrictions on surface and resource 

use resulting in reduced opportunities for surface disturbance or habitat 

disruption where they exist. For further information on the affected 

environment of these resources and programs, please refer to the Affected 

Environment sections of the Judith Resource Area RMP and the Headwaters 

RMP being amended by this Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse 

RMPA/EIS.

The following critical elements of the human environment and resources are 

specifically addressed in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 of the Lewistown Field 

Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS.

 Greater Sage-Grouse

 Lands and Realty

 Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands)
3. Affected Environment (Organization of Chapter 3)

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

 Wildland Fire Management and Ecology

 Fluid Minerals

 Solid Leasable Minerals

 Locatable Minerals

 Salable Minerals

 Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

 Recreation

 Range Management

 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

 Air Resources

 Climate

 Soil Resources

 Water Resources

 Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue

 Fish and Wildlife

 Renewable Energy

 Social and Economic Conditions

 Environmental Justice

Each of the above resource sections in this chapter contains a discussion of 

existing conditions and trends:

 Existing conditions describe the location, extent, and current 

condition of the resource in the planning area in general and on 

BLM-administered lands. Conditions for a resource can vary, 

depending on the resource. For each resource, a general 

description of the existing conditions is provided for the planning 

area, regardless of land status. This is done to provide a regional 

context for the resource. Then, a more detailed description of the 

existing conditions is provided for the BLM-administered lands 

managed according to the Judith Resource Area Resource 

Management Plan and the Headwaters Resource Management Plan. 

This is done to provide an area-specific description of the existing 

conditions for the resource. When possible, greater emphasis is 

placed on describing the existing conditions of the resource as it 

pertains to GRSG and their habitat.

 Trends identify the degree and direction of resource change 

between the present and some point in the past. If there is change, 
3. Affected Environment (Organization of Chapter 3)

3-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

the degree and direction of resource change is characterized as 

moving toward or away from the current desired condition based 

on the indicators, and the reasons for the change are identified. 

Trends can also be described in quantitative or qualitative terms. 

Identifying the trends is done to provide an understanding of how 

BLM management influences the desired condition of the resource 

over time. It can be difficult to analyze trends for certain resources, 

because changes to the resource often occur due to factors beyond 

the control of the BLM.

The BLM reviewed the Judith Resource Area Resource Management Plan, the 

Headwaters Resource Management Plan, and other relevant information 

sources (such as maps and state GRSG conservation assessments) for existing 

conditions and trends for the resources listed above with respect to GRSG and 

their habitat. This affected environment information is summarized below and, 

where appropriate, noted when the information is incorporated by reference.

Data from geographic information systems (GIS) have been used in developing 

acreage calculations and for generating many of the figures. Calculations in this 

EIS are rounded and are dependent upon the quality and availability of data. 

Data were collected from a variety of sources, including the BLM, collaborative 

partners, stakeholders, and cooperating agencies. Given the scale of the analysis, 

the compatibility constraints between datasets, and the lack of data for some 

resources, all calculations are approximate and serve for comparison and 

analytic purposes only. Likewise, the figures are provided for illustrative 

purposes and subject to the limitations discussed above. The BLM may receive 

additional GIS data; therefore, the acreages may be recalculated and revised at a 

later date.

3.3.1 WAFWA Management Zone Data

To augment this planning document at a biologically meaningful scale for GRSG, 

a BER of GRSG was produced by USGS for the BLM (Manier et. al. 2013). The 

BER is a science support document that provides information to put planning 

units and issues into the context of the larger WAFWA Sage-Grouse 

management zones. The BER examines each threat identified in the USFWS’s 

listing decision published on March 15, 2010. For each threat, the report 

summarizes the current scientific understanding of various impacts on GRSG

populations and habitats. When available, patterns, thresholds, indicators, 

metrics, and measured responses that quantify the impacts of each specific 

threat are reported.

As described in Chapter 1, the planning area for the Lewistown Field Office

Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS is located in WAFWA MZs 1 and IV (Stiver et 

al. 2006). Data from the BER are presented throughout this chapter to 

illuminate the location (e.g., PH and GH), magnitude, and extent of the threats 

within WAFWA MZs I and IV that comprises the planning area. Because the 
3. Affected Environment (Organization of Chapter 3)

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

BER focuses on threats to GRSG at the WAFWA management zone scale, it 

provides biologically meaningful data for larger scale analyses. The BER data 

provided in Chapter 3 is considered in the WAFWA MZs 1 and IV cumulative 

effects analysis for GRSG in Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts.

The data and information included from the BER was the most accurate 

available when the data was “frozen” in time for analysis purposes; however, 

these scenarios remain based in present knowledge. Spatial data informing the 

existing conditions were compiled to establish a consistent information base

across the entire region (GRSG Management Area), but, in order to attain this 

consistently across state, ownership, and management boundaries, some local 

data have been omitted at the WAFWA MZ level. There may be inconsistencies 

between WAFWA-level and local planning-level data. As such, these data 

provide a regional baseline, suitable for guiding regional mid- to long-term 

analysis scenarios (Manier et al. 2013).

Chapter 3 also presents data that is available at a finer scale than used in the 

BER. These fine-scale, local data are incorporated into the affected environment 

discussion to complement the BER’s biologically meaningful data, characterize 

the relative contributions of threats in the planning area as opposed to the 

WAFWA management zones, and to set the stage for the cumulative effects 

analysis for GRSG.

3.4 GREATER SAGE-GROUSE

Special status species are those species with populations that have declined to 

the point of substantial federal or state agency concern. These declines may 

result from habitat loss or modification, or from changes in competition, 

predation, disease, weather, or overharvest. Habitat loss and modification from 

human activities are the primary causes of declining GRSG populations. GRSG is 

a BLM sensitive species in Montana. BLM sensitive species and USFWS-listed 

threatened or endangered species are both considered special status species.

The BLM’s policy for special status species is to: 1) conserve and/or recover 

threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems on which they depend 

so that ESA protections are no longer needed, and 2) to initiate proactive 

conservation measures that reduce or eliminate threats to BLM-sensitive 

species to minimize the likelihood of and need for listing of these species under 

the ESA. The BLM 6840 Manual, Special Status Species Management (BLM 

2008c), sets policy for the management of candidate species and their habitat. 

Candidate species are considered BLM-sensitive species. The 6840 manual 

directs the BLM to conserve special status species and the ecosystems on which 

they depend on BLM-administered land, and reduce the likelihood and need for 

future listing under the ESA. The 6840 manual directs the BLM to undertake 

conservation actions for such species before listing is warranted and also to 

“work cooperatively with other agencies, organizations, governments, and 
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

3-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

interested parties for the conservation of sensitive species and their habitats to 

meet agreed on species and habitat management goals.”

Policy provided in the 6840 manual requires that when the BLM engages in the 

planning process, land use plans, and implementation plans, that strategies, 

restrictions, and management actions necessary to conserve and recover listed 

species, as well as provisions for the conservation of BLM-sensitive species, are 

identified. This policy also requires managers to determine to the extent 

practicable, the distribution, abundance, population condition, current threats, 

and habitat needs for sensitive species, and evaluate the significance of actions in 

conserving those species.

Historically, GRSG occurred in parts of 12 states within the western US and 

three Canadian provinces; populations have declined throughout much of their 

former range and have been extirpated from fringe areas. Across their range, 

GRSG currently occupy 56 percent, of their potential pre-settlement range, 

approximately 1,200,000 km2 (Schroeder et al. 2004).

The COT, a USFWS team of federal and state wildlife officials was tasked with 

developing conservation objectives by defining the degree to which the threats 

need to be ameliorated to conserve the GRSG, so that it no longer is warranted 

for listing under the ESA. The Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

Conservation Objectives: Final Report (COT Report; USFWS 2013) was 

developed by this team. The report discusses GRSG populations and subpopulations within each WAFWA management zone and describes the threats 

facing each population. The LFO is primarily located within WAFWA MZ 1, in 

the northwest portion of the Yellowstone Watershed Population. MZ I (the 

Great Plains) also includes the Dakotas, northern Montana and the Powder 

River basin. A small amount of the LFO also occurs in the Belt Mountains 

Population in WAFWA MZ IV. The report was used to focus the analysis in 

Chapter 4 on the threats most likely to impact GRSG in the planning area.

The majority of the GRSG population in the planning area is part of the 

Yellowstone Watershed Population, a large population covering an expansive 

area south of the Missouri River, making up the majority of GRSG habitats in 

southeast and south-central Montana. The known threats to the Yellowstone 

Watershed Population that are present and widespread include agriculture 

conversion, weeds and annual grasses, energy, infrastructure, and grazing. 

Threats that are present but localized in the Yellowstone Watershed Population 

include elimination of sagebrush, fire, conifers, and recreation (USFWS 2013, 

Table 2, p. 17). Garton et al. (2011) reported a minimum male count of over 

2,900 males, and considered the population only potentially at risk. Land 

ownership in the LFO is predominantly private with scattered tracts and blocks 

of public land. Livestock grazing and small grain farming are common, with 

scattered oil and gas developments across portions of this area. Extensive 

private lands have the potential for conversion of additional sagebrush habitats 
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-7

to farming, and cropland conversion continues to take place (USFWS 2013, p. 

65).

The Belt Mountains Population inhabits 439 acres of BLM-administered lands in 

the planning area. The BLM-administered acreage is all GH, and no leks are 

present on BLM-administered land. This population is at high risk because it is

isolated from other GRSG populations by 50 miles in all directions, and fewer

than 100 males have been counted annually since 1984. The known threats to 

the Belt Mountains Population that are present and widespread include 

isolated/small size population, agriculture conversion, weeds/annual grasses, and 

grazing. Threats that are present but localized in the Belt Mountains Population 

include sagebrush elimination, fire, conifer expansions, energy, infrastructure, 

recreation, and urbanization (USFWS 2013, pp.77-78). 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.

In response to petitions, USFWS first evaluated GRSG for listing in 2005 and 

determined listing was not warranted. After a 2007 court order, the agency 

again considered the GRSG for listing and, in 2010, concluded that GRSG listing 

under the ESA was warranted range-wide but precluded by higher priority 

actions (USFWS 2010, p.1).

The BER was produced by USGS, in cooperation with the BLM, to summarize 

the science, activities, programs, and policies influencing conservation of GRSG 

across their range (Manier et al. 2013). It summarizes the available primary 

literature on each of the threats and their impact on GRSG and provides tables 

of the overlap of threats, such as oil and gas leases with GRSG primary and 

general habitat.

The GRSG National Technical Team (NTT) was established by the BLM to 

coordinate effective management actions based on best available science for 

GRSG conservation and restoration. The NTT Conservation Measures/Planning 

Strategy Report (December 2011) includes a discussion of threats and 

recommended BLM management actions for each.

3.4.1 Predation

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 in Montana (southwestern Wyoming and northeastern Nevada), 

where predators may be limiting GRSG populations because of intense habitat 

alteration and fragmentation. Despite the USFWS document stating that 

predation is not a significant threat to GRSG populations in Montana, the public 

remains concerned about the influence of predators on GRSG conservation.
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

3-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Predators are part of the ecosystem, and they have always preyed upon GRSG. 

Predators that prey on GRSG tend to be generalists that take prey 

opportunistically but do not focus solely or preferentially on GRSG (Hagen 

2011). Predators of juvenile and adult GRSG are commonly coyote, red fox,

American badger, bobcat, golden eagles, and several other species of raptors 

(Schroeder and Baydack 2001; Hagen 2011). Younger birds can also be taken by 

common ravens, northern harriers, ground squirrels, and weasels. Nest 

predators include coyote, American badger, common raven, and black-billed 

magpie (Schroeder and Baydack 2001; Hagen 2011). Smaller predators of GRSG, 

such as red fox or skunks, can also serve as prey to larger predators such as 

coyotes.

Historically, predator control programs in North America were designed to 

protect domestic livestock, not wildlife (Hagen 2011). Predator control as a tool 

to manage GRSG populations was rarely recommended historically, even for 

threatened and endangered populations in altered or fragmented habitats 

(Patterson 1952; Schroeder and Baydack 2001). It is likely that the termination 

of widespread predator control in the early 1970s has influenced changes in 

predator abundance observed anecdotally by the public in recent years 

(Montana Sage Grouse Working Group 2005). Maintaining and enhancing intact 

ecosystems of sufficient size and quality to support a particular species is of 

greater ecological value and sustainability than an alternate approach that relies 

heavily on human intervention (e.g., artificial feeding, predator control, animal 

husbandry, zoos). The former approach works with the natural system that is 

adapted to working as an interconnected resilient network. The latter approach 

is costly, temporary, risks variable results, and is not likely to avert an ESA 

listing (United States Department of the Interior 2010).

Human-altered landscapes have contributed to significant increases over 

historical numbers in some predator abundances, particularly red fox and ravens 

(Coates and Delehanty 2010; Sauer et al. 2012). The influx of predators in 

altered sagebrush habitat can lead to decreased annual recruitment of GRSG 

(Schroeder and Baydack 2001; Coates 2007; Hagen 2011). GRSG in altered 

systems are also typically forced to nest in less suitable or marginal habitats 

where predators can more easily detect nesting birds (Connelly et al. 2004). In 

Strawberry Valley, Utah, low GRSG survival was attributed to an unusually high 

density of red fox that were attracted to the area by anthropogenic activity 

(Baxter et al. 2007). Holloran (2005) attributed increased nest depredation 

rates on GRSG to high corvid abundance in western Wyoming; the latter was 

influenced by anthropogenic structures associated with natural gas development. 

In the same area, Bui (2009) found ravens used road networks, fences, power 

lines, and other infrastructure associated with development. Bui et al. (2010) 

also detected a negative association between raven presence and GRSG nest 

and brood fate. Coates and Delehanty (2010) found increased raven density in 

northeastern Nevada was associated with decreased GRSG nest success, 

especially in areas with lower shrub density. Habitat fragmentation, 
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-9

infrastructure, weather, urban development, and improper grazing can increase 

predation pressure on GRSG. GRSG populations demonstrate annual and cyclic 

fluctuations, which are influenced by weather patterns such as drought and the 

composition and abundance of predators (Montana Sage Grouse Working 

Group 2005). Montana populations appear to cycle over an approximately10-

year period under existing habitat conditions and the current combination of 

weather and predation (Montana Sage Grouse Working Group 2005; Montana 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks, unpubl. data). Longer-term trends in GRSG population 

abundance and distribution can be a function of habitat loss or deterioration 

(Garton et al. 2011). The majority of Montana’s GRSG populations are expected 

to persist over the next 100 years if habitat conditions remain consistent, which 

suggests Montana’s populations are relatively stable (Garton et al. 2011). GRSG 

are part of the sagebrush grassland ecosystem that includes an interlinked web 

of plant and animal species, including herbivores and carnivores. As one of many 

prey species in sagebrush habitats, GRSG are adapted to predation and in 

unaltered systems will persist indefinitely with predation pressure (Hagen 2011). 

The influence of predation on GRSG population dynamics only becomes a 

problem when vital rates, especially nest, chick, and hen survival, are 

consistently reduced below naturally occurring levels (Taylor et al. 2012). 

Naturally occurring variability in vital rates is a function of annual variation in 

conditions (e.g., weather, vegetation cover quality, predator abundance) and is 

expected with a species that shows cyclic tendencies. Based on a number of 

research projects, reported vital rates for GRSG populations in Montana vary 

within range-wide estimates, suggesting predation rates are within the range of 

normal variability (Table 3-1). Good quality and quantity of habitat reduces 

predation pressure, and quality habitat is essential for GRSG population stability. 

Predator management can provide beneficial short-term relief to localized 

GRSG populations where predation has been identified as a limiting factor for 

population stability. Predator control is managed cooperatively by Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (US Department of Agriculture) Wildlife Service, 

MFWP, and the USFWS. Federal laws, such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, limit options for managing avian 

predators.

Recent predator control programs designed to benefit GRSG have had mixed 

results (United States Department of Interior 2010; Hagen 2011). In Strawberry 

Valley, Utah, fox removal appeared to increase adult survival and productivity,

but inference is limited because a control area was not included to compare 

changes in demographic rates, which were coincidentally increasing across the 

region during the study period (Baxter et al. 2007). Coyote control, however, 

appeared to have no effect on nest success or chick survival in Wyoming (Slater 

2003). In fact, removal of coyotes can lead to a release of otherwise suppressed 

medium-sized predators, such as red fox, which tend to be more effective 

predators of GRSG nests and individuals (Mezquida et al. 2006). Ongoing 

control efforts of mammalian and avian predators (except raptors) in 
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

3-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 3-1

Average Range of Vital Rates for GRSG, range-wide and in Montana

Vital 

Rate

Range-wide 

Rates1 Montana Rates Years of MT Study Location Reference

Nest 

Success

15 – 86% 64% 1969 - 1972 Petroleum Co. Wallestad and 

Pyrah 1974

28 – 43% 2004 - 2005 Musselshell and 

Golden Valley 

Co.

Sika 2006

35 – 61% 2001 - 2003 S. Phillips Co. Moynahan et al. 

2007

53 – 61% 2007 - 2008 Milk River Basin Tack 2009

59% 2011 - 2012 Musselshell and 

Golden Valley 

Co.

Berkeley, unpubl. 

data2

Chick 

survival

12 – 50% 33 – 38% 2007 - 2008 Milk River Basin Tack 2009

12% 2011 - 2012 Musselshell and 

Golden Valley 

Co.

Berkeley, unpubl. 

data2

Hen 

survival

37 – 78% 25 – 96%3 2001 – 2003 S. Phillips Co, 

Montana

Moynahan et al. 

2006

94% (nesting 

season)

84 – 93% (late 

summer)

2004 - 2005 Musselshell and 

Golden Valley 

Co

Sika 2006

55 – 91% 

(spring/summer)

84 – 92% (over 

winter)

2007 - 2008 Milk River Basin Tack 2009

59% 2011 - 2012 Musselshell and 

Golden Valley 

Co.

Berkeley, unpubl. 

data

1Range-wide estimates from Connelly et al. 2011a.

2

Spring and early summer weather during 2011 and 2012 were subject to historic extremes of high precipitation in 

2011 and severe drought in 2012, which likely affected nest and chick survival rates.

3

25% annual survival in 2003 was attributed to a West Nile virus outbreak and severe winter conditions; annual 

survival in 2001-2002 averaged 96%.

southwestern Colorado designed to increase recruitment in a small population 

of Gunnison’s sage-grouse may be showing some success, but sample sizes are 

extremely low (five chicks monitored/year; Colorado Parks and Wildlife, pers. 

comm.). There are 13 displaying males currently in this population, and cost of 
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-11

monitoring and control has totaled $267,000 over five years (Colorado Parks 

and Wildlife, pers. comm.), bringing in to question the sustainability of this 

program. Raven removal in northeastern Nevada resulted in short-term 

reductions in raven populations; however, other individuals repopulated the 

vacated habitat within a year (Coates 2007). Badger predation may also have 

compensated somewhat for decreases in raven numbers (Coates 2007). 

Predation by ravens on GRSG in southwestern Wyoming was attributed 

primarily to territorial pairs, not groups of juveniles, sub-adults, and nonbreeding birds (Bui et al. 2010). Thus, the removal of raven groups at foraging 

sites is unlikely to influence GRSG nest success, and the removal of territorial 

pairs will likely have only short-term effects until the habitat is re-occupied by a 

new pair.

Range-wide and Montana-specific average vitality rates for GRSG are provided 

in Table 3-1. 

3.4.2 Conditions of the Planning Area

Availability of Sagebrush Habitat

The distribution of GRSG is closely aligned with the distribution of sagebrushdominated landscapes (Schroeder et al. 2004). GRSG require large, intact, and 

connected expanses of sagebrush shrubland to exist (Aldridge et al. 2008; 

Wisdom et al. 2011). The planning area occurs in WAFWA MZs I and IV (Stiver 

et al. 2006).

IM No. 2012-044 (BLM 2011a) directs the BLM to collaborate with state wildlife 

agencies to identify and map two categories of GRSG habitat (BLM 2012, IM No. 

2012-043):

 PH: Areas that have been identified as having the highest 

conservation value to maintaining sustainable GRSG populations. 

These areas would include breeding, late brood-rearing, winter 

concentration areas, and other seasonal habitat

 GH: Areas of occupied habitat outside of priority habitat

In Montana, the BLM developed its PH/GH map (Figure 3-1 in Appendix A) 

based on MFWP’s prior modeling of GRSG Core areas using lek-centric model 

based on male lek attendance and refined with seasonal habitat, telemetry, 

connectivity information, and field review. Documentation for the Montana 

Core area analysis is summarized at: http://www.mt.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ecs/

biology/sagegrouse/sagegrouse_strategy_attachments/appendix1.html. Montana 

GH was mapped based on the Schroeder (2004) GRSG distribution map.

GRSG core areas are habitat associated with Montana’s highest breeding densities 

of GRSG (25 percent quartile), based on male counts, and GRSG lek complexes 
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

3-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

and associated habitat important to GRSG distribution. Acres of PH and GH 

within the planning area are presented in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2

PH and GH Occurring on BLM-Administered Lands and Non-BLM Lands in 

the Planning Area

Lands PH

(acres)

GH

(acres)

Outside GRSG

Habitat

(acres)

BLM-administered lands 233,219 (19%) 112,341 (11%) 248,435 (5%)

Non-BLM-administered lands 974,775 (81%) 902,694 (89%) 4,840,055 (95%)

Total Planning Area 1,207,994 1,015,035 5,088,490

Source: BLM 2012a

Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 shows the Regional Gap Analysis Program (ReGAP)

Tier III vegetation types for the LFO in PH and GH habitat. Sagebrush habitat in 

PH on BLM-administered land in PH covers 169,598 acres. Mixed-grass prairie, 

riparian and pine woodland are the next most common habitat types. In GH, 

sagebrush in BLM-administered land covers 44,698 acres. Table 3-4 includes 

habitat in both MZ I and MZ IV (Belt Mountains). The Belt Mountain population 

area is only 439 acres, all of which is in GH; no PH is found in this area. 

Population areas are described in more detail below.

Leks are key spring activity areas for mating and are most often located in open 

areas surrounded by sagebrush cover. There are approximately 148 leks within 

the planning area, 77 of which were active in 2013. The greatest concentration 

of PH is in the eastern portion of the planning area in Fergus and Petroleum 

counties. Smaller patches of GH occur in the western portion of the planning 

area. 

Connectivity of Habitat Patches

While the amount of habitat available to GRSG is very important, habitat 

pattern is just as critical to long-term survival of the species. Fragmentation of 

habitat into smaller patches can result in extirpation of local GRSG populations 

when functional connectivity among patches is lost. Leks separated by distances 

greater than 11 miles could be isolated due to decreased probability of 

dispersals from neighboring leks (Connelly et al. 2000). Isolation and reduced 

connectivity increases the probability of loss of genetic diversity and extirpation 

from random events (Knick and Hanser 2011).

There is little information available regarding minimum sagebrush patch sizes 

required to support populations of GRSG. This is due in part to the migratory 

nature of some but not all GRSG populations, the lack of juxtaposition of 

seasonal habitats, and differences in local, regional, and range-wide ecological 
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-13

Table 3-3

Acres of PH within Each Vegetation Type on BLM-Administered Lands and Non-BLM-Administered Lands in the Lewistown 

Field Office

PH Vegetation Description BLM Private State Other Total1

Cultivated Cropland 2,301 68,536 1,357 184 72,378

Developed, Low Intensity 114 1,743 109 6 1,972

Developed, Medium Intensity 0 3 0 0 3

Developed, Open Space 173 2,716 188 2 3,079

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 169,598 463,132 57,751 2,226 692,707

Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 2,345 5,786 640 87 8,858

Introduced Upland Vegetation - Perennial Grassland and Forbland 4,807 114,626 4,571 112 124,116

North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 200 499 34 622 1,355

Northern Rocky Mountain Foothill Conifer Wooded Steppe 3,415 9,642 905 72 14,034

Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 0 23 0 0 23

Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane, Foothill and Valley Grassland 99 0 0 0 99

Northern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland and Savanna 0 12,333 1,552 0 13,885

Northwestern Great Plains - Black Hills Ponderosa Pine Woodland and Savanna 6,551 0 0 118 6,669

Northwestern Great Plains Floodplain 16 76 0 0 92

Northwestern Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie 30,839 134,166 15,930 723 181,658

Northwestern Great Plains Riparian 6,301 38,134 3,975 150 48,560

Northwestern Great Plains Shrubland 75 378 31 0 484

Open Water (Fresh) 203 1,085 77 4 1,369

Pasture/Hay 4 728 11 0 743

Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive Bedrock 5 0 0 0 5

Western Great Plains Badland 2,793 4,259 709 18 7,779

Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop 41 14 0 3 58

Western Great Plains Closed Depression Wetland 18 94 7 4 123

Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland 43 53 1 0 97

Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland 375 1,157 95 1,668 3,295

Western Great Plains Sand Prairie 2,548 17,125 2,480 0 22,153

Western Great Plains Wooded Draw and Ravine 355 1,847 164 17 2,383

Total 233,219 878,155 90,587 6,016 1,207,977

Source: BLM 2012a

1Totals do not match due to rounding.
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

3-14 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 3-4

Acres of GH within Each Vegetation Type on BLM-Administered Lands and Non-BLM-administered Lands within the 

Lewistown Field Office

GH Vegetation Description BLM Private State Other Total1

Cultivated Cropland 1,623 87,145 2,990 12 91,770

Developed, Low Intensity 29 1,591 82 0 1,702

Developed, Medium Intensity 2 18 0 0 20

Developed, Open Space 69 8,406 909 3 9,387

Harvested Forest - Grass/Forb Regeneration 0 37 0 2 39

Harvested Forest - Northwestern Conifer Regeneration 0 38 0 2 40

Harvested forest-Shrub Regeneration 0 79 0 5 84

Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland 0 6 0 0 6

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 44,698 253,149 32,541 406 330,794

Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 1,747 6,410 903 23 9,083

Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 135 48,875 5,178 219 54,407

Introduced Upland Vegetation - Perennial Grassland and Forbland 1,757 75,068 4,652 39 81,516

Middle Rocky Mountain Montane Douglas-fir Forest and Woodland 31 7,196 653 624 8,504

North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 4 246 3 8 261

Northern Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest 26 0 0 0 26

Northern Rocky Mountain Foothill Conifer Wooded Steppe 9,423 19,891 1,435 0 30,749

Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 0 904 121 0 1,025

Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane, Foothill and Valley Grassland 120 31,389 9,684 25 41,218

Northern Rocky Mountain Montane-Foothill Deciduous Shrubland 2 748 63 7 820

Northern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland and Savanna 2 1,531 311 66 1,910

Northern Rocky Mountain Subalpine Deciduous Shrubland 0 3 2 0 5

Northern Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Upper Montane Grassland 0 181 5 10 196

Northwestern Great Plains - Black Hills Ponderosa Pine Woodland and Savanna 14,360 29,545 3,128 0 47,033

Northwestern Great Plains Floodplain 195 2,006 182 130 2,513

Northwestern Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie 8,377 96,424 8,808 19 113,628

Northwestern Great Plains Riparian 1,811 26,699 1,662 0 30,172

Northwestern Great Plains Shrubland 1,529 4,894 361 0 6,784

Open Water (Fresh) 132 1,137 49 424 1,742

Pasture/Hay 8 25,112 579 3 25,702

Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow 1 1,039 112 1 1,153
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-15

Table 3-4

Acres of GH within Each Vegetation Type on BLM-Administered Lands and Non-BLM-administered Lands within the 

Lewistown Field Office

GH Vegetation Description BLM Private State Other Total1

Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 0 427 41 18 486

Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive Bedrock 99 30 5 0 134

Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper Woodland 0 571 271 0 842

Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest 4 845 108 105 1,062

Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 4 5,737 350 38 6,129

Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland 1 54 5 3 63

Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland 0 75 1 1 77

Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Mesic Meadow 21 23,670 1,393 93 25,177

Western Great Plains Badland 22,427 28,121 3,931 90 54,569

Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop 72 195 13 0 280

Western Great Plains Closed Depression Wetland 3 109 0 0 112

Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland 0 68 0 0 68

Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland 17 203 0 0 220

Western Great Plains Sand Prairie 2,992 24,084 2,696 0 29,772

Western Great Plains Wooded Draw and Ravine 606 2,628 182 2 3,418

Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe 0 64 24 0 88

Total 112,327 816,648 83,433 2,378 1,014,786

Source: BLM 2012a

1Totals do not match due to rounding.
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

3-16 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

conditions that influence the distribution of sagebrush and associated 

understories. Where home ranges have been reported, they are extremely 

variable (2.5 to 382 square miles; Connelly et al. 2011a).

GRSG populations may be nonmigratory or migratory, moving between or 

among seasonal use areas (Connelly et al. 2011a). Recent research has shown 

that GRSG near Glasgow, Montana, migrate up to 150 miles between seasonal 

habitats, making frequent stopovers in suitable sagebrush rangelands (Smith 

2013). There is no indication or expectation that GRSG in the planning area may 

be similarly migratory (Wallestad 1975).

Landscape Matrix and Edge Effect

GRSG typically occupy sagebrush vegetation but may also use a variety of other 

habitats (e.g., riparian meadows, agricultural lands) intermixed in a sagebrush 

dominated landscape. Aldridge and Boyce (2007) found GRSG selected large 

expanses of sagebrush and avoided anthropogenic edge during the breeding 

season. Thus, the viability of fragmented habitat for GRSG is dependent upon 

the juxtaposition of these habitats in relation to sagebrush and the hazards to 

birds using these areas (Connelly et al. 2011b). In addition, studies have found a 

positive relationship between quality of nesting cover and nesting success 

(Montana Sage Grouse Work Group 2005).

In Montana, GRSG prefer breeding habitats with a sagebrush canopy over 20 

percent, generally within the 6- to 12-inch height class. Most nesting is believed 

to occur within two miles of a lek in Montana, and GRSG exhibit high 

commitment to a nest-area. In the summer, GRSG broods in central Montana 

prefer relatively open stands of sagebrush, generally with a canopy ranging from 

one to 25 percent. More than half of all GRSG observations during August and 

September were in alfalfa fields, greasewood in bottomlands, and borrow pits 

where succulent forbs remained relatively abundant. Increased use of higher 

density sagebrush in late September or October coincided with transition to a 

winter diet of sagebrush (Montana Sage Grouse Work Group 2005).

Conifer invasion and invasive weed spread cause habitat fragmentation by 

encroaching on existing sagebrush shrublands and making habitat less suitable 

for GRSG. A decline of shrubs is the most documented shift in understory 

vegetation following conifer encroachment. Mountain big sagebrush sites show 

20 to 25 percent declines in shrub cover in response to trees, reaching 50 

percent of the maximum site potential (Miller et al. 2000). Tree growth also 

provides attractive perches for GRSG predators, which further induces GRSG

to avoid these areas. In LFO, conifer encroachment is a localized threat which 

primarily occurs in the northeastern/eastern portion of PH.

Crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) is the most prevalent introduced 

perennial grass in the planning area. Annual bromes, including cheatgrass

(Bromus tectorum) and Japanese brome (B. japonicus), occur throughout PH at 

low densities, but their spread is restricted by climatic conditions. They are 
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-17

found in isolated non-contiguous patches (typically less than 10 acres) and do 

not currently pose a threat of invading vast areas of PH or GH. Short-term, 

surface-disturbing activities, overgrazing, and drought can increase annual 

grasses. Proper management and typical precipitation patterns in the planning 

area (wetter May and June, with nearly an inch of rain monthly through the fall) 

allows desirable native plants to remain or reestablish in the presence of annual 

grasses. For more information, see Section 3.6, Vegetation (Including Noxious 

Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands).

Wildfire is an additional source of impacts on GRSG habitat. Between 2000 and 

2012, four wildfires burned 1,938 acres (0.83 percent) in PH. Over the same 

time period, eight wildfires burned 303 acres (0.27 percent) in BLM GH. 

Increased wildfires and cheatgrass proliferation have not occurred in the LFO, 

much different than the Great Basin. For more information, see Section 3.7,

Wildland Fire Management and Ecology.

Landownership in the planning area is interspersed between federal and nonfederal lands (Table 3-5). Important GRSG habitat areas cross both BLMadministered and private lands (also see Table 3-3 and Table 3-4). BLMadministered lands constitute a minority of sagebrush habitat, which increases 

the risk of habitat fragmentation if federal actions are not coordinated with state 

and private actions. 

Table 3-5

Surface Ownership in PH and GH

Surface Ownership PH

(acres)(%)1

GH

(acres)(%)1

BLM-administered lands 233,219 (19) 112,341 (11)

Other federal lands 3,688 (0.3) 1,717 (0.2)

State lands 90,587 (8) 83,438 (8)

Private 878,171 (73) 816,869 (80)

Water 2,329 (0.2) 670 (<0.1))

Total 1,207,994 1,015,035

Source: BLM 2012a

1

Percent total does not equal 100 due to rounding.

Anthropogenic Disturbances

Comparing environmental conditions and levels of human disturbance on areas 

of former range (extirpated range) with areas still occupied by GRSG (occupied 

range), Wisdom et al. (2011) identified five key factors most likely to lead to 

extirpation of local populations: sagebrush area, elevation, distance to 

transmission lines, distance to cellular towers, and land ownership. Land 

ownership was a surrogate for conversion of private lands to non-sagebrush 

land uses, most commonly agricultural cultivation, which have reduced habitat 
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

3-18 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

availability and fragmented remaining sagebrush habitat nearby. Lek

abandonment was most likely to occur in areas with over 25 percent cultivated 

cropland within 18 miles of the lek (Aldridge et al. 2008).

Transmission lines, in addition to reducing habitat suitability and increasing 

fragmentation, can cause GRSG mortality through bird collisions with lines and 

facilitate raptor predation of GRSG. There are currently 800 acres of 

transmission lines in GH and 2,600 acres in PH on BLM-administered land in the 

planning area. For more information on land ownership and rights-of-way 

(ROWs) in the planning area, see Section 3.5, Lands and Realty.

Oil and gas developments within two to four miles of leks or nesting areas had 

deleterious effect on populations, with the effects increasing with higher well 

density (Lyon and Anderson 2003; Walker et al. 2007; Johnson et al. 2011). 

There are 45,400 acres currently leased and undeveloped for oil and gas in PH 

and GH on BLM-administered land within the planning area. There are no new 

oil and gas leases in PH or GH, and there have been no new oil or gas wells on 

BLM-administered lands in the last decade.

Cat Creek oil field is located on 951 acres of PH in the southeastern corner of 

Yellowstone Watershed and had 38 producing wells in 2011. In operation since 

the 1920s, the field is largely played out, with most wells plugged and 

abandoned. Leroy field lies mostly north of the planning area within the Upper 

Missouri River Breaks National Monument. None of the Leroy field is within 

PH, and 3,133 acres are within GH. In 2011, six producing wells in this field 

were within the planning area. Gas resources in this field have been depleted, 

and approximately half of the wells in the area are plugged and abandoned. In 

addition to activity within these fields, some exploration activity has occurred 

within the Heath oil shale play in the southern portion of Petroleum County, 

within PH and GH. The Montana Board of Oil and Gas has issued 17 drilling 

permits for the Heath shale in Petroleum County. Five of these permits have 

been issued since March 2011 (Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation 

2012). No permits have yet been issued for drilling on federal minerals in the 

Heath play.

There is potential for renewable energy (primarily wind), but, to date, all wind 

turbines in the planning area have occurred on private lands. The main LFO 

planning area has three sites with a total of 42 wind turbines (Diffendorfer et al. 

2014); none are in GRSG GH or PH. Spion Kop in Chouteau County is near the 

south end of the Highwood Mountains and has 25 turbines. The closest turbine 

is over 25 miles from the nearest active GRSG lek. In the Belt Mountains, 17 

turbines (11 in the north area and 6 in the south) are in two areas near 

Martinsdale in Meagher County. The closest turbine was over 5 miles from a lek 

that was last active in 2011. Two 40-acre BLM parcels within GH are 1 to 2 

miles from that lek and 5.5 miles from the nearest turbine. The nearest active 

lek (2012-2014) is over 22 miles from the closest wind turbine. The wind facility 
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-19

near Judith Gap is in Wheatland County outside of the planning area, over 40 

miles from the nearest active lek in the planning area.

For more information on existing mineral leases in GRSG habitat, see Section 

3.8, Fluid Minerals, Section 3.9, Solid Leasable Minerals, Section 3.10,

Locatable Minerals, and Section 3.11, Salable Minerals.

There are still large high-viability habitat patches in the planning area. However, 

the degree of habitat fragmentation within the patch, in the form of roads, 

power lines, corridors, energy sites, livestock watering pipeline systems, OHV

trails, mineral sites, canals, landfills, and other sources, affects habitat suitability 

of the patch for GRSG. In the LFO, roads (including paved, gravel dirt and twotrack) occur throughout PH on both BLM (454 miles) and other lands (2,214 

miles). Power line (62 miles BLM PH) and telephone (42 miles BLM PH) ROWs

typically are adjacent to the main roadways and occur throughout the area. 

Fences are common and are primarily four strands of barbed wire. Motorized 

travel on all LFO BLM-administered lands is limited to existing roads and trails.

SRPs are currently issued to outfitters and guides for big game and upland game, 

including GRSG. Statewide GRSG harvest has decreased from approximately 

30,000 annually historically to approximately 3,200 in 2011. Peak recreational 

use occurs during the fall hunting season and is primarily to access big game 

hunting.

Current livestock grazing was a significant causal factor for not achieving land 

health standards in 78 (54 allotments within GRSG habitat) of the 526 

allotments within the planning area. For more information on grazing, see 

Section 3.14, Range Management.

The presence of anthropogenic features between patches also decreases 

linkages important to GRSG habitat viability. Continuing pressures for 

conversion of sagebrush to cropland and for energy development in LFO pose 

increasing risks of habitat fragmentation, particularly given the mixed pattern of 

land ownership.

3.4.3 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

Acres of PH and GH on BLM-administered lands within the planning area are 

presented in Table 3-2. The conditions on BLM-administered lands are similar 

to those discussed in Section 3.4.2, Conditions of the Planning Area.

Yellowstone Watershed Population

The Yellowstone Watershed GRSG population is comprised of five PH areas 

within the Billings, Miles City, and Lewistown BLM field offices. PH within the 

LFO is made up of four areas: Yellow Water Triangle, War Horse, Crooked 

Creek and Winifred. Data on GRSG leks within one or more of these areas has 

been collected by MFWP and the BLM since 1952. Using the highest male 

counts from each lek annually the number of small (fewer than 10 males), 
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

3-20 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

medium (10 or more, but fewer than 25 males), or large (more than 25 males) 

leks were determined. Large leks have a greater chance at persistence and 

remaining viable over the long term; small leks are most susceptible to 

extirpation. In PH, there were 60 and 72 active leks in 2012 and 2013,

respectively. Combining data for 2012 and 2013 yielded 83 active leks. The data

from these years were combined to establish a more complete picture than 

either year would allow individually. The differences between years were 

primarily survey efforts and weather factors (accessibility to leks) that influenced 

active lek data.

Diagram 3-1 shows the average number of males per active lek over the 

survey period from 1952 to 2013 in PH (Yellow Water, War Horse, Crooked 

Creek and Winifred), along with the number of leks surveyed and the number 

of active leks (leks in which male GRSG were observed). The gap in the lines 

indicates years in the 1960s in which no lek count data were available.

Diagram 3-1

GRSG Survey Effort, Active Leks and Average Male Counts per Active Lek Surveyed in PH

1952 – 2013

Lek count data collection efforts over the years have varied widely, and 

systematic efforts were not begun until the 1990s; thus, the data must be 

interpreted with caution. The graph shows a substantial increase in surveying 

effort in recent years, which has resulted in a larger number of active leks being 

observed. However, the number of males observed per lek is variable and has 

declined from approximately 30 males per lek in 2006 to approximately 10 

males per lek. The 2013 average male count was at the lowest level since 

surveys began in 1952.
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-21

Diagram 3-2 shows the percentage of leks measured in the small, medium, and 

large categories from 1952 to 2013. The number of small leks has increased, 

while the number of large leks has declined.

Diagram 3-2

Percentage of PH Leks in each Size Class 1952 – 2013

Table 3-6 shows the sizes of active leks in Yellowstone Watershed and Belt 

Mountains PH and GH in 2012/2013.

Table 3-6

2012/2013 Active Lek Sizes within Planning Area

Area Large Medium Small Total

LFO PH Yellowstone Watershed Population 11 26 46 83

LFO GH Yellowstone Watershed Population 0 1 1 2

LFO Belt Mountains Population 0 4 1 5

Table 3-7 shows the percentage of land under BLM and state jurisdiction in 

each subpopulation in Yellowstone Watershed. In all areas, the percentage of 

BLM-administered land is less than half, indicating the importance of both federal 

and private actions for GRSG conservation.

The Winifred area contains the smallest percentage (eight percent) of BLMadministered lands, with much more agriculture (11percent cropland) and less 

sagebrush (43 percent) than any other area in PH. Sagebrush remaining on 

private, state, and BLM-administered lands allows the 17 GRSG leks (two of 

which are large) to persist. The two large leks in the Winifred area were just 

over the 25 threshold.
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

3-22 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 3-7

Land Ownership by Population Area in PH

PH % BLM % State Acres

Winifred 8 8 162,760

Crooked Creek 19 6 294,202

War Horse 23 7 504,481

Yellow Water Triangle 31 5 137,645

The Crooked Creek area had 20 leks with males in 2012/2013. The only lek in 

the large category had over 50 males in 2012. The eastern part of the area 

contains a large portion of BLM-administered land, and the remainder of the 

area is mostly private. Agriculture occurs on three percent of the land, while 

sagebrush is on 63 percent. All fires reported in PH were located in the 

Crooked Creek area. Vehicle access for surveys is especially difficult in this area,

and there are likely additional leks that have not been discovered to date.

The War Horse area is the largest and contains the greatest amount of BLMadministered lands throughout. There were 35 active leks (six of which are

large) in 2012/2013. Cat Creek oil field, in operation since the 1920s, is located 

on 951 acres of PH in the southeastern corner of the area. There were 38 

producing wells in 2011. The field is largely played out with most wells plugged 

and abandoned.

The Yellow Water Triangle area contains the largest percentage (31 percent) of 

BLM-administered lands. The area contains 11 active leks (two of which are

large) in 2012 /2013.

Yellowstone Watershed GH Lek Information

There are no leks on BLM-administered lands in GH. There is much less 

sagebrush habitat in GH (38 percent), compared to PH (57 percent) for all 

ownerships), and fewer active leks (two) in these areas compared to PH.

Patterns of land ownership within these areas are smaller sized contiguous 

blocks and a lower proportion of BLM-administration in the area (11 percent

GH on BLM-administered lands compared to 19 percent PH on BLMadministered lands).

LFO Belt Mountains Population Lek Information

The Belt Mountains Population inhabits approximately 300,000 acres of GH in 

the planning area (all ownerships), of which BLM administers 439 acres (0.1

percent). BLM habitat includes 310 acres of sagebrush and 36 acres of forested 

areas. Conifer encroachment on BLM-administered lands is occurring and 

impacts sagebrush habitats on and adjacent to BLM-administered lands. There 

were five active leks in 2013, and the closest to BLM was approximately 2.5 

miles away. The BLM and NRCS are presently undertaking a conifer removal 
3. Affected Environment (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-23

project in the North Fork of the Belt Mountains to improve GRSG habitat 

conditions in this area.

3.4.4 Trends

As show in Diagram 3-1, lek counts (average males) in the planning area in 

2012/2013 were the lowest since counts began in the 1950s. Several land 

management factors could be contributing to the decline in GRSG population 

numbers in the planning area (USFWS 2013, p. 65). Intermingled private land in 

the traditional GRSG areas has been actively cultivated in recent years, causing a 

loss of habitat. Some parcels of BLM-administered land contain predominant or 

continuous stands of crested wheatgrass persisting from the Bankhead-Jones 

Land Utilization era. Many of these crested wheatgrass dominated lands exhibit 

little reinvasion of the native sagebrush community and comprise a monoculture 

with limited GRSG value. Oil and gas development in the LFO has been limited, 

so this development has minimally contributed to sagebrush habitat loss and 

fragmentation. Weather, in particular a harsh winter in 2010 followed by a cool, 

wet spring in 2011 and drought in 2012, was likely the cause for the lower male 

lek counts recently.

3.5 LANDS AND REALTY

Lands and realty actions can be divided between land use authorizations, land 

tenure adjustments, and withdrawals. Land use authorizations consist of ROWs, 

communication sites, and other leases or permits, while land tenure adjustments 

focus primarily on land exchange, acquisition (including purchase and easement 

acquisition), and disposal. Management and adjustment of withdrawals focuses 

on the establishment, management, modification, and revocation of withdrawals.

Land Use Authorizations

A ROW is the most common form of authorization to permit uses of BLMadministered lands by commercial, private, or governmental entities. A ROW 

grant is an authorization to use a specific piece of public land for projects such 

as roads, pipelines, transmission lines, and communication sites. The ROW grant 

authorizes rights and privileges for a specific period of time.

The BLM's objective is to grant ROWs to any qualified individual, business, or 

government entity and to direct and control the use of ROWs on BLMadministered lands in a manner that:

 protects the natural resources associated with BLM-administered 

lands and adjacent lands, whether private or administered by a 

government entity

 prevents unnecessary or undue degradation to BLM-administered

lands

 promotes the use of ROWs in common, considering engineering 

and technological compatibility, national security, and area RMPs
3. Affected Environment (Lands and Realty)

3-24 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

 coordinates, to the fullest extent possible, all BLM actions with 

local, State, Native American Tribal, and other federal agencies; 

interested individuals; and appropriate quasi-public entities (43 CFR, 

Part 2801.2)

Some uses of BLM-administered lands are authorized through long-term land 

uses, while permits are used to authorize short-term uses. Private individuals 

and groups, as well as various businesses and government entities can hold these 

authorizations.

To the extent possible, linear ROWs (such as roads and pipelines) are routed 

where impacts would be least disturbing to environmental resources, taking into 

account point of origin, point of destination, and purpose and need of the 

project. The ROWs are issued with surface reclamation stipulations and other 

mitigation measures. Restrictions and mitigation measures may be modified on a 

case-by-case basis, depending upon impacts on resources. In general, the 

placement of major linear facilities depends upon meeting the following location 

criteria:

 concentrate linear facilities within, or contiguous to, existing 

corridors, where possible

 avoid locations that would take intensively managed forest land out 

of production

 avoid locations that would harass livestock or wildlife;

 avoid steep topography, poor soils, or other fragile areas (such as 

habitat for Threatened or Endangered species) 

 avoid cultural sites that are listed on, or are eligible for listing on, 

the National Register of Historic Places 

Land Tenure Adjustments

Land ownership (or land tenure) adjustment refers to those actions that result 

in the disposal, or the acquisition by the BLM of non-federal lands or interests in 

land. FLPMA requires that public land be retained in public ownership unless, as 

a result of land use planning, disposal of certain parcels is warranted and in the 

public interest. If tracts of land are designated in BLM land use plans as 

potentially available for disposal, BLM will evaluate and consider the full range of 

land disposal and acquisition tools available to accomplish important objectives 

of resource management, enhancement, development and protection to meet 

the needs of communities; promote multiple-use management; foster sustainable 

development and to fulfill other public needs.

Withdrawals

Withdrawals are used to preserve sensitive environmental values, protect major 

federal investments in facilities, support national security, and provide for public 
3. Affected Environment (Lands and Realty)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-25

health and safety. A withdrawal is a formal action that accomplishes one or 

more of the following actions:

 Transfers total or partial jurisdiction of federal land between federal 

agencies

 Segregates (closes) federal lands to appropriation under public land 

laws including mineral laws

 Dedicates public land for a specific public purpose

There are three major categories of formal withdrawals: (1) congressional 

withdrawals, (2) administrative withdrawals, and (3) Federal Power Act or 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission withdrawals. Withdrawal segregates a 

portion of public lands and suspends certain operations of the public land laws, 

such as mining claims. Certain stock driveways are also withdrawn. Federal 

policy now restricts all withdrawals to the minimum time and acreage required 

to serve the public interest, maximizes the use of withdrawn lands consistent 

with their primary purpose, and eliminates all withdrawals that are no longer 

needed.

3.5.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

The planning area contains lands owned or administered by the BLM, other 

federal agencies (e.g., Forest Service, the Bureau of Reclamation), various state 

agencies, and private landowners. Table 3-8 shows the acreage and overall 

percentage of GRSG habitat for each landowner in the planning area. Also see 

Figure 3-1 in Appendix A.

Table 3-8

Surface Ownership within the Planning Area

Surface Ownership Planning Area 

(acres)

PH

(acres)

GH

(acres)

BLM-administered lands 593,995 233,219 (19%) 112,341 (11%)

Other federal lands 1,010,816 3,688 (0.3%) 1,717 (0.2%)

State lands 526,504 90,587 (8%) 83,438 (8%)

Private 5,168,165 878,171 (73%) 816,869 (80%)

Water 12,039 2,329 (0.2%) 670 (<0.1%)

Total Planning Area 7,311,519 1,207,994 1,015,035

Source: BLM 2012a

WAFWA Management Zones 1 and 4

Table 3-9 through Table 3-12 display data compiled in a BER produced by the 

USGS and BLM (Manier et al. 2013). In each table, acreages and mileages are 

presented by surface management agency and their occurrence within GH and 

PH in the planning area, and MZs I and IV.
3. Affected Environment (Lands and Realty)

3-26 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 3-9

GRSG Habitat within City Limits

Surface Management 

Agency

Acres within GH Acres within PH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 0 9,300 19,700 0 53 1,100

Forest Service 0 8 700 0 60 0

Tribal and Other Federal 0 200 100 0 0 0

Private 400 113,200 43,400 100 4,100 4,100

State 0 7,300 2,800 0 800 31

Other 0 0 38 0 6 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013, p. 32

Table 3-10

Transmission Lines within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres1 within GH Acres1 within PH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 800 35,500 42,000 2,600 7,300 83,600

Forest Service 0 7,300 3,500 0 1,300 5,800

Tribal and Other 

Federal

0 56,300 4,700 0 700 10,700

Private 4,500 452,600 57,900 9,900 58,500 47,000

State 300 37,800 11,200 1,300 8,100 6,500

Other 0 600 900 0 20 2,800

Source: Manier et al. 2013, p. 41

1

Includes transmission lines greater than 115 kilovolts.

Table 3-11

Number of Communication Towers within GRSG Habitat

Surface Management 

Agency

Number1 within GH Number1 within PH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 0 108 163 0 20 182

Forest Service 0 36 36 0 1 22

Tribal and Other Federal 1 167 51 0 0 11

Private 13 2,161 199 18 149 162
3. Affected Environment (Lands and Realty)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-27

Table 3-11

Number of Communication Towers within GRSG Habitat

Surface Management 

Agency

Number1 within GH Number1 within PH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

State 0 108 23 0 14 17

Other 0 10 3 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1Displays the number of Federal Communication Commission communication towers.

Table 3-12

Vertical Obstructions within GRSG Habitat

Surface Management 

Agency

Acres1 within GH Acres1 within PH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 0 0 12 0 0 17

Forest Service 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tribal and Other Federal 56 7 20 0 0 2

Private 733 230 17 1,015 0 17

State 0 17 7 0 0 0

Other 0 15 0 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013, p. 45

1Derived from dataset containing Federal Communication Commission communication towers and Federal 

Aviation Administration vertical obstructions. Excludes wind towers. Assumes a buffer of 56.4 meters (2.47 acres) 

around each obstruction.

There are no utility corridors or utility-scale wind energy developments in the 

planning area (Manier et al. 2013), though some wind developments are on 

nearby private lands.

3.5.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

Land Use Authorizations

Diagram 3-3 provides the number of land use authorizations on BLMadministered lands in Chouteau, Fergus, Judith Basin, Meagher, and Petroleum 

Counties in the planning area between 2000 and 2013.

Within GRSG habitat, there are 643 acres of ROW authorizations in PH and 

266 acres in GH. Table 3-13 provides a breakdown of ROW types, miles, and 

acres in each habitat type.
3. Affected Environment (Lands and Realty)

3-28 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Diagram 3-3

Land Use Authorizations

Table 3-13

Active ROW Authorizations within GRSG Habitat

ROW Type PH (Miles) GH (Miles)

Road/highway 20 10

Power/transmission line 42 15

Telephone 62 19

Water facilities 10 0

Pipeline or conduit 17 8

Railroad 0 1

Other 11 0

Total Miles 162 53

Total Acres 643 266

Source: BLM 2012a

ROW Avoidance and Exclusion Areas

ROWs are issued with surface reclamation stipulations and other mitigation 

measures. Areas closed to mineral leasing, having a NSO restriction, or 

otherwise identified as unsuitable for surface disturbance or occupancy are 
3. Affected Environment (Lands and Realty)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-29

generally identified as avoidance or exclusion areas for ROWs. Restrictions and 

mitigation measures could be modified on a case-by-case basis for avoidance 

areas, depending on impacts on resources, while exclusion areas are strictly 

prohibited from ROW development.

The Acid Shale Pine Forest ACEC (2,674 acres) is the only area identified as a 

ROW avoidance area in PH. Judith River Canyon (7,383 acres) is also identified 

as a ROW avoidance area; 98 percent (7,245 acres) are located within GH. 

There are no ROW exclusion areas in the planning area. See Table 3-14.

Table 3-14

ROW Avoidance Areas within the Planning Area

Avoidance Area Total Acres PH

(acres)

GH

(acres)

Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC 2,674 2,674 (100%) 0

Judith Mountains 19,179 0 0

Judith River Canyon 7,383 0 7,245 (98%)

South Moccasin Mountain 1,167 0 0

Total 30,405 2,674 (8%) 7,245 (24%)

Source: BLM 2012a

ROW Corridors and Communication Sites

There are no ROW corridors in the planning area. Communication sites contain 

equipment for various public and private tenants, including phone companies; 

local utilities; and local, state, and other federal agencies. Communication site 

applications are granted through a realty lease authorization under the ROW 

regulations.

BLM-administered lands would continue to be available for multiple- and singleuse communication sites and road access ROWs on a case-by-case basis 

pursuant to Title V of FLPMA, and 43 CFR, Part 2800 regulations. All ROW 

applications are reviewed using the criteria of following existing corridors 

wherever practical and avoiding the proliferation of separate ROW.

There are two communication sites on BLM-administered lands within the 

planning area; however, neither is located within PH or GH (see Table 3-15).

Table 3-15

Communication Sites within the Planning Area

Site Location

Judith Mountain NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec 19 T 17 N R 20E MM

South Moccasin Mountain NE1/4 SW1/4 Sec 2 T 16 N R 17E MM

Source: BLM 2012a
3. Affected Environment (Lands and Realty)

3-30 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Renewable Energy

Wind and solar resource facilities are authorized with ROWs through the lands 

and realty program. Geothermal resources are considered fluid leasable 

minerals (see Section 3.8). As a result, management actions related to the 

lands and realty program and leasable minerals could affect renewable energy

resources. Special management designation areas such as ACECs could also 

affect the use of renewable energy resources by limiting the location of these 

facilities. There are no active renewable energy ROW authorizations within the 

planning area. Section 3.22, Renewable Energy, provides a description of 

renewable energy resources.

Land Tenure Adjustments

Disposal

There are no pending land sales within the planning area; however, there is one 

pending land exchange within PH. Four hundred eighty (480) acres of surface 

lands are proposed to be exchanged: 240 acres would be moved from private 

ownership to BLM administration, and 240 acres would be moved from BLM to 

private ownership. The purpose of this exchange is to resolve a trespassing 

concern. The proposed exchange includes land containing a GRSG lek site that 

would be managed by the BLM after the exchange is completed. There are no 

pending land exchanges in GH.

Withdrawal

There are seven withdrawals within GRSG habitat, all of which are held by the 

US Government. Of these withdrawals, 101 acres are located within PH and 

2,585 are located with GH (see Table 3-16).

Table 3-16

Withdrawal Lands within GRSG Habitat

Withdrawal PH (Acres) GH (Acres)

EO Power Site 33 0 1,419

PLO 2336 41 0

PLO 3633 20 0

Public Water Reserve 40 0

SO Power Site Class 301 0 282

SO Power Site Class 369 0 632

Total 101 2,585

Source: BLM 2012a

EO – Executive Order, PLO – Public Land Order, SO – Secretarial Order (all 

are held by the US Government)

Acquisitions

There are no proposed acquisitions in the planning area.
3. Affected Environment (Lands and Realty)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-31

3.5.3 Trends

On average, there have been five land use authorizations per year between 2000 

and 2013 (Diagram 3-3). Demand for land use authorizations in the planning 

area may increase due to possible oil and gas development in the area. There is 

some potential for land use authorizations for renewable energy projects (wind, 

solar, and geothermal), although no requests have been submitted recently. It is 

anticipated that ROW authorizations for communication sties and utilities will 

remain at current levels. 

The BLM will process land exchanges, acquisitions, easements, and potential 

sales within the planning area on a case-by-case basis as staff and priority 

workload allow. As opportunities present themselves, each proposal will be 

reviewed and given careful consideration to management goals and public 

benefit. Currently, the land tenure program within the LFO receives very few 

land tenure adjustment requests per year; it is anticipated that this program will 

continue to experience low levels of activity.

3.6 VEGETATION (INCLUDING NOXIOUS WEEDS; RIPARIAN AND WETLANDS)

Vegetation serves multiple purposes on the landscape and provides many 

ecosystem services. Vegetation stabilizes soils, prevents erosion, uses carbon 

dioxide, releases oxygen, increases species diversity, and provides habitat and 

food for animals and products for human use. Many of the BLM’s land 

management policies are directed toward maintenance of healthy vegetation 

communities. Vegetation can be characterized generally by ecological provinces 

and more specifically by plant communities. The ecological provinces and plant 

communities discussed below are those that provide the most important land 

cover across the planning area.

3.6.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

All Vegetation

The planning area lies within two Level III Ecoregions: Northwestern Great 

Plains and Middle Rockies (EPA 2011a). Most of the planning area is within the 

Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion, which is characterized by semiarid rolling 

plains of shale, siltstone, and sandstone punctuated by occasional buttes and 

badlands. Rangeland is common, but crop and hay production also occur; native 

grasslands persist in areas of steep or broken topography. 

Rangeland vegetation consists of sagebrush grasslands, grasslands, and lightly 

vegetated badlands. Mixed shrub and deciduous tree communities are found in 

drainages throughout all of these vegetation types. Common grasses and grass-like 

species include bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), green needle-grass 

(Nasella viridula), needle and thread (Hesperostipa eltoi), western wheatgrass 

(Pascopyrum smithii), prairie junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), blue grama (Bouteloua 

gracilis), prairie sandreed (Calamovilfa longifolia), Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), 
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

3-32 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

and threadleaf sedge (Carex filifolia). Introduced grasses are found in some areas, 

either in pure stands or intermingled with native species.

Crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) is the most prevalent introduced 

perennial grass in the planning area, with stands occurring in localized areas in 

several allotments. Introduced annual grasses include cheatgrass (Bromus 

tectorum), and Japanese brome (B. eltoids). Although cheatgrass and several nonnative brome species are present in the planning area, their spread is restricted 

by climatic conditions. They are found in isolated, non-contiguous patches and 

do not currently pose a threat of invading vast areas of PH or GH.

Common shrubs in the planning area include big sagebrush (Artemisia eltoidse), 

silver sagebrush (A. cana), shrubby cinquefoil (Dasiphora fruticosa ssp. Floribunda), 

wild rose (Rosa eltoid), saltbush (Atriplex spp.), greasewood (Sarcobatus 

vermiculatus), and rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa). Other common 

vegetation includes prickly pear cactus (Opuntia spp.), ponderosa pine (Pinus 

ponderosa), common juniper (Juniperus communis), western yarrow (Achillea 

millefolium var. occidentalis), wild onion (Allium spp.), pussytoes (Antennaria spp.), 

heartleaf arnica (Arnica cordifolia), cudweed sagewort (Artemisia ludoviciana), 

milkvetch (Astragalus spp.), arrowleaf balsamroot (Balsamorhiza sagittata), hairy 

goldenaster (Heterotheca villosa), purple prairie clover (Dalea purpurea), low 

larkspur (Delphinium bicolor), black Sampson (Echineacea angustifolia), sticky 

geranium (Geranium viscosissium), curlycup gumweed (Grindelia squarrosa var. 

quasiperennis), Rocky Mountain iris (Iris missouriensis), lupine (Lupinus spp.), 

yellow sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis), woolly Indian wheat (Plantago 

patagonica), Hoodʼs phlox (Phlox eltoi), dense clubmoss (Selaginella densa), scarlet 

globemallow (Sphaeralcea coccinea ssp. Coccinea), and salsify (Tragopogon dubius) 

among others.

Overall, forest communities within the planning are healthy with ponderosa pine 

and Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopuloru) being the most common 

conifer species. Stocking levels, typically measured in trees per acre, vary 

considerably and are highly dependent on moisture availability; therefore,

conifers are found in abundance in draws and on north aspects. In addition, as a 

result of reduced fine-fuel loadings from livestock grazing and successful fire 

suppression, ponderosa pine seedling encroachment onto ridges and areas 

historically void of conifer regeneration has become common (Arno et al. 1995). 

These clumps of ponderosa pine regeneration typically average between 1,000

and 3,000 trees per acre, while draws and north aspects average approximately 

40 to 60 trees per acre throughout the planning area.

Old-growth

Ponderosa pine old-growth found throughout the planning area. These trees or 

groups of trees tend to have broken or deformed tops, bole defects such as 

catfaces (surface defects that are partly healed over), and large-diameter upper 

branches. These trees can typically be found on northerly slopes and draw 
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-33

bottoms with a dense understory of regeneration and co-dominant trees also 

present. While there are no known stands of old-growth, individual trees or 

small groups of trees can be found within the uneven-aged stands characteristic 

of the planning area.

Riparian and Wetland

Riparian areas are defined as the green zones associated with lakes, reservoirs, 

estuaries, potholes, springs, bogs, wet meadows, and streams (ephemeral, 

intermittent, or perennial). Greasewood and silver sagebrush are common in 

alluvial flats in or near riparian areas. Woody riparian species found in the planning 

area include sandbar willow (Salix exigua), peachleaf willow (S. amygdaloides), 

yellow willow (S. lutea), and plains cottonwood (Populus eltoids), Snowberry 

(Symphoricarpos albus), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), 

wild rose, buffaloberry (Shepherdia spp.), and gooseberry (Ribes spp.) are shrubs 

commonly found in coulees and woody draws. The riparian zone occurs between 

the upland zone and the aquatic zone. Riparian areas are characterized by water 

tables at or near the soil surface, and by vegetation requiring high water tables.

See Figure 3-2 in Appendix A.

The functioning condition of riparian and wetland areas is a result of the 

interaction of geology, soil, water, and vegetation (BLM 1998). 

Lotic Waters

Lotic waters are running water systems, such as rivers, streams, and springs. 

Riparian/wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, 

landform, or large woody debris is present to:

 Dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflows, thereby 

reducing erosion and improving water quality

 Filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development

 Improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge 

 Develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting action

 Develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the 

habitat, water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish 

production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses

 Support greater biodiversity

Lentic waters

Lentic waters are standing water systems, such as lakes, ponds, seeps, bogs, and 

wet meadows. Woody sedge (Carex rosea) and three-square bulrush 

(Schoenoplectus americanus) are common obligate riparian-wetland plants found 

in central and eastern Montana. Lentic riparian/wetland areas are functioning 

properly when adequate vegetation, landform, or debris is present to:
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

3-34 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

 Dissipate energies associated with wind action, wave action, and 

overland flow from adjacent sites, thereby reducing erosion and 

improving water quality

 Filter sediment and aid floodplain development

 Improve flood water retention and groundwater recharge

 Develop root masses that stabilize islands and shoreline features 

against cutting action

 Restrict water percolation

 Develop diverse ponding characteristics to provide the habitat and 

water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish 

production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses

 Support greater biodiversity

Riparian/wetland areas are classified as functional-at-risk when they are in 

functional condition but an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes 

them susceptible to degradation. These areas are further distinguished based on 

whether or not they demonstrate an upward, static, or downward trend.

Riparian/wetland areas are classified as nonfunctional when they clearly are not 

providing adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris to dissipate 

stream energy associated with high flows, and thus are not reducing erosion, 

improving water quality, or providing other functions, as listed above.

Riparian/wetland areas are classified as being in unknown condition when the 

BLM lacks sufficient information to make a determination. PFC assessments 

completed on BLM-administered lands are described below in Section 3.6.2,

Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands.

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species

A noxious weed is defined by Montana Law (MCA 7-22-2101) as, “any exotic 

plant species established or that may be introduced in the state that may render 

land unfit for agriculture, forestry, livestock, wildlife, or other beneficial uses or 

that may harm native plant communities.” A noxious weed is any unwanted nonnative plant with potential impact serious to the extent that it has been declared 

by the state of Montana that landowners must enter into an approved 

management program to keep it from spreading. (Montana Department of 

Agriculture 2013).

Noxious and invasive weeds compete with native vegetation for water, space, 

and nutrients and have the potential to displace desirable native vegetation to 

the point of altering the vegetative composition and structure present onsite.

Montana’s noxious weeds are placed into priorities based on how abundant and 

widespread the species is across the state. See Table 3-17 for a listing of 

noxious weeds by priority.
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-35

Table 3-17

Montana Noxious Weed List

Priority 1A These weeds are not present or have a very limited presence in Montana. Management 

criteria will require eradication if detected; education; and prevention.

 Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis)

 Dyers woad (Isatis tinctoria)

Priority 1B These weeds have limited presence in Montana. Management criteria will require 

eradication or containment and education.

 Knotweed complex (Polygonum cuspidatum, P. sachalinense, P. × bohemicum, 

Fallopia japonica, F. sachalinensis, F. × bohemica, Reynoutria japonica, R. sachalinensis, 

and R.× bohemica)

 Purple loosestrife (Lythrum spp.)

 Rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea)

 Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius)

Priority 2A These weeds are common in isolated areas of Montana. Management criteria will 

require eradication or containment where less abundant. Management shall be 

prioritized by local weed districts.

 Tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea, Jacobaea vulgaris)

 Meadow hawkweed complex (Hieracium caespitosum, H. praealturm, H. 

floridundum, and Pilosella caespitosa)

 Orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum, Pilosella aurantiaca)

 Tall buttercup (Ranunculus acris)

 Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium)

 Yellowflag iris (Iris pseudacorus)

 Blueweed (Echium vulgare)

 Hoary alyssum (Berteroa incana)

Priority 2B These weeds are abundant in Montana and widespread in many counties. Management 

criteria will require eradication or containment where less abundant. Management shall 

be prioritized by local weed districts.

 Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense)

 Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis)

 Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)

 Whitetop (Cardaria draba, Lepidium draba)

 Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens, Rhaponticum repens)

 Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe, C. maculosa)

 Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa)

 Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica)

 St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum)

 Sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta)

 Common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare)

 Oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare)

 Houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale)

 Yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris)

 Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.)

 Flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus)
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

3-36 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 3-17

Montana Noxious Weed List

 Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum)

 Curlyleaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus)

Priority 3 Regulated Plants: (NOT MONTANA LISTED NOXIOUS WEEDS)

These regulated plants have the potential to have significant negative impacts. The plant 

may not be intentionally spread or sold other than as a contaminant in agricultural 

products. The state recommends research, education and prevention to minimize the 

spread of the regulated plant.

 Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum)

 Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata)

 Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia)

Source: Montana Department of Agriculture 2013

Invasive plants also occur within the planning area. These include not only 

noxious weeds, but also other plants that are not native to the US. The BLM

considers plants invasive if they have been introduced into an environment 

where they did not evolve. As a result, they usually have no natural enemies to 

limit their reproduction and spread (Westbrooks 1998). Some invasive plants

can produce significant changes to vegetation, composition, structure, or 

ecosystem function (Cronk and Fuller 1995).

Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) is more dominant in areas with minimal summer 

precipitation (USFWS 2010, p.14). Cheatgrass occurrence in the region is 

shown in Diagram 3-4.

WAFWA Management Zones 1 and 4

Table 3-18 and Table 3-19 display data compiled in a BER produced by the 

USGS and BLM (Manier et. al. 2013). In these tables, acres with cheatgrass 

potential and croplands are presented by surface management agency and their 

occurrence within GH and PH in the planning area and in MZs I and IV.

In Table 3-18, cheatgrass potential was not mapped for MZ 1. Although the 

distribution of cheatgrass has been documented in Montana, the currently 

available model was only parameterized for the Great Basin (MZs III, IV, and V).

3.6.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

All Vegetation

Acres of vegetation types within GRSG habitat on BLM-administered lands 

within the planning area are presented in Table 3-20. Sagebrush acreage is 

included under shrubland, steppe, and savanna systems.
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-37

Diagram 3-4

Cheatgrass on Non-Federal Rangeland

Source: USDA-NRCS National Inventory Rangeland Sample Area (2003-06)

Table 3-18

Cheatgrass Potential within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres1 within GH Acres1 within PH

Planning 

Area2 MZ 12 MZ IV Planning Area2 MZ 12 MZ IV

BLM n/a n/a 6,234,900 n/a n/a 13,995,500

Forest Service n/a n/a 1,086,900 n/a n/a 1,521,600

Tribal and Other 

Federal

n/a n/a 740,200 n/a n/a 974,100

Private n/a n/a 4,257,400 n/a n/a 5,643,800

State n/a n/a 945,500 n/a n/a 1,022,900

Other n/a n/a 54,900 n/a n/a 93,800

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1Acreage comprised of areas with a high potential for cheatgrass occurrence.

2Cheatgrass occurrence was mapped for MZs III, IV and V (i.e., the Great Basin region), but not for MZs 1, II or VII, 

including the planning area. Data for cheatgrass occurrence in MZ IV at the planning area-level was not available.
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

3-38 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 3-19

Cropland within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres1 within GH Acres1 within PH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 800 17,700 14,500 1,200 6,600 14,800

Forest Service 0 1,000 1,800 0 600 900

Tribal and Other 

Federal

100 534,900 1,800 0 1,300 500

Private 91,000 2,436,900 233,600 98,200 247,400 55,200

State 2,900 93,300 4,400 1,500 5,400 800

Other 0 300 1,300 0 0 200

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1Based on data provided by the National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Table 3-20

Vegetation Communities within GRSG Habitat on BLM-Administered Lands

Vegetation Community PH (acres) GH (acres) Outside GRSG

Habitat (acres)

Human land use 2,592 1,732 582

Aquatic 203 132 75

Sparse and barren systems 2,838 22,597 40,515

Forest and woodland 

systems

6,906 15,031 91,458

Shrubland, steppe, and 

savanna systems

173,088 55,787 87,757

Grassland systems 33,485 11,510 20,804

Recently disturbed or 

modified

4,807 1,757 2,216

Riparian and wetland

systems

9,298 3,783 5,042

Source: USGS 2010

The BLM assesses rangeland health on a regular basis. Rangeland health is 

defined as the degree to which the integrity of the soil, vegetation, water, and 

air as well as the ecological process of the rangeland system is balanced and 

maintained (BLM Technical Reference 1734-6, BLM 2005c). Of the 526 

allotments on BLM-administered lands within the planning area, 316 are meeting 

land health standards.
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-39

Riparian and Wetland Vegetation

Wetland vegetation and associated freshwater habitat within the planning area 

are presented in Table 3-21.

PFC assessments completed on BLM-administered lands within the planning area 

are presented in Table 3-22.

Table 3-21

Wetland Vegetation and Aquatic Habitat within GRSG Habitat on BLMAdministered Lands

Vegetation/Habitat PH (acres) GH (acres) Outside GRSG

Habitat (acres)

Wetland 1,002 77 160

Freshwater pond and 

lacustrine

974 60 210

Source: USGS 2010

Table 3-22

PFC Assessments within GRSG Habitat on BLM-Administered Lands

PFC Rating 1,2 PH (miles) GH (miles) Outside GRSG

Habitat (miles)

PFC 43.6 41.6 70.5

FARD 3.9 0.2 2.8

FARN 18.3 16.4 16.6

FARU 10.0 3.4 3.3

NF 12.0 3.3 7.0

Source: BLM 2012a

1Dataset is provisional and some stream ratings are not current as of 2012 season

2

PFC – proper functioning condition; FARD – functional at risk with downward trend; FARN –

functional at risk with no trend; FARU – functional at risk with upward trend; NF – non-functional

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species

Infestations of noxious weeds are present on BLM-administered lands, with 

higher concentrations along the major drainages and their tributaries. Several 

weed species have been identified within the planning area; the largest areas of 

infestation are occupied by: 

 Leafy spurge

 Canada thistle

 Spotted knapweed

 Russian knapweed
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

3-40 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

 Field bindweed

 Dalmatian toadflax

 Whitetop (hoary cress)

 Houndstongue

 Salt cedar

 Black Henbane 

 Sulfur cinquefoil 

Introduced annual brome species, such as downy and Japanese brome, also 

occur within the planning area. While these species have impacted rangelands 

within the area, the scale of these impacts has been limited compared with the 

impacts from these species in the Great Basin and southwest, due to climactic 

conditions and vegetation types within the planning area. The BLM has been 

actively involved in an integrated weed control program within the planning area 

for several years and continues to monitor for new infestations of other 

noxious weeds.

3.6.3 Trends

All Vegetation

Continuing conversion of rangeland to cropland has caused the loss of shrubsteppe vegetation, including sagebrush. Development pressure on private lands 

for farmland and oil and gas developments will continue to cause decline of 

sagebrush ecosystems.

Conifer densities have been increasing in many areas. Pine seedlings and saplings 

are expanding into rangeland areas on forest margins. Heavy stand densities 

cause competition among conifers, with associated declines in forest health and 

decreased productivity of understory vegetation such as grasses, forbs, and 

shrubs. Drought has exacerbated the condition. Understory conifers contribute 

to fuel loadings that create a continuous fuel bed from the ground to the 

canopy. Wildland fire can be severe in these areas. The encroachment of 

ponderosa pine into open parks reduces biodiversity, crowds out 

sagebrush/grassland habitat and creates an increase threat of severe fires due to 

an increase in the continuity of fuels.

Several site-specific conifer removal projects are proposed or approved within 

the planning area. The Crooked Creek project was approved in May 2014 and 

identified areas in PH in the Yellowstone Watershed GRSG Population, 

approximately 30 miles north of Winnett, for potential conifer removal. Hand 

crews with chainsaws would remove approximately 1,000 acres of conifers 

(mostly juniper), with additional acres planned for removal annually. In addition, 

the North Fork project is proposed in Meagher County on Forest Service lands 

approximately 20 miles northeast of White Sulphur Springs. If approved, 
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-41

approximately 300 acres of GH in the Belt Mountains GRSG population would 

have mechanical removal of conifers, mostly Douglas-fir, from sagebrush 

habitats.

Riparian and Wetland

Riparian and wetland condition in many areas of the planning area are likely to 

be improved through adjustment and implementation of grazing systems. Based 

on land health assessments, the trend for many riparian and wetland areas is 

improving. Riparian-wetland areas in PFC are in an improving trend. As projects 

intended to meet Standards for Rangeland Health are implemented, conditions 

are expected to continue to improve.

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species

Weed infestations have grown appreciably during the past two decades. As a 

result of this expansion of weed infestations, control of noxious weeds within 

the planning area has become mostly permittee/lessee-based. Permittees and 

lessees are required to enter into a Cooperative Weed Control Range 

Improvement Agreement with the BLM for noxious weeds found on their 

grazing allotments as per terms and conditions on their permits and leases. 

Under the terms of the cooperative agreements, the BLM provides the chemical 

for control of the weed species and the permittee/lessee provides the labor for 

application. Application records and a map of the application are required by the 

BLM after spraying has been completed.

Biological control agents are also approved for use under the cooperative 

agreements. Biological control agents have shown promise controlling leafy 

spurge and spotted knapweed infestations, which have proven difficult to 

control on their own because of terrain. Established insect populations are 

monitored, collected, and dispersed by BLM personnel and permittees. Control 

agents for dalmatian toadflax and Canada thistle have been released within the 

planning area with limited success. New biological control agents are released 

within the planning area as they become available and their success monitored.

Hotter, drier, conditions as a result of potential climate change would be 

expected to exacerbate the spread of cheatgrass by increasing the risk of 

wildland fire, as well as reducing the ability of native species to compete with 

non-native species. Invasion by non-native grasses can result in increased fire 

frequency, which typically results in removal of sagebrush canopy in affected 

areas with replacement by annual species that provide little, to no, habitat value 

(Baker 2011).

3.7 WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGY

Wildland fire is a general term describing any non-structure fire that occurs in 

the vegetation and/or natural fuels. Wildland fires are categorized by two types; 

wildfires, which are unplanned ignitions or planned ignitions that have been 

declared wildfires, and prescribed fires, which are planned ignitions (Wildland 
3. Affected Environment (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

3-42 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Fire Leadership Council 2009). Wildfire occurs in the planning area, particularly 

during times of drought.

National BLM fire policy requires that current and desired resource conditions 

related to fire management be described in terms of fire regime condition class 

(FRCC). The current condition of a vegetative community is a function of the 

degree of departure from historical fire regimes, resulting in alterations of key 

ecosystem components, such as species composition, structural stage, stand age, 

and canopy closure. This departure may have resulted from a number of factors, 

including fire exclusion or suppression, vegetation resources, grazing, introduction 

and establishment of exotic plant species, insects or disease (introduced or 

native), or other past management activities (Hann and Bunnell 2001).

The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy was developed by the secretaries of 

the departments of Interior and Agriculture in 1995 in response to dramatic 

increases in the frequency, size, and catastrophic nature of wildland fires in the 

US. The 2001 review and update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management 

Policy (DOI et al. 2001) consists of findings, guiding principles, policy statements, 

and implementation actions, and replaces the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire 

Management Policy as the primary interagency wildland fire policy document. 

This document directs federal agencies to achieve a balance between fire 

suppression to protect life, property, and resources, and fire use to regulate 

fuels and maintain healthy ecosystems. Multiple updates have been provided in 

memorandum and current implementation direction has been provided in the 

February 2009 Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management 

Policy (USDA and DOI 2009). The BLM’s policies follow this plan and 

implementation guidelines.

Wildland fire has been a primary concern associated with GRSG habitat and 

population declines in the western portion of their range (Great Basin) due to 

an increase in fire frequency. Climate change may shift the range of invasive 

plants, potentially expanding the importance of this threat into other areas of 

the species’ range (USFWS 2013). The BLM has developed recommendations to 

guide fire operations and fuels management in GRSG habitat (IM-2013-128).

Spread of invasive weed species is another concern in fire management. Spread 

of invasive species can displace native species and decrease habitat quality for 

the GRSG.

3.7.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

GRSG largely inhabit the eastern part of the planning region, primarily in 

Petroleum County and Fergus County. Fires are frequent in the planning area, 

particularly near the Missouri and Musselshell River Breaks areas. Intense lightning 

storms occur in the planning region between July and September, often resulting

in wildfires (BLM 1992). While cheatgrass is present in the planning area, its 

spread is restricted by climatic conditions. No large scale fire areas have been 
3. Affected Environment (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-43

invaded by annual grasses; they are found in isolated, non-contiguous patches and 

do not currently pose a threat of invading vast areas of PH or GH.

WAFWA Management Zones 1 and 4

Table 3-23 and Table 3-24 display data compiled in a BER produced by the 

USGS and BLM (Manier et al. 2013). In each table, acres are presented by 

surface management agency and their occurrence within GH and PH in the 

planning area, and MZs I and IV.

Table 3-23 displays the total acres of land burned in wildland fire in the 

planning area and MZs I and IV between 2000 and 2012. The majority of fire 

occurred on tribal and other federal lands.

Table 3-23

Wildland Fire within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres1 within GH Acres1 within PH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 6,700 74,300 965,900 500 22,000 1,809,400

Forest Service 0 6,400 161,500 0 1,800 33,900

Tribal and Other 

Federal

15,900 18,300 82,400 0 0 58,100

Private 2,200 446,600 190,300 600 81,000 417,400

State 1,900 35,600 30,900 0 10,600 53,100

Other 0 0 80 0 0 700

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1Acres calculated from wildland fires occurring between 2000 and 2012.

Table 3-24 displays acres with high probability for wildland fire based on the 

Forest Service’s FSim data, a large fire simulator which develops fire probability 

data based on historical weather data and current land cover data.

Table 3-24

High Probability for Wildland Fire within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres1 within GH Acres1 within PH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 134,600 718,800 4,438,100 24,100 299,200 11,904,200

Forest Service 0 208,800 621,400 0 124,900 1,163,200

Tribal and Other 

Federal

22,800 67,800 301,900 0 39,600 487,200

Private 68,400 4,621,600 2,268,400 47,200 1,271,600 4,068,100
3. Affected Environment (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

3-44 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 3-24

High Probability for Wildland Fire within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres1 within GH Acres1 within PH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

State 14,400 523,700 649,700 3,100 185,800 738,700

Other 0 0 26,300 0 0 62,000

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1Derived from Forest Service FSim Burn data

3.7.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

In 2004, the BLM developed the Lewistown Field Office Fire Management Plan 

for central Montana. The plan is currently under revision, with the final revised 

plan scheduled for release in the summer of 2013. The Fire Management Plan 

established five Fire Management Units (FMUs) for the LFO: The Big Open 

FMU, Breaks FMU, Prairie Forest FMU, Island Ranges FMU and the Front FMU.

Much of the BLM-administered land that is designated as PH or GH is included 

in the Breaks FMU and the Prairie Forest FMU.

The FRCC is an indicator of ecological departure from historical conditions 

such as that observed prior to Euro-American settlement. Departure is

described as changes to one or more of the following ecological components:

vegetation characteristics, fuel composition, fire frequency, in combination with 

changes to fire severity and pattern other associated disturbances (insects, 

disease, grazing, and drought).

The LANDFIRE project includes both a fire regime data layer and a vegetation 

departure data layer, which were used to estimate the degree of ecological 

departure for the different GRSG habitat types in the planning area. Class I 

represents a low degree of departure, and Class III a high degree of departure. 

Extreme departure from the historical conditions results in changes to one or 

more of the following ecological components: vegetation characteristics (species 

composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); 

fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated 

disturbances (e.g., insect and disease mortality, grazing, and drought). See 

Figure 3-3 in Appendix A, for the FRCC and LANDFIRE distribution in the 

planning area.

National vegetation condition class data is displayed below in Table 3-25 the 

data provides an indication of the departure in PH and GH on BLMadministered lands in comparison to areas with non-habitat.

There is an average of only two human-caused fires every 10 years on BLMadministered land (BLM 2012a). Human-caused fires often occur as a result of 

debris burning or agricultural operations (BLM 2004a). Other fires on BLM-
3. Affected Environment (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-45

Table 3-25

National Vegetation Condition Class on BLM-Administered Lands

BLM-Administered 

Land Area Habitat Type Vegetation Condition Class Acreage

Judith Resource Area

Non Habitat

Class 1 19,871

Class II 54,128

Class III 165,959

GH

Class I 35,270

Class II 27,286

Class III 48,677

PH

Class I 7,502

Class II 96,242

Class III 127,882

Headwaters

Non Habitat

Class I 935

Class II 4,974

Class III 1,521

GH

Class I 47

Class II 216

Class III 170

PH

Class I N/A

Class II N/A

Class III N/A

Source: BLM 2012a

N/A = not applicable

administered lands have been ignited during intense lightning storms that are 

common in the area. While the total acreage burned on BLM-administered lands 

over the past 10 years is relatively small, fires still result in impacts on GRSG 

and their habitat.

No fire history data exists for the Headwaters Resource Management Plan area.

In the Judith Resource Area Resource Management Plan area, there have been 

12 fires over the past 10 years, burning approximately 33,440 acres total. Of 

this amount, approximately 31,200 acres burned were non-habitat lands, 290 

acres of GH were burned, as were 1,950 acres of PH. This data does not 

include all fire within the planning area. Table 3-26 displays information about 

fires on BLM-administered lands in the planning area.

Table 3-26

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

(1992-2012)

Year Fire Name Fire Source No Habitat 

Acreage

GH

Acreage

PH

Acreage

1995 Lower Dunn Lightning 186.2

1996 Alkali Lightning 1,546.1

1999 377 Lightning 125
3. Affected Environment (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

3-46 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 3-26

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

(1992-2012)

Year Fire Name Fire Source No Habitat 

Acreage

GH

Acreage

PH

Acreage

2000 Blood Lightning 539.0

2002 Browning Lightning 15.1

2003

Armells Lightning 4.8

Barrel Springs 3 Lightning 16.1

Tin Can Lightning 92.6

2005 McArthur Lightning 416.9

2006

Dovetail Lightning 2597.3

Drag Lightning 741.8

Soda Creek Lightning 6,163.3

2007

Chouteau Co 

Assist

Lightning 29.5

Fargo Coulee Lightning 0.0

Last Day Lightning 250.5

South Moccasin Human 48.9

Salt Creek Lightning 0 47.9

South McGinnis Lightning 23.2

2008

79 Trail Lightning 156.3

Blood Creek Lightning 14.3

Pickett Lightning 25.1

2009 Meissner Human 184.3 3.2

2010 Raven Rat Patch Lightning 6,653.7 477.4

2011 Blue Dunn Lightning 16.2

2012

15 Mile Lightning 860.7 193.6

Arrow 2 Lightning 9.9

Arrow Lightning 18.5

Boyce Lightning 5.1 201.3

Carol Lightning 2.1

Chain Buttes Lightning 3,000.2

First Time Lightning 12.7

Kingsbury Lightning 6.8

South Chain Lightning 737.9

Wolf Creek Lightning 6,880.7 1,244.4

Source: BLM 2012a
3. Affected Environment (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-47

Fires that occur within PH and GH would pose the greatest threat to GRSG. 

Fires within PH would be particularly damaging because these areas have been 

identified as having the highest conservation value to maintaining sustainable 

GRSG populations.

Wildland fire use will not be part of the LFO fire management strategy due to 

high winds, difficulties in maintaining pre-determined fire sizes, and the large 

amount of damage fire could do to grazing allotments (BLM 2004a). This could 

serve to prevent the spread of fire and protect GRSG habitat.

Of the five FMUs in the LFO, all are explicitly managed to protect sagebrush 

habitat or GRSG. This could also result in management actions that would 

protect GRSG habitat from impacts due to wildland fire.

3.7.3 Trends

Over the past 10 years, two human-caused fires have been reported as 

occurring on BLM-administered lands in the planning area. Wildland fire, 

typically caused by lightning, has historically occurred within the planning area 

and tends to occur between July and September (BLM 1992). Fires will likely 

increase in the future as climate change causes irregular weather patterns, 

increases the likelihood of storms, and contributes to droughts that can increase 

the frequency of natural, unplanned ignitions. Management actions, such as 

implementing green strips and hazardous fuel reductions, can reduce the 

occurrences of such fires.

3.8 FLUID MINERALS

Fluid leasable minerals include oil, gas, and geothermal heat. In general, leasable 

minerals are governed by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, which 

authorized specific minerals to be disposed of through a leasing system. 

Geothermal heat is also considered a leasable mineral and is governed by the 

Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. There are no geothermal resources within the 

planning area; therefore, geothermal resources will not be discussed in 

Chapter 3 or Chapter 4.

The BLM reserves the right to require additional mitigation measures in the 

form of COAs after a lease is issued if doing so is necessary to fulfill the BLM’s 

multiple-use mandate.

3.8.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

This discussion focuses solely on oil and gas because those are the only fluid 

minerals that exist within the planning area.

In 2013, Chouteau County was the top gas-producing county in the planning 

area, producing nearly 900,000 MCF (thousand cubic feet) of gas. However, only 

a portion of Chouteau County is within the planning area, and the gas fields in 

that county are outside the planning area. Fergus and Petroleum Counties are 

the only counties currently producing oil and gas within the planning area (see 
3. Affected Environment (Fluid Minerals)

3-48 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Figure 3-4 in Appendix A). Table 3-27 provides oil and gas activity in 

counties within the planning area.

Table 3-27

2013 County Drilling and Production Statistics

County

Production Well Completion

Oil 

Barrels

Associated

Gas (MCF)

Gas (MCF) Oil Gas Coalbed 

Methane Dry Service

Fergus 0 0 24,590 0 0 0 0 0

Petroleum 23,626 4,380 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chouteau1 0 0 885,890 0 0 0 0 0

Judith Basin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Meagher 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 23,626 4,380 910,480 0 0 0 0 0

Source: DNRC 2013

1

Production and wells within Chouteau County are not within the range-wide planning area.

The primary fields producing in the planning area are Cat Creek field in 

Petroleum County and Leroy field at the northern border of Fergus County.

Approximately 5,586 acres (90 percent) of the Cat Creek field lies within PH. 

The other 10 percent (633 acres) is within GH.

The majority of the Leroy field lies north of the planning area within the Upper 

Missouri River Breaks National Monument. Of the 7,246 acres of the Leroy field 

within the planning area, 5,206 acres (72 percent) are within PH. Approximately 

1,786 acres (25 percent of the field in the planning area) are in GH. The 

remaining three percent of this field in the planning area is not within GRSG

habitat.

Oil production from the Cat Creek field began in the 1920s. Since that time, 

wells in the field have produced over 24 million barrels of oil. In 2013, the 39

producing wells in the field produced 23,364 barrels of oil (DNRC 2013 p.16-

10). Oil and gas resources in the field have largely played out, and most wells 

are plugged and abandoned.

The Leroy Field contains gas resources, primarily in the Judith River and Eagle 

gas sands. Cumulative gas production from the field is nearly 7.3 million MCF. In 

2013, the 26 producing wells in the field produced 142,466 MCF of gas (DNRC 

2013 p.16-30). Four of the producing wells in this field are within the planning 

area. Gas resources in this field have been depleted, and approximately half of 

the wells in the area are plugged and abandoned.

In addition to activity within these fields, some exploration activity has occurred 

within the Heath oil shale play in the southern portion of Petroleum County.
3. Affected Environment (Fluid Minerals)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-49

This play overlaps PH and GH. The Montana Board of Oil and Gas did not issue 

any drilling permits for the Heath shale in Petroleum County in the past year. 

Of the 18 wells drilled in the Heath shale during the past seven years, only one 

remains active as a shut-in oil well. The remainder have been plugged or 

temporarily abandoned. No further federal or private permits have been issued 

for drilling in the Heath play, and the economics of producing oil from this play 

appears unfavorable.

There are 11 active wells in Fergus County (outside of the Leroy field). These 

are all shut-in gas wells on private or state minerals. Twelve drilling permits 

remain with the Montana Board of Oil and Gas for potential wells to be drilled 

in Fergus County on private minerals.

WAFWA Management Zones 1 and 4

Table 3-28 through Table 3-32 display data compiled in a BER produced by 

the USGS and BLM (Manier et. al. 2013). In each table, acres are presented by 

surface management agency and their occurrence within GH and PH in the 

planning area, and MZs I and IV.

There are no oil shale leases in the planning area (Manier et al. 2013).

Table 3-28

Open to Oil and Gas Leasing within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres within GH Acres within PH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM1 273,800 3,970,400 4,662,800 225,100 2,792,800 12,348,100

Forest Service 0 484,100 240,200 0 284,300 234,200

Tribal and Other 

Federal

36,000 329,800 500 3,100 84,000 10,300

Private 157,200 6,510,600 173,100 148,600 2,071,900 275,900

State 900 98,800 8,600 1,800 82,200 20,400

Other 0 900 0 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1There is an existing protest resolution decision affecting BLM-administered lands within the LFO that does not 

allow oil and gas leasing of nominated parcels that would require a special stipulation to protect important wildlife 

values, including leasing on PH and GH, or PH and GH. 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 will 

not be addressed in this RMPA/EIS. The information provided in this table is for establishing the baseline for 

cumulative effects analysis only.
3. Affected Environment (Fluid Minerals)

3-50 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 3-29

Closed to Oil and Gas Leasing within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres within GH Acres within PH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM1 100 370,100 261,500 0 150,100 1,304,200

Forest Service 0 16,600 4,600 0 0 69,600

Tribal and Other 

Federal

0 1,594,400 442,300 0 1,400 637,300

Private 500 1,848,000 9,800 100 505,600 26,500

State 0 315,400 9,300 0 63,700 21,600

Other 0 0 45 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1There is an existing protest resolution decision affecting BLM-administered lands within the LFO that does not allow 

oil and gas leasing of nominated parcels that would require a special stipulation to protect important wildlife values, 

including leasing on PH and GH, or PH and GH. 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 will not be addressed in this 

RMPA/EIS. The information provided in this table is for establishing the baseline for cumulative effects analysis only.

Table 3-30

Oil and Gas Leases within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres within GH Acres within PH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 15,200 624,200 74,500 30,200 327,600 215,700

Forest Service 0 29,700 3,800 0 24,900 1,700

Tribal and Other 

Federal

0 5,000 900 0 0 0

Private 12,100 1,721,900 21,000 12,300 546,200 28,500

State 400 27,900 0 400 17,400 40

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013
3. Affected Environment (Fluid Minerals)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-51

Table 3-31

Oil and Gas Leases Held by Production within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres within GH Acres within PH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 3,200 673,900 0 100 110,600 0

Forest Service 0 80,900 0 0 36,900 0

Tribal and Other 

Federal

0 19,500 0 0 0 0

Private 2,000 1,819,300 0 800 236,400 0

State 0 13,500 0 0 3,400 0

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013

Table 3-32

Oil and Gas Wells within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres1 within GH Acres1 within PH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 100 26,200 25 200 4,600 100

Forest Service 0 2,100 6 0 1,500 3

Tribal and Other 

Federal

0 3,400 0 0 6 3

Private 700 140,400 100 1,300 21,400 100

State 100 15,400 8 0 2,500 6

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1Assumes footprint of 62 square meters per well. Includes wells that are either not plugged and abandoned, or 

plugged and abandoned beginning October, 2001.

3.8.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

While the BLM administers 593,995 acres of surface within the planning area, 

the BLM also manages the subsurface minerals underlying 968,032 acres in the 

planning area (including federal subsurface beneath BLM-administered lands). 

Split-estate lands are lands on which the surface is owned or controlled by an 

entity other than the BLM and the subsurface is managed by the BLM. 

Table 3-33 provides the surface ownership above federal minerals in the 

planning area.
3. Affected Environment (Fluid Minerals)

3-52 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 3-33

Federal Mineral Status in the Planning Area

Land Status Acres

BLM Surface/Federal Minerals 595,150 (61%)

Private Surface/Federal Minerals 288,515 (30%)

Other Federal Surface/Federal Minerals 77,949 (8%)

State/Federal Minerals 6,418 (1%)

Total 968,032

Source: BLM 2012a

There are 42,770 acres of existing oil and gas leases on federal minerals in the 

planning area. These leases cover four percent of the federal mineral estate in 

the decision area. Table 3-34 breaks down existing leases within PH and GH. A 

total of 12,851 acres (30 percent) of existing leases in the decision area are 

within PH and 19,902 acres (47 percent) are within GH.

Table 3-34

Existing Oil and Gas Leases

Habitat Type Acres Leased

Total Area

(BLM surface/federal minerals)

24,420

Total Area

(Private or state surface/federal minerals)

17,643

PH

(BLM surface/federal minerals) 

5,779

PH

(Private or state surface/federal minerals)

7,072

GH

(BLM surface/federal minerals)

11,860

GH

(Private or state surface/federal minerals)

8,042

Other Areas

(BLM surface/federal minerals)

7,426

Other Areas

(Private or state surface/federal minerals)

3,229

Source: BLM 2012a

The BLM manages surface and subsurface minerals in each of the main oil and 

gas fields in the planning area. While much of the historical development of the 

Cat Creek Field has been on federal mineral estate, no new drilling activity in 

the field is occurring on federal minerals. The Cat Creek Field has 28 active 
3. Affected Environment (Fluid Minerals)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-53

wells on federal minerals: 19 producing oil wells, four shut-in oil wells, and five 

active injection wells for enhanced oil recovery. One permit remains on the 

records with the Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation in Petroleum 

County. The proposed well is approximately four miles west of the Cat Creek 

Field and would be located on private mineral estate. The portion of the Leroy 

Field within the planning area currently has five active wells on federal mineral 

estate. Four are producing gas wells, and one is a gas shut-in well.

A protest resolution decision applicable to the LFO requires all nominated oil 

and gas lease parcels that would require a special stipulation to protect 

important wildlife values be deferred until an RMPA for oil and gas, or an RMP 

revision that includes an oil and gas leasing decision in the ROD is completed. 

All federal fluid mineral estate acres within PH and GH are deemed to require 

special wildlife stipulations and will be deferred from leasing. The boundaries of 

PH and GH are equal to PH and GH, respectively. As such, the deferral of 

nominated lease parcels would continue in PH and GH after the ROD for this 

amendment is signed. Existing leases within PH and GH, or PH and GH, which 

expire, could be renominated for leasing; however, the leasing would be 

deferred in accordance with the protest resolution.

3.8.3 Trends

Because the primary oil and gas fields within the planning area are largely played 

out, the level of activity on existing leases within the planning area is likely to 

remain relatively stable for the life of the Judith Resource Area and Headwaters 

Resource Management Plans. The one possible exception is the Heath shale 

play, where activity on leases is still in early stages. If this play proved to be 

economic, drilling and production in the vicinity of the play in southern 

Petroleum County could greatly increase.

Due to an existing protest resolution, the LFO will not issue, or reissue, oil and 

gas leases for parcels that provide important wildlife habitat, including PH and 

GH.

3.9 SOLID LEASABLE MINERALS

Solid leasable minerals are primarily governed under two acts: the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, and the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired 

Lands of 1947, as amended.

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 authorized specific minerals, including but not 

limited to coal, sodium, potash, and phosphate, to be disposed of through a 

leasing system. Coal is the only mineral governed by this Act that exists within 

the planning area, but no coal is being developed.

Pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, as amended, all 

minerals that qualify as locatable minerals in public domain lands may only be 

obtained through leasing on acquired lands. (Public domain lands have always 
3. Affected Environment (Solid Leasable Minerals)

3-54 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

been in federal ownership, while acquired lands were purchased by the 

government from private individuals.)

The BLM first issues a prospecting permit for exploration for nonenergy solid 

leasable minerals. A prospecting permit term is two years, but it may be 

extended by another four years with adequate justification. If, during the term of 

the permit, the permittee demonstrates discovery of a valuable deposit of the 

leasable mineral resource, the BLM may issue a lease to that permittee.

3.9.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

No coal mining is occurring within the planning area, although potential for coal 

resources does exist within the area. The Kootenai formation underlies the 

central portion of the planning area and contains the Lewistown and Great Falls 

coal fields (BLM 1992 p. 105). This formation is not within GRSG habitat.

Because leasing of hardrock minerals only occurs beneath BLM-administered 

lands, discussion of conditions of these resources occurs under Conditions on 

BLM-Administered Lands.

3.9.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

The BLM administers 890,083 acres of federal mineral estate (595,150 acres of 

BLM-administered land with federal minerals and 294,933 acres of split-estate) 

in the planning area. Within GRSG habitat, the BLM administers 345,560 acres 

(16 percent) of surface over federal minerals and another 143,332 acres (six

percent) of split-estate.

The BLM has not issued leases for development of federal coal resources in the 

planning area. There are no known federal coal resources within GRSG habitat.

Over the last 10 years, the BLM has issued 14 prospecting permits for 

nonenergy solid minerals on acquired lands in the planning area. Generally, 

three to four prospecting permits are authorized at any given time. As of 

December 2012, one prospecting permit is currently valid. All prospecting 

permits in the planning area have been issued within PH in Petroleum County. 

Most have been issued along the southwestern border of Petroleum County. 

Others have been issued along the southeastern border of the county near the 

Musselshell River or further north along the western border of the county. The 

primary minerals of interest for prospecting permits are diamonds and gems.

3.9.3 Trends

Based on the nature and depth of the coal beds in area, the most likely location 

for development within the planning area would be the Lewistown and Great 

Falls coal fields in the Kootenai Formation. Neither of these coal fields lies 

within PH or GH.

Although no mineral development potential was identified in the 1992 Hardrock 

Mineral Resources Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for the Judith
3. Affected Environment (Solid Leasable Minerals)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-55

Resource Area, the acquired lands overlying hardrock minerals likely have low 

to medium development potential for hardrock minerals based on the 

exploration activity in recent years. Hardrock mineral prospecting is anticipated 

to continue at the current rate of three to four active prospecting permits per 

year throughout the life of Judith Resource Area and Headwaters Resource 

Management Plans.

3.10 LOCATABLE MINERALS

Locatable minerals are minerals for which the right to explore or develop the 

mineral resource on federal land is established by the location (or staking) of 

mining claims and is authorized under the General Mining Law of 1872.

Locatable minerals include metallic minerals (such as gold, silver, copper, lead, 

zinc, molybdenum, uranium) and non-metallic minerals (such as gypsum).

3.10.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

Locatable mineral development potential exists within Fergus and Judith Basin 

Counties. In Fergus County, development potential exists in the Judith 

Mountains and the North and South Moccasin Mountains. The Judith and 

Moccasin Mountains range from low to high potential with gold and silver as the 

primary minerals of interest. Mining and exploration have occurred and 

continue in each of these areas (BLM 1992 Map K, p. 105–107, 324).

In Judith Basin County, development potential exists in the Little Belt Mountains 

and Yogo Gulch area. Locatable mineral development potential in this area 

ranges from low to high, with sapphires as the primary mineral of interest. 

Historic mining for lead, zinc, silver, and gold ores has also occurred in this area 

(BLM 1992 Map K, p. 107, 327, 331).

None of the areas identified having locatable mineral development potential in 

the planning area is within PH or GH.

3.10.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

The BLM administers 890,083 acres of federal mineral estate (595,150 acres of 

BLM-administered land with federal minerals and 294,933 acres of split-estate) 

in the planning area. Within GRSG habitat, the BLM administers 345,560 acres 

(16 percent) of surface over federal minerals and another 143,332 acres (six

percent) of split-estate.

A total of 1,207 acres (less than one percent) of federal mineral estate PH is

withdrawn from locatable mineral entry and therefore cannot be developed. 

Additionally, 4,764 acres (two percent) of federal mineral estate in GH are 

withdrawn from locatable mineral entry.

3.10.3 Trends

While locatable mineral exploration and development is likely to continue to 

occur within the planning area, no locatable mineral development is anticipated 
3. Affected Environment (Locatable Minerals)

3-56 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

within GRSG habitat over the life of the Judith Resource Area and Headwaters 

Resource Management Plans.

3.11 SALABLE MINERALS

Salable minerals include common varieties of construction materials and 

aggregates, such as sand, gravel, cinders, roadbed, and ballast material. Salable 

minerals are sold or permitted under the Mineral Materials Sale Act of 1947.

Sand and gravel, as construction aggregate, is an extremely important resource. 

The extraction of the resource varies directly with the amount of development 

nearby – road building and maintenance and urban development – as sand and 

gravel is necessary for that infrastructure development. Even more so than 

other resources; however, the proximity of both transportation and markets 

are key elements in the development of a deposit.

3.11.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

Much of the surface geology in the planning area is dominated by late 

Cretaceous shale and sandstone layers, deposited during transgression and 

regression of the inland sea. These rocks are source to building materials and 

clays. In more recent times, erosion has dissected the landscape to its present 

form. Alluvial material derived from erosion of exposed bedrock or reworking 

of glacial deposits is the primary source of sand and gravel.

WAFWA Management Zones 1 and 4

Table 3-35 displays data compiled in a BER produced by the USGS and BLM 

(Manier et al. 2013). Acres are presented by surface management agency and 

their occurrence within GH and PH in the planning area, and MZs I and IV.

Table 3-35

Salable Material Disposal Sites within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres within GH Acres within PH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 200 64,500 189,900 100 65,000 462,100

Forest Service 0 1,200 56,500 0 0 113,700

Tribal and Other 

Federal

0 0 400 0 0 500

Private 0 430,500 80,200 1,200 49,000 139,200

State 0 7,800 3,400 0 8,900 3,600

Other 0 0 45 0 0 39

Source: Manier et al. 2013
3. Affected Environment (Salable Minerals)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-57

3.11.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

The BLM administers 890,083 acres of federal mineral estate (595,150 acres of 

BLM-administered land with federal minerals and 294,933 acres of split-estate) 

in the planning area. Within GRSG habitat, the BLM administers 345,560 acres 

(16 percent) of surface over federal minerals and another 143,332 acres (six 

percent) of split-estate.

The salable minerals program on BLM-administered lands within the planning 

area is based on the use of sand and gravel for construction and road surfacing 

(BLM 1992 p. 110).

Most salable minerals permits issued within the planning area have been free use 

permits issued to the county or state governments for road construction or 

maintenance. Several other small sales have been made to local contractors for 

maintenance of Air Force missile roads (BLM 1992 p. 111).

There are four active sand and gravel pits on federal minerals within the 

planning area. Two of these are within PH, and one is within GH. Each pit is less 

than five acres.

Within PH, 1,207 acres (less than one percent) of federal mineral estate are 

closed to the disposal of salable minerals. Within GH, 4,764 acres (two percent)

of federal mineral estate are closed to the disposal of salable minerals.

3.11.3 Trends

Future demand for salable minerals will vary depending upon market conditions, 

which differ according to economic conditions and construction activity. It is 

expected that salable mineral activity will continue at roughly the same level for 

the life of the Judith Resource Area and Headwaters Resource Management 

Plans.

3.12 COMPREHENSIVE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT

The transportation system throughout the planning area consists of seven major 

highways, numerous paved and unpaved local roads, as well as unpaved primitive 

OHV roads and trails. Where roads cross BLM-administered land, ROW

authorizations are required to maintain the road on federal land. A more 

detailed inventory of the existing transportation network will be conducted as 

part of a future LFO RMP revision.

3.12.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

Transportation routes in the planning area reflect the region’s low population 

density and challenging topography. Throughout the planning area there are 

approximately 4,390 total miles of roads and trails. Major highways (such as US 

Highways 87, 191, and 89 and State Route 19) provide arterial connections to 

population centers mainly outside the planning area. Smaller local paved and 

unpaved roads, primitive roads, and trails account for the remainder of the 
3. Affected Environment (Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management)

3-58 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

transportation network in the planning area. Local roads mainly provide access 

to large private ranchlands.

WAFWA Management Zones 1 and 4

Table 3-36 through Table 3-38 display data compiled in a BER produced by 

the USGS and BLM (Manier et. al. 2013). In each table, acres and miles are 

presented by surface management agency and their occurrence within GH and 

PH in the planning area, and MZs I and IV.

Table 3-36

Miles of Roads within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Miles within GH Miles within PH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 319 7,400 6,500 454 4,700 18,900

Forest Service 0 1,200 1,200 0 700 1,900

Tribal and Other 

Federal

124 5,800 700 10 300 1,000

Private 1,447 59,700 7,200 2,036 16,600 8,700

State 121 5,200 1,300 168 1,900 1,800

Other 0 0 79 0 0 100

Source: Manier et al. 2013

Table 3-37

Acres of Roads within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres within GH1 Acres within PH1

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 3,200 79,600 68,500 4,500 48,200 199,400

Forest Service 0 12,300 12,900 0 7,200 20,100

Tribal and Other 

Federal

1,300 61,500 8,000 100 3,300 11,200

Private 14,800 675,000 83,500 20,800 176,200 100,900

State 1,200 58,600 14,100 1,700 20,300 18,800

Other 0 300 800 0 0 1,200

Source: Manier et al. 2013, p. 35

1Assumes footprint of 73.2 meters for interstate highways, 25.6 meters for primary and secondary highways, and 

12.4 meters for other roads.
3. Affected Environment (Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-59

Table 3-38

Miles of Railroads within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Miles within GH Miles within PH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 0 50 100 0 9 100

Forest Service 0 28 1 0 0 8

Tribal and Other 

Federal

0 83 14 0 0 19

Private 41 1,200 300 0 146 100

State 1 90 12 0 10 12

Other 0 1 0 0 0 0

Source: Manier et al. 2013

Off-Highway Vehicles

OHVs are used primarily as a mode of transportation for accessing areas to 

participate in other recreation activities such as hunting, camping, or fishing. 

OHVs are also used throughout the planning area to manage livestock grazing. 

In accordance with Off-Highway Vehicle Record of Decision and Proposed Plan 

Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota, 

motorized cross-country travel is prohibited in all three states. OHVs must 

therefore remain on existing travel routes at all times unless travel is 

administrative use or an exception as described in the OHV ROD (BLM 2003b)

(see Glossary for a definition of administrative access).

3.12.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

Transportation routes on BLM-administered lands in the planning area are 

limited due to the dispersed nature of BLM parcels. The combined length of all 

roads and trails on BLM-administered lands in PH areas is 467 miles, while GH

areas contain 128 miles of roads and trails. Travel routes on BLM-administered 

lands are primarily a mixture of publically-maintained paved and unpaved roads 

and privately-maintained unpaved roads. Local and agricultural traffic is the 

primary use of these roadways. Additionally, based on data from Recreation 

Management Information System, there are approximately 20,100 visits to the 

15 ERMAs located in PH. Due to the popularity of the ERMAs, which are all 

reservoirs, the use of access roads to the ERMAs increases travel in the area, 

especially during popular recreation seasons.

3.12.3 Trends

Use of the existing transportation network in the planning area is expected to 

steadily increase over time as adjacent areas become more urbanized and 

national demand for outdoor recreation opportunities, such as hunting, fishing, 

and camping increase. OHV use is expected to continue as a means to support 

hunting opportunities and the maintenance of grazing rights.
3. Affected Environment (Recreation)

3-60 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

3.13 RECREATION

Recreation opportunities in the planning area are abundant. Most recreation 

users participate in dispersed recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, 

camping, biking, hiking, horseback riding, boating on area lakes and rivers, 

pleasure driving, and wildlife viewing. Users often participate in these activities 

individually or in small groups.

3.13.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

PH and GH areas, which are dispersed mainly throughout the eastern portion of 

the planning area, cover 2,223,029 acres. PH is confined to Fergus and 

Petroleum counties, while GH occurs within Chouteau, Judith Basin, Meagher, 

Fergus, and Petroleum counties. ERMAs are located only within PH, and SRMAs

are only located within GH.

Recreation opportunities in these areas are mainly of a dispersed nature with 

hunting and fishing being the primary activities. Within the planning area, 76 

percent of the surface land area is privately owned. The scattered distribution of 

BLM-administered land limits the extent of public recreation opportunities 

throughout the planning area.

Since hunting is one of the primary recreation uses in the planning area, fall is 

the most popular season for recreation activity. Summer activities are largely 

concentrated around water bodies and include fishing, camping, hiking, 

sightseeing, and wildlife viewing. Winter recreation activities include ice fishing, 

hiking, and trapping.

Hunting

Big game hunting is a popular recreation activity in the planning area. The 

MFWP issues hunting licenses for deer, pronghorn antelope, and Rocky 

Mountain elk. The MFWP places restrictions on the time of year, location, 

method of take, and daily bag and possession limits. Statewide, annual harvest of 

elk averaged 16,182 between 2004 and 2011. During the same period, the 

annual harvest of deer averaged 49,583, while antelope harvest averaged 16,854 

(MFWP 2011).

The MFWP also permits the hunting of a number of smaller upland bird species, 

including GRSG. The 2014 GRSG hunting season was from September 1 

through September 30. Within the planning area, Chouteau, Judith Basin, Fergus, 

and Petroleum Counties are open to all hunters who hold a valid current year 

Upland Game Bird license. Meagher County is closed to GRSG hunting (MFWP 

2014a).

GRSG may be hunted using a ten gauge or smaller shotgun or by bow and 

arrow. The daily bag limit is two, and the possession limit is four.

Statewide, annual harvest of GRSG has averaged 29,700 birds between 1958 and 

2011. Between 1997 and 2001, the annual harvest averaged less than 7,000 
3. Affected Environment (Recreation)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-61

(MFWP 2004). The MFWP estimated the harvest to be approximately 2,816 in 

2012 and 2,443 in 2013, (MFWP 2014b).

Nez Perce Historic Trail

Approximately two miles of the Nez Perce Historic Trail, a part of the National 

Trails System, crosses through the planning area north of Winifred. However, 

within the planning area there are limited opportunities for historic or cultural 

interpretation since much of the historic trail location is on private land.

3.13.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

The BLM manages 593,995 acres within the planning area, and 345,560 acres are 

located in PH and GH areas. Recreation activities on BLM-administered lands 

are comparable to those that occur in the broader planning area; however, 

BLM-administered lands within the planning area are widely distributed and 

largely noncontiguous. This distribution limits recreation opportunities on BLMadministered land. The most popular recreation activity on BLM-administered 

land in the planning area is hunting, which accounts for the majority of all 

recreation activities and takes place predominately during the autumn months. 

Other popular activities include fishing, hiking, and camping.

There are three SRMAs in the planning area: Judith Mountains, Judith River, and 

Snowy Mountains (see Figure 3-5, Recreation Management Areas, in 

Appendix A). Table 3-39 summarizes the acreage of SRMAs that overlap PH

and GH.

Table 3-39

Designated SRMAs in the Planning Area

SRMA Size (acres) Area in PH

(acres)

Area in GH

(acres)

Judith Mountains 19,179 0 0

Judith River 10,079 0 9,763 (97%)

Snowy Mountains 75 0 0

Total 29,334 0 9,763 (33%)

Source: BLM 2012a

Judith River Special Recreation Management Area

The Judith River SRMA is comprised of scattered BLM-administered lands 

straddling a 27-mile stretch of the Judith River along the northern border of 

Fergus County. Due to its pristine qualities, this river segment was found to be 

eligible as part of the Wild and Scenic River System. However, a determination 

of non-suitability was made in the Judith Resource Area RMP (Appendix I, page 

377; BLM 1994). Judith River SRMA is the only SRMA in GRSG habitat; 

therefore, will be the only SRMA analyzed in this RMPA/EIS.
3. Affected Environment (Recreation)

3-62 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

BLM-administered lands associated with the Judith River SRMA are scattered 

and represent a fraction of the land area studied as part of the Wild and Scenic 

River evaluation. The remaining land in the study area is privately owned. 

Noncontiguous public lands prevent any significant recreational opportunities on 

BLM-administered land and present recreation management challenges. Most 

recreation activities in the SRMA are dispersed and occur either on the river 

(boating and fishing) or directly adjacent to the river (hunting, camping, 

sightseeing). There are no BLM-administered trails in the SRMA and the 

scattered distribution of BLM parcels limits public access to the river. Public 

access to the river is possible at Anderson Bridge via Judith River Road. While 

the bridge and roadway are public within a public ROW, the properties 

surrounding the bridge are private. Anderson Bridge is located approximately 10 

miles west of Winifred, Montana.

Extensive Recreation Management Areas

There are 15 ERMAs in the planning area. Of these 15, there are two ERMAs 

outside GRSG habitat and two others identified in the existing RMPs that are no 

longer located on BLM-administered lands. All 11 ERMAs located in GRSG

habitat within the decision area are in PH. No ERMAs are located in GH. 

ERMAs generally correspond with small reservoirs and provide mainly waterbased recreation activities such as fishing, canoeing, and swimming. Each ERMA 

boundary corresponds with the high water line of the applicable reservoir. 

Payola Reservoir ERMA is the only ERMA with recreation facilities. At Payola 

Reservoir, recreation users have access to a cabana, picnic tables, and two fire 

pits. Table 3-40 summarizes the acreage of ERMAs in the planning area. All 

ERMAs are located in either PH or outside the planning area.

Table 3-40

Designated ERMAs in the Planning Area

ERMA Outside Habitat 

(acres)

Area in PH

(acres)

Area in GH

(acres)

Box Elder/Vogel Reservoir 0 12 0

Buffalo Wallow Reservoir 0 15 0

Crooked Creek Reservoir 0 7 0

Drag Creek Reservoir 36 0 0

Dry Blood Reservoir 0 12 0

Fritzner Reservoir 3 1 0

Holland Reservoir 0 10 0

Jakes Reservoir 0 17 0

Lower Dry Wolf Reservoir 0 6 0

Mauland Reservoir 1 0 0

Payola Reservoir 0 20 0
3. Affected Environment (Recreation)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-63

Table 3-40

Designated ERMAs in the Planning Area

ERMA Outside Habitat 

(acres)

Area in PH

(acres)

Area in GH

(acres)

South Fork Dry Blood Reservoir 0 10 0

Upper Dry Wolf Reservoir 0 5 0

*Hopalong Reservoir 0 0 0

*Yellow Water Reservoir 0 0 0

Total 40 115 0

Source: BLM 2012a

*Identified as ERMA in Judith Resource Area RMP, but currently no BLM ownership.

Off-Highway Vehicles

OHVs are used primarily as a mode of transportation for accessing areas to 

participate in other recreation activities such as hunting, camping, or fishing. In 

accordance with the Off-Highway Vehicle Record of Decision and Proposed 

Plan Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota, 

motorized cross-country travel is prohibited in all three states (BLM 2003b). 

OHVs must therefore remain on existing travel routes at all times.

Special Recreation Permits

The BLM uses SRPs to authorize certain commercial, competitive, and group 

recreation events and activities on BLM-administered lands and related waters. 

BLM field offices issue SRPs on a discretionary basis. SRPs are one of many tools 

used by the BLM to implement land use plans, achieve the goals and objectives 

of the field office’s recreation program, manage visitor use, protect resources, 

and help ensure the health and safety of the visiting public (BLM IM 2011-019, 

BLM 2010a).

The BLM authorizes SRPs for big game hunting and upland bird hunting in the 

planning area. These recreation activities are provided by recreation outfitters 

throughout the LFO. The BLM currently issues seven SRPs in the planning area. 

Of these, six permits are for big game hunting, and one is for upland bird 

hunting.

3.13.3 Trends

Recreation use in the planning area is expected to continue to increase over 

time. In particular, more dispersed recreation activities (e.g., hunting, fishing, and 

hiking) are likely to increase because of the region’s rural landscape, clean air, 

increasing national population and increasing number of local employment 

opportunities in the energy sector. The number of SRPs issued on an annual 

basis is expected to remain steady, or increase slightly. Additional factors 

expected to increase demand for recreation on GRSG habitats in central 

Montana include:
3. Affected Environment (Recreation)

3-64 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

 Increasing popularity of outdoor recreation as a family-oriented 

activity

 Increasingly active retired population with more disposable time and 

income

 Displacement from other recreation areas due to decreasing 

opportunities or changes in management in those areas

 Increasing importance of recreation as a component of the local 

economy

 Increasing importance of natural-resource recreation as other areas 

of the country become more urbanized

 Treatment of noxious/invasive weeds

3.14 RANGE MANAGEMENT

The primary laws that govern livestock grazing on public lands are the Taylor 

Grazing Act of 1934, FLPMA, and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 

1978. In addition, the BLM manages grazing lands under 43 CFR, Part 4100 and 

applicable policy.

In accordance with 43 CFR, Part 4180, the BLM is required to meet or make 

progress towards meeting standards defined in the Lewistown District 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management (BLM 1997) (see Appendix F). Standards are statements of 

physical and biological condition or degree of function required for healthy 

sustainable rangelands. Guidelines are preferred or advisable grazing 

management approaches to maintaining or ensuring progress towards achieving 

land health standards. These standards and guidelines were developed with 

public input through the processes established by the NEPA. The Judith 

Resource Area and Headwaters Resource Management Plans were amended by 

this document upon its approval by the Secretary of the Interior in August 1997.

Adherence to the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock 

Grazing Management is also a requirement of BLM grazing regulations as set 

forth by 43 CFR, Part 4180.

The BLM is required to make changes where an allotment is not meeting 

standards due to current livestock grazing. The LFO assesses grazing allotments 

in conjunction with the grazing permit/lease renewal process, which occurs 

every 10 years. An interdisciplinary team of BLM specialists complete the 

allotment assessments in coordination with the permittees/lessees using the 

Interpreting Indicators for Rangeland Health Process, which has been 

scientifically reviewed through the USGS peer-review process (BLM 2005c).

When the grazing allotment assessment process has been completed, the 

interdisciplinary team completes and allotment evaluation and, if the evaluation 

indicates that an allotment is not achieving the Standards for Rangeland Health, a 
3. Affected Environment (Range Management)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-65

determination of what is causing the allotment to not achieve the standards is 

completed. When it is determined that current livestock grazing management is 

a causal factor in the allotment on achieving the standards, a change in the 

grazing management must be initiated within one year in order to allow the 

grazing allotment to achieve or make significant progress towards achieving the 

standards.

Changes to allotment management, include, but are not limited to:

 increasing length of rest periods between grazing periods

 changing season of use

 altering livestock turnout location

 changing grazing intensity

 changing grazing duration

 improving livestock distribution

 treatment of noxious/invasive weeds

Improved livestock distribution could be achieved through construction of 

water developments and fences, selective salt and mineral placement, and 

changes to livestock turnout location and season of use. In some cases, fencing 

may be used to protect upland and/or riparian areas.

A grazing permit is the document which authorizes livestock grazing use of 

BLM-administered lands within an established grazing district, whereas a grazing 

lease is the document which authorizes livestock grazing use of public lands 

outside an established grazing district as defined by the Taylor Grazing Act (43 

CFR, Part 4100.0-5). The kind and number of livestock, the period of use 

(seasonal), the allotment to be used, and the amount of use in AUMs are 

mandatory terms and conditions of every grazing permit or lease (43 CFR, Part

4130.3). An AUM is the amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one 

cow or its equivalent for one month and an allotment is an area of land 

designated and managed for grazing of livestock (43 CFR, Part 4100.0-5).

3.14.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

Grazing is permitted throughout the majority of the planning area. Rangeland 

vegetation in the planning area consists primarily of sagebrush grasslands, 

grasslands, and lightly vegetated badlands. Mixed shrub communities are 

common in coulees and benches throughout all of these vegetation types.

Within the planning area, many ranches have grazing leases on state lands that 

are intermingled with private and public land. Public lands cover approximately 

eight percent of the planning area.
3. Affected Environment (Range Management)

3-66 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

WAFWA Management Zones 1 and 4

Table 3-41 through Table 3-43 display data compiled in a BER produced by 

the USGS and BLM (Manier et. al. 2013). In each table, acres and miles are 

presented by surface management agency and their occurrence within GH and 

PH in the planning area, and MZs I and IV.

On lands of all surface management, there are 1,189,200 acres of grazing 

allotments, with 609,700 in GH and 579,500 in PH as displayed in Table 3-41.

Table 3-41

Grazing Allotments within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres within GH Acres within PH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 106,499 4,443,000 4,670,700 230,716 2,982,200 13,408,800

Forest Service 0 510,300 1,050,800 0 291,000 1,566,700

Tribal and Other 

Federal

78,800 137,200 153,800 3,600 10,600 266,200

Private 218,700 11,338,100 1,201,300 309,800 4,619,800 3,044,600

State 34,300 1,194,300 257,900 36,500 681,000 693,600

Other 0 3,100 400 0 300 1,500

Source: Manier et al. 2013

Current livestock grazing was a significant causal factor for not achieving land 

health standards in 78 (54 allotments within GRSG habitat) of the 526 

allotments within the planning area (Table 3-42). See Section 3.14.2, 

Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands, for a detailed description of land health 

assessments in the LFO. 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 

to address these causal factors.

Table 3-42

Allotments Not Meeting Land Health Standards within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Acres1 within GH Acres1 within PH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 23,800 52,100 968,900 81,900 82,500 2,617,200

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1Only includes allotments not meeting Land Health Standards with grazing as the causal factor

Structural range improvements may present a risk to GRSG, particularly fences, 

which when not designed with special provisions for GRSG, can cause fence 

collisions or provide hunting raptors a place to perch. In the planning area, there 
3. Affected Environment (Range Management)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-67

are approximately 3,900 miles of fence; 1,800 in GH and 1,900 in PH (Table 

3-43).

Table 3-43

Fences within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Miles within GH1 Miles within PH1

Planning 

Area MZ 1 MZ IV Planning Area MZ 1 MZ IV

BLM 700 11,300 7,200 700 18,700 16,100

Forest Service 0 900 1,900 0 6,100 2,800

Tribal and Other 

Federal

100 500 400 0 500 400

Private 900 32,100 3,900 1,100 100 7,400

State 100 3,300 500 100 10,700 1,200

Other 0 0 13 0 1,400 26

Source: Manier et al. 2013

1Derived from a dataset that identifies pasture and allotment borders on BLM and Forest Service land as potential 

fences.

3.14.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

Within the planning area the majority of BLM-administered acreage is open to 

grazing (570,112 acres, 96.0 percent) (see Table 3-44). Approximately 6,781

acres (1.1 percent) of BLM-administered lands within the planning area, all 

within the Judith Resource Area, are closed to grazing for protection of other 

resources, including area within Judith Mountains and Square Butte. 

Approximately 17,148 acres (2.8 percent) of the BLM-administered lands in 

planning area is unallocated for grazing (BLM 2012a).

Currently the BLM manages grazing on 526 grazing allotments in the planning 

area. Cattle are the most prevalent class of livestock. On GRSG habitat (PH and 

GH), there are all or portions of 207 and 107 allotments respectively (Table 

3-45).

Table 3-44

Lewistown Field Office Planning Area—Grazing Allocation

RMP Type Acres in Non 

GRSG Habitat Acres in PH Acres in GH

Total 

Acres

Judith Resource 

Area RMP

Open to 

grazing

225,716 (40%) 230,716 (41%) 106,089 (19%) 562,521

Closed to 

grazing

6,780 (100%) 0 0 6,780

Headwaters RMP

Open to 

grazing

7,186 (95%) n/a 360 (5%) 7,546

Closed to 

grazing

0 0 0 0
3. Affected Environment (Range Management)

3-68 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 3-44

Lewistown Field Office Planning Area—Grazing Allocation

RMP Type Acres in Non 

GRSG Habitat Acres in PH Acres in GH

Total 

Acres

Planning Area 

Total

Open to 

grazing

232,947 (41%) 230,716 (40%) 106,449 (19%) 570,112

Closed to 

grazing

6,781 (100%) 0 0 6,781

Source: BLM 2012a

Table 3-45

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

Type

Non GRSG Habitat

(acres)

GH

(acres)

PH

(acres)

Total 

Number of Active AUMS 34,398 (33%) 19,460 (19%) 49,948 (48%) 103,806

Number of Allotments 212 (40%) 107 (21%) 207 (39%) 526

Source: BLM 2012a

A wide range of management approaches are practiced among the 

permittees/lessees that graze livestock. Some grazing permits/leases are held by 

producers that are primarily involved in farming. In these cases, livestock are 

often grazed on BLM-administered land during the summer and on private land 

stubble fields in the fall and winter. In most cases, isolated tracts of BLMadministered land are grazed in conjunction with private land because the 

intermingled land ownership pattern and terrain make it difficult to manage the 

BLM-administered land separately from private land. In other cases, large blocks 

of BLM-administered land are authorized to producers that are primarily 

involved in ranching. The allotments with significant acreages of isolated tracts 

and larger contiguous blocks of BLM-administered lands are usually managed 

under grazing prescriptions and/or rotations that are outlined in a watershed

plan or an AMP that includes private, state, and BLM-administered land.

Many allotments have range improvements such as fences, stock ponds, 

pipelines, springs, windmills, seedings, wells, and access roads for livestock 

management purposes. 

Over the past decade, the BLM undertook a field office-wide planning effort, 

focused on implementing decisions in the 1994 Judith Resource Area Resource 

Management Plan. As part of this effort, grazing allotments were assessed as to 

whether or not Range Land Health Standards were being achieved and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management were being followed.

Environmental assessments (EAs) were prepared for the following plans relevant 

to the planning area (http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/lewistown_field_office/

Watershed_Plans.html):
3. Affected Environment (Range Management)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-69

 Petrolia Watershed Plan EA (BLM 2007b)

 North-East Fergus Watershed Area Plan EA (BLM 2009b)

 Musselshell Breaks Watershed Plan EA (BLM 2005d)

 Upper Arrow Creek Watershed Area Plan EA (BLM 2008d)

 Great Falls Area Grazing Lease Renewal EA (BLM 2011b)

 Snowies/Little Belts Grazing Lease Renewal EA and Permit Renewal 

EA (BLM 2009c)

 Forest Health and Vegetation Management for the Judith and 

Moccasin Mountains (BLM 2006)

Details for each watershed area are provided in the applicable EA and 

summarized in Table 3-46 below. An assessment of rangeland health standards 

and guidelines has been made on all allotments in the planning area. Allotments 

have been assessed for adherence to the Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands Administered by 

the BLM for Montana and the Dakotas (Appendix F).

Table 3-46

Lewistown Field Office Planning Area—Land Health Assessment

Type

Acres 

(Allotments)

in Non GRSG

Habitat

Acres 

(Allotments) 

in PH

Acres

(Allotments)

in GH

Total Acres

(Allotments)

Total assessed for land health 

standards

232,902 (212) 230,716 (207) 106,449 (107) 570,067 (526)

Meeting land health standards 159,052 (121) 105,836 (124) 68,736 (78) 333,625 (323)

Not meeting land health 

standards

73,848 (91) 124,881 (83) 37,713 (29) 236,427 (203)

Not meeting land health 

standards due to livestock 

grazing

38,418 (24) 91,878 (48) 13,559 (6) 143,856 (78)

Not meeting land health 

standards due to livestock; 

appropriate action taken to 

ensure significant progress 

toward meeting the standards

38,418 (24) 91,878 (48) 13,559 (6) 143,856 (78)

Not assessed 0 0 0 0

Source: BLM 2012a

Current livestock grazing was a significant causal factor for not achieving land 

health standards in 78 (54 allotments within GRSG habitat) of the 526 

allotments within the planning area. On 92,571 acres, current livestock grazing 
3. Affected Environment (Range Management)

3-70 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

was not a causal factor for failing to achieve all standards and guidelines. For all 

allotments determined to not be achieving standards due to current livestock 

grazing management, changes in livestock grazing management were 

implemented through changes in the mandatory and/or other terms and 

conditions of the grazing permits or leases by grazing decision in accordance 

with BLM grazing regulations (43 CFR, Part 4160) and analyzed in the EAs listed 

above. The management changes implemented included, but were not limited 

to, vegetative treatments (including the treatment of noxious weeds), 

construction of range improvement projects (i.e., fences, water developments, 

including pipelines, reservoirs/pits, and spring developments), the

implementation of grazing rotations, reductions in authorized AUMs, and

suspension of authorized AUMs. The effectiveness of the management changes 

implemented will be evaluated on a 10-year cycle, based on the dates of the 

watershed plans listed above. As of the current time, none of the allotments 

have been reassessed to determine if the changes implemented have resulted in 

allotments that were not achieving standards to meet or make significant 

progress.

The LFO renews term grazing permits and leases through the completion of 

sub-landscape level NEPA analysis in the form of EAs. The EAs are undertaken 

after land health evaluations and as necessary land health determinations have 

been completed, in accordance with BLM policy and regulation. Figure 3-6 in 

Appendix A illustrates the sub-landscape level resource activity planning areas 

that are used to renew grazing authorizations (permits and leases) as well as 

analyze other actions and projects that may be completed to achieve BLM 

priorities and mission goals associated with other programs. These planning 

areas have been delineated based on BLM administrative, Cooperative State 

Grazing District (CSGD) and watersheds boundaries, as well as other factors 

that allow LFO to meet the requirement of BLM grazing regulations 43 CFR, 

Parts 4160, 4180 and policy as it relates to grazing authorization renewal, land 

health standards and most efficiently complete BLM’s mission based on LFO 

staffing levels.

The list below shows the priority order for grazing authorization renewal for 

the planning units within LFO; the renewal process for the Crooked Creek Plan 

will be completed in early 2014 and therefore has been moved to the bottom of 

the priority list. The land health assessment process for the Crooked Creek 

Plan will be completed in early 2014 in accordance with Washington Office IMs 

WO-2012-043 and 044, which provide guidance on GRSG management and 

conservation. The remaining planning units would be completed as listed by 

priority by 2023. The planning units listed below contain PH and GH unless 

noted otherwise.

 Judith

 Lower Missouri
3. Affected Environment (Range Management)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-71

 Petrolia

 SE Fergus County

 Upper Missouri

 Section 15 (no PH)

 Great Falls (no PH)

 Crooked Creek

3.14.3 Trends

Permitted use levels have been assessed in watershed EAs and grazing 

management changes recommended as needed to work towards achieving 

livestock grazing standards. In some cases, permitted AUMs for individual 

allotments have been reduced. Actual use of allotments has decreased in many 

areas over the past decade as a result of drought. Changes in land use on 

private and public lands, such as increased use for recreational purposes, have 

also influenced livestock grazing. 

Drought has influenced the condition of vegetation in some areas. Noxious 

weeds are a serious threat to the planning area. Within the Petrolia Watershed

Area, where the majority of PH is located, higher concentrations of weed 

infestations are present along the major drainages and their tributaries, including 

Ford’s Creek, Box Elder Creek, Pike Creek, Buffalo Creek, Duck Creek, and 

the Musselshell River. The largest areas of infestation noted within PH and GH

are Leafy spurge, spotted knapweed, Russian knapweed, Whitetop (Hoary 

cress), and Houndstongue. Many invasive weed species are unpalatable to 

livestock, which may over time decrease total productivity or result in the need 

to alter grazing management practices.

One program underway to restore vegetation for livestock and GRSG use on 

private lands is the West-wide National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)

Sage-Grouse Initiative (SGI), which is cooperatively working with ranchers to 

boost both livestock and grouse productivity (NRCS 2011).

Recently, land sales for recreational purposes have increased, primarily for 

private hunting. This trend often results in the private lands associated with 

ranches being sub-divided into smaller properties that may or may not have 

BLM grazing privileges. The new owners often sub-lease the newly divided 

ranch, including BLM-administered grazing privileges for grazing, and recreate on 

the ranch property. The trend of recreational land sales is likely to increase as 

long as the economy remains relatively stable and may result in changes to 

administration needs by the BLM if the number of grazing permits/leases 

changes. 
3. Affected Environment (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern)

3-72 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

3.15 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

ACECs are defined in FLPMA and in 43 USC 1702(a) and 43 CFR, Part 1601.0-

5(a) as areas where special management attention is required to protect and 

prevent irreversible damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish 

and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life 

and safety from natural hazards. The intent of Congress in mandating the 

designation of ACECs was to give priority to the designation and protection of 

areas containing unique and significant resource values. These values identified in 

the ACEC nomination process must meet a set of importance criteria (BLM 

1988). The value, resource, process or natural system, or hazard present must 

have one or more of the following:

 More than locally significant qualities which give it special worth, 

consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern

 Qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, 

irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, or 

vulnerable to adverse change

 Recognition as warranting protection in order to satisfy national 

priority concerns or to carry out mandates of FLPMA

 Qualities that warrant highlighting in order to satisfy public or 

management concerns about safety and public welfare

 Qualities that pose a significant threat to human life and safety or to 

property

An ACEC must also require special management attention to protect the 

identified relevant and important values. Special management attention refers to 

management prescriptions that are developed during preparation of an RMP or 

RMPA expressly to protect relevant and important values of an area from the 

potential effects of actions permitted by the RMP. These are management 

measures that would not be necessary and prescribed if the critical and 

important features were not present (BLM 1988). ACECs are areas where 

natural processes are allowed to predominate and that are preserved for the 

primary purposes of research and education.

3.15.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

The Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC is the only ACEC in the Lewistown Field 

Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS planning area that is also within GRSG

habitat. The ACEC comprises 2,674 acres on two separate BLM tracts: 1,646 

acres in the Briggs Coulee tract and 817 acres in the War Horse tract. The 

ACEC is generally located northeast of the community of Grass Range; its

boundary is entirely within PH (see Figure 3-7 in Appendix A).

The Square Butte ACEC, Judith Mountains Scenic Area ACEC, and Collar Gulch 

ACEC are also located in the planning area, but are located outside GRSG

habitat.
3. Affected Environment (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-73

3.15.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC

Designation of the Acid Shale-Pine Forest as an ACEC/Research Natural Area 

signified the need to research the effects of grazing, fire, and other activities on 

the landscape and to protect unique resources in the area from potentially 

harmful activities. The Acid Shale-Pine Forest’s fragile shale landscape is 

vulnerable to erosion from man-made surface disturbances and natural weather 

events such as heavy rain storms. The BLM management objectives for the Acid 

Shale-Pine Forest ACEC are intended to protect the area’s unique pine forest 

and shale landscape. Vegetation in the ACEC is limited mostly to slow-growing 

ponderosa pine trees, with a sparse distribution of juniper bushes and grasses in 

the understory. Dense clay soil beneath the pine trees prevents a more robust 

understory vegetative community from becoming established. The vegetative 

communities that comprise shale-pine forest landscapes are unique and appear 

to be confined to central and eastern Montana.

Due to the lack of low-lying vegetative cover and fragile soil conditions, wind 

and water soil erosion is common in shale-pine forest landscapes. Where the 

topography becomes steep, deep gullies carve into the landscape. Any improper 

surface-disturbing activities, such as grazing, mineral exploration, motorized 

vehicle use, or recreation, would exacerbate soil erosion. The geology

composition may make the ACEC attractive for oil and gas exploration.

PH is found within the entire Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC. Although shrub and 

grass vegetation more typical of GRSG habitat is generally sparse within the 

ACEC, openings between pine trees provide more opportunities for shrubs, 

forbs, and grasses to become established. These areas provide food and shelter 

for wildlife and, in some cases, provide the proper landscape for species 

reproductive activities (BLM 1992, p.135-136).

Motorized travel in the ACEC is limited to existing routes and trails. In addition, 

the ACEC is managed as a ROW avoidance area. Timber harvest is prohibited, 

and the ACEC is closed to fluid minerals leasing.

3.15.3 Trends

The BLM would continue to analyze and consider designating BLM-administered 

lands as ACECs where special management attention is required to protect or 

to prevent irreparable damage to relevant values, as necessary.

3.16 AIR RESOURCES

Air resources include air quality and air quality related values. As part of the 

planning and decision-making process, the BLM considers and analyzes the 

potential effects of BLM and BLM-authorized activities on air resources.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the primary responsibility 

for regulating air quality, including criteria air pollutants subject to National 
3. Affected Environment (Air Resources)

3-74 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Pollutants regulated under NAAQS 

include carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone, particulate 

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

matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and sulfur 

dioxide (SO2). Two additional pollutants, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic 

compounds are regulated because they form ozone in the atmosphere. Air 

quality is determined by pollutant emissions and emission characteristics, 

atmospheric chemistry, dispersion meteorology, and terrain. Air quality related 

values include effects on soil and water, such as sulfur and nitrogen deposition 

and lake acidification, and aesthetic effects, such as visibility.

In addition to EPA federal regulations, air quality is regulated by the MTDEQ. 

This agency develops state-specific regulations and issues air quality permits to 

emission sources.

3.16.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

There are no state-operated ambient air quality monitors in the planning area. 

Consequently, data used in this analysis are data from monitors east and west of 

the planning area.

The closest monitoring station to the planning area is in Cascade County; 

however, this station only has one year of monitoring data for CO. The closest 

monitoring stations with three years of data are located in Lewis and Clark 

County, west of the planning area, and Richland County, east of the planning 

area. Based on available data collected from these monitoring sites between 

2011 and 2013, most monitored criteria pollutant values were below the 

NAAQS. In 2013, the monitor in Richland County recorded an exceedance of 

PM10, and in 2011 one of the monitors in Lewis and Clark County recorded an 

exceedance of PM2.5. However, the three-year averages for PM10 and PM2.5 do 

not exceed 150 g/m and therefore are still considered in attainment. High 

particulate concentrations in Lewis and Clark County in the past have been 

attributed to wood burning in Helena during the winter. A study conducted by 

the University of Montana found wood burning to be responsible for nearly 

two-thirds of winter particulate pollution (Ward 2008).However, the data from 

the Richland County monitor outside of Sidney, Montana, is more 

representative of PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations within GRSG habitat areas than 

the Helena data from Lewis and Clark County. 

Table 3-47 shows the concentrations of monitored pollutants in the latest 

three years for which data has been finalized in Richland, Lewis and Clark, and 

Cascade Counties.

The EPA classifies areas of the US according to whether they meet the NAAQS. 

Areas that violate air quality standards are designated as nonattainment areas 

for the relevant criteria air pollutants. Areas that comply with air quality 

standards are designated as attainment areas for the relevant criteria air 
3. Affected Environment (Air Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-75

Table 3-47

Air Quality Monitor Values Near the Planning Area (2011-2013)*

Criteria 

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time 20111 20121 20131

3-year 

average

NAAQS % of 

NAAQS

Richland County

NO2 1 hour 9 9 13 10 100 ppb 10%

CO3 1 hour - - - - 35 ppm -

Ozone 8 hours 0.052 0.061 0.056 0.056 0.075 ppm 75%

SO2 1 hour 6 4 3 4 75 ppb 5%

PM2.52 24 hours 15 19 17 17 35 g/m3 49%

PM102 24 hours 102 122 163 129 150 g/m3 86%

Lewis and Clark County

CO 1 hour 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 35 ppm 1%

CO 8 hours 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 9 ppm 4%

Ozone 8 hours 0.057 0.053 0.054 0.055 0.075 ppm 73%

SO2 1 hour 1 2 2 2 75 ppb 3%

PM2.52 24 hours 10, 41 21, 28 10, 24 22 35 g/m3 63%4

Cascade County 

PM2.52 24 hours - - - - 35 g/m -

CO 1 hour 1.9 - - 1.9 35 ppm 5%

CO 8 hours 0.9 - - 0.9 9 ppm 10%

Source: EPA 2014a

*Exceptional events data included.

1Monitored concentrations are the maximum second highest for 24-hour PM10; 4th highest daily maximum for 8-

hour O3; 98th percentile for 24-hour PM2.5 and 1-hour NO2; 99th percentile for 1-hour SO2; maximum first highest 

for 1-hour and 8-hour CO; and maximum arithmetic mean for annual PM2.5.

2Data from multiple monitoring stations.

3

Pollutant not monitored at this station.

4Average values monitored for each year to determine 3-year average.

pollutants. Areas that have been redesignated from nonattainment to attainment 

are considered maintenance areas. The planning area is in attainment for all of 

the NAAQS (MTDEQ 2011).

Air quality also may be assessed using the EPA’s air quality index (AQI). The 

AQI is an index used for reporting daily air quality to the public. The index tells 

how clean or polluted an area’s air is and whether associated health effects 

might be a concern. The EPA calculates the AQI for five criteria air pollutants 

regulated by the Clean Air Act: ground-level ozone, particulate matter, CO, 

SO2, and NO2. An AQI value of 100 generally corresponds to the primary 

NAAQS for the pollutant. The following terms help interpret the AQI 

information:
3. Affected Environment (Air Resources)

3-76 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

 Good – The AQI value is between 0 and 50. Air quality is 

considered satisfactory and air pollution poses little or no risk.

 Moderate – The AQI is between 51 and 100. Air quality is 

acceptable; however, for some pollutants there may be a moderate 

health concern for a very small number of people. For example, 

people who are unusually sensitive to ozone may experience 

respiratory symptoms.

 Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups – When AQI values are 

between 101 and 150, members of “sensitive groups” may 

experience health effects. These groups are likely to be affected at 

lower levels than the general public. For example, people with lung 

disease are at greater risk from exposure to ozone, while people 

with either lung disease or heart disease are at greater risk from 

exposure to particle pollution. The general public is not likely to be 

affected when the AQI is in this range.

 Unhealthy – The AQI is between 151 and 200. Everyone may 

begin to experience some adverse health effects, and members of 

the sensitive groups may experience more serious effects.

 Very Unhealthy – The AQI is between 201 and 300. This index 

level would trigger a health alert signifying that everyone may 

experience more serious health effects.

The AQI of Lewis and Clark County, Cascade County, and Richland County are 

displayed in Table 3-48. In general the air quality in these areas has consistently 

been good for the past three years (EPA 2014b).

Table 3-48

Air Quality Index Report, 2011-2013

Year

Number 

of Days 

with AQI 

data

Number of 

Days Rated 

Good

Percent of 

Days 

Rated 

Good

Number 

of 

Moderate 

Days

Number of 

Unhealthy 

for Sensitive

Groups

Days

Number of 

Unhealthy 

or Very 

Unhealthy 

Days

Lewis and Clark County

(west of the planning area)

2013 365 315 86% 50 - -

2012 366 271 74% 88 7 -

2011 365 309 85% 54 2 -

Total: 1,096 895 64 9 -

Average: 82% 6% 1% 0%
3. Affected Environment (Air Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-77

Table 3-48

Air Quality Index Report, 2011-2013

Year

Number 

of Days 

with AQI 

data

Number of 

Days Rated 

Good

Percent of 

Days 

Rated 

Good

Number 

of 

Moderate 

Days

Number of 

Unhealthy 

for Sensitive

Groups

Days

Number of 

Unhealthy 

or Very 

Unhealthy 

Days

Cascade County

(west of the planning area)

2013 337 311 92% 26 - -

2012 360 299 83% 58 3 -

2011 347 287 83% 60 - -

Total: 1,044 897 144 3 -

Average: 86% 14% 0% 0%

Richland County

(east of the planning area)

2013 365 318 87% 45 2 -

2012 366 302 83% 64 - -

2011 365 325 89% 40 0 -

Total: 1,096 945 149 2 -

Average: 86% 14% 0% 0%

Source: EPA 2014b

Air quality related values include visibility, which can be degraded by regional 

haze due primarily to sulfur, nitrogen, and particulate emissions. Since 1980, the 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network 

has measured visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. The nearest 

IMPROVE site is in the UL Bend Wilderness adjacent to the northeastern edge 

of the planning area. Visibility at this IMPROVE station has improved slightly in 

the 2005 to 2009 time period compared with the 2000-2004 time period on 

both the 20 percent haziest days and the 20 percent clearest days (Hand 2011).

Atmospheric deposition refers to processes in which air pollutants are removed 

from the atmosphere and deposited into terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Air 

pollutants can be deposited by either wet precipitation (via rain or snow) or dry 

(gravitational) settling of particles and adherence of gaseous pollutants to soil, 

water, and vegetation. Much of the concern about deposition surrounds the 

secondary formation of acids and other compounds that can contribute to 

acidification of lakes, streams, and soils and affect other ecosystem 

characteristics, including nutrient cycling and biological diversity. Deposition 

varies with precipitation and other meteorological variables such as 

temperature, humidity, winds, and atmospheric stability.

The National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network is an 

interagency sponsored network of monitoring stations that measures wet 
3. Affected Environment (Air Resources)

3-78 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

atmospheric deposition. The Clean Air Status and Trends Network is an 

interagency network of monitoring stations managed by EPA that measures dry 

deposition. The closest National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National 

Trends Network sites are in Havre, north of the planning area, and in Clancy, 

west of the planning area. There are no Clean Air Status and Trends Network

sites near the planning area; the nearest sites are in Glacier National Park and 

Theodore Roosevelt National Park. 

Table 3-49 shows the deposition levels of sulfates, nitrates, and ammonium, as 

well as pH and precipitation, from 2011 to 2013. The annual average 

precipitation pH between 2011 and 2013 was 5.7 at the Havre site and 5.52 at 

the Clancy site; normal rain has a pH level of 5.6, while acid rain has a pH level 

around 4.3 (NADP/NTN 2011-2013).

Table 3-49

Annual Average Deposition (2011-2013)

Year pH Precipitation

(cm)

Annual Average Wet Deposition 

(kg/ha/yr)

SO4 NO3 NH4

Havre, MT (MT98)

2013 5.85 50.7 2.14 3.1 3.1

2012 5.67 31.4 1.66 2.67 1.23

2011 5.58 27.8 1.26 1.93 1.2

Average 5.7 36.6 1.69 2.57 1.84

Clancy, MT (MT07)

2013 5.67 40.13 1.28 2.22 1.14

2012 5.45 30.84 0.79 1.54 0.53

2011 5.43 44.9 1.12 1.8 0.82

Average 5.52 115.87 1.06 1.85 0.83

Source: NADP/NTN 2011-2013

SO4=sulfates; NO3=nitrates; NH4=Ammonium

There are no Class 1 areas within the planning area. The closest Class 1 area is 

the UL Bend Wilderness, adjacent to the northeastern edge of the planning 

area. The Gates of the Mountains Wilderness Area in Lewis and Clark County is 

west of the planning area and is also in close proximity to the planning area. The 

land in the planning area is designated as Class II.

3.16.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

The area managed by the BLM is in compliance with all NAAQS (MTDEQ 

2011). The Richland and Cascade County monitoring locations are the most 

representative air quality monitors for the BLM-administered lands in the 

planning area. As such, these monitoring locations have the best estimate to 

what kind of air quality is present in the planning region, and more specifically, 
3. Affected Environment (Air Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-79

on BLM-administered lands. The conditions on BLM-administered lands are 

similar to those discussed in Section 3.16.1, Conditions of the Planning Area.

3.16.3 Trends

Quantitative data provided by the Richland and Cascade County monitors show 

air quality near the planning area has been good over the past several years 

(EPA 2014a). Based on the proximity of these monitoring sites to the planning 

area, and on past trends for air quality, it is reasonable to assume the air quality 

in the planning area will remain good. Measures that are implemented to protect 

GRSG may also benefit air resources if they prohibit surface disturbance or 

reduce access to habitat, consequently limiting fugitive dust or pollution caused 

by transportation.

The good air quality in the area is largely attributed to the rural nature of the 

planning region. In the event that more development occurs in the future, air 

quality may be affected.

Visibility trend plots at the UL Bend Wilderness IMPROVE site shows slight 

improvements in visibility on both the 20 percent haziest and 20 percent 

clearest days since the early 2000s (Hand 2011). Trend plots at National 

Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network monitoring sites 

MT2007 and MT98 likewise show SO2, NO3, and NH4 deposition rates to be 

generally stable since the early 2000s, with recent increases in 2013

(NADP/NTN 2014).

3.17 CLIMATE

Climate change is defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC) as “a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by 

using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its 

properties, and persist for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It 

refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or 

as a result of human activity” (IPCC 2007). Climate change and climate science 

are discussed in detail in the Climate Change Supplementary Information Report for 

Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota, Bureau of Land Management (BLM 

2010b). This document is often referred to as the “Climate Change SIR” and is 

incorporated by reference into the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse 

RMPA/EIS.

Earth has a natural greenhouse effect, wherein naturally occurring gases such as 

water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide absorb and retain 

heat. Without the natural greenhouse effect, the earth would be approximately 

60°F cooler (BLM 2010b). Climate change is caused in part by the increase in 
3. Affected Environment (Climate)

3-80 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

GHGs in the atmosphere beyond naturally occurring levels1. Over time the 

amount of energy sent from the sun to the Earth’s surface should be 

approximately the same as the amount of energy radiated back into space, 

leaving the temperature of the Earth’s surface roughly constant. Increased levels 

of GHGs trap more heat in the atmosphere rather than allowing it to escape 

back into space.

Climate models predict that if GHGs continue to increase, the average 

temperature at the Earth’s surface could increase from 3.2 to 7.2oF (1.8 to 

4.0°C) above 1990 levels by the end of this century (EPA 2011b). An increase in 

the average temperature of the Earth may produce changes in sea levels, rainfall 

patterns, and intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. The IPCC, in 

its Fourth Assessment Report, stated that warming of the earth’s climate system 

is unequivocal and that warming is very likely due to anthropogenic (humancaused) GHG concentrations (IPCC 2007).

3.17.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

Climate

The planning area has a semiarid continental climate marked by cold winters, 

warm to rarely hot summers, winds primarily from the west, and abundant 

sunshine.

The average temperature in central Montana over the last thirty years is 

between 40oF and 50oF. The average January temperature is around 23oF. The 

average July temperature is about 66oF, though temperatures as high as 110oF 

have been recorded (Western Regional Climate Center 2012).

Average annual precipitation ranges from 11 inches to 22 inches, with an 

average of 15 inches of precipitation (Western Regional Climate Center 2012).

Snow in the mountain areas may be several feet deep. On the plains, snow more 

than 12 inches deep is uncommon but not rare. Snow generally falls between 

November and April, although traces have been reported at Lewistown in July 

and August.

Rainfall is concentrated between April and June. Precipitation from July through 

September is characterized by localized intense thunderstorms that can drop 

 

1There are six GHGs tracked by the IPCC: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, 

perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (State Department 2010). The latter three gases are known as high 

global warming potential gases due to their warming effectiveness (140 to 23,900 times greater than carbon 

dioxide) and their long atmospheric lifetimes (between 1-50,000 years) (EPA 2013). Carbon dioxide, methane, and 

nitrous oxide have both natural and human-generated sources, while high global warming potential gases are 

strictly human-generated from various industrial processes. GHGs are tracked as carbon dioxide equivalents, with 

one gram of carbon dioxide molecule counting as one and other GHG molecules counting as some multiple (EPA 

2012a).
3. Affected Environment (Climate)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-81

more than an inch of rain or hail on a small area in a few minutes. Low humidity, 

high temperatures, and moderate to strong winds cause rapid loss of soil 

moisture (Western Regional Climate Center 2013).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

GHG emissions are generally reported at national and statewide levels. 

Montana’s GHG emissions were inventoried by the state in 2005 (Montana 

Climate Change Advisory Committee 2007). In 2005, activities in Montana 

accounted for approximately 37 million metric tons of carbon dioxide 

equivalents gross emissions, approximately 0.6 percent of total US GHG

emissions. Montana’s gross emissions increased 11 percent from 1990 to 2004, 

while national emissions rose by 15 percent during this period.

Electricity use, agriculture, and transportation are Montana’s principal GHG

emissions sources. Together, the combustion of fossil fuels for electricity 

generation used in-state and in the transportation sector account for about 46 

percent of Montana’s gross emissions. The contribution of agriculture-related 

GHG emissions is much higher in Montana (26 percent) than in the nation as a 

whole (seven percent). The state also has higher levels of emissions from the 

fossil fuels industry—natural gas, oil products, and coal—than the national 

average (Montana Climate Change Advisory Committee 2007).

3.17.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

Conditions on BLM-administered lands are similar to those described above for 

the planning area.

3.17.3 Trends

Climate changes over the past 100 years are well documented, and climate 

change is expected to continue into the future. Fossil fuel combustion and other 

human-caused GHG-producing activities are ongoing, although public awareness 

and future regulations may reduce annual GHG emissions. Due to the long 

atmospheric lifetimes of most GHGs, climate change impacts will continue to 

increase for many years after GHG emissions decrease (EPA 2012a).

Over the past 100 years, annual temperature and precipitation have increased, 

and climate models predict that they will continue to increase through the 21st 

century. Extreme weather events such as severe drought and intense rainfall are 

expected to increase in frequency in the future as well (NCSL 2008). 

Depending on the model, in Montana temperatures are predicted to increase 3 

to 4°F by the mid-21st century and 5 to 6°F by the end of the century 

(USGCRP 2009). Precipitation is expected to be similar to existing conditions,

with small changes seasonally: a small increase during winter and spring, slight 

decrease in the summer, and relatively unchanged in the fall (USGCRP 2009). 

Annual median runoff is expected to decrease between two and five percent 

(USGCRP 2009).
3. Affected Environment (Climate)

3-82 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Temperature increases may increase crop yields, which may encourage parts of 

the state not previously used for agriculture to be obtained for that purpose 

(NRC 2010). The risk of wildfire is expected to increase throughout the state 

(NRC 2010). Future conditions for annual grasses in the planning area are 

expected to be similar to existing conditions of limited spread, given the 

anticipated temperature and precipitation changes. These hotter, drier 

conditions would be expected to exacerbate the spread of cheatgrass by 

increasing the risk of wildland fire and reducing the ability of native species to 

compete with nonnative species. Invasion by nonnative grasses can result in 

increased fire frequency, which typically results in removal of sagebrush canopy 

in affected areas with replacement by annual species that provide little, to no 

habitat value (Baker 2011).

3.18 SOIL RESOURCES

Soil processes determine, to a large extent, the structure and function of 

ecosystems. Soil health is integral to the BLM’s mandate to sustain the health, 

diversity, and productivity of BLM-administered lands.

The existing Headwaters Resource Management Plan has the following objective 

related to soils:

 Soils will be managed to maintain productivity and to minimize 

erosion.

The existing Judith Resource Area Resource Management Plan has the following 

objective related to soils:

 The BLM will maintain or improve soil productivity by increasing 

vegetation cover and reducing erosion.

Soil type and quality, along with climate, determine whether sagebrush can grow 

in a given location, and can determine the type or variety of sagebrush 

community that is able to thrive. Among other factors, the presence of GRSG is 

dependent upon the presence of sagebrush. Due to sagebrush type and viability 

being dependent on soil type and quality, soils are an important element to 

GRSG habitat.

3.18.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

In the portion of the planning area covered by the Judith Resource Area

Resource Management Plan, soils are derived from glacial till, sedimentary or 

igneous bedrock, and alluvium from mixed rock sources. This creates complex 

and diverse soil patterns, varying greatly in character capability, limitations and 

productivity. This diversity in soils is reflected in the four Physiographic 

Provinces that occur across the Judith Resource Area Resource Management 

Plan portion of the Planning Area (BLM 1992). These four Physiographic 

Provinces are described below.
3. Affected Environment (Soil Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-83

Soils located in the Glacial Till Upland Province formed during several periods of 

late Wisconsin glaciation and are found on landscapes that range from nearly 

level to gently rolling and from strongly rolling to steep, particularly along 

drainage-ways. The soils are commonly loamy or clayey till soils, with the clayey 

soils sometimes being poorly drained. Erosion hazards vary in the Glacial Till 

Upland Province, but are generally slight to moderate due to the gently rolling 

topography and short slopes. When disturbed or cultivated, erosion hazards 

increase, especially wind erosion hazards (BLM 1992).

Soils in the Sedimentary Uplands Province are composed of mostly clayey soils 

weathered from calcareous and acid shales, but loamy and sandy sedimentary 

uplands are also common. The soils in this province are usually fragile and highly 

erosive because of steep slopes and extreme physical properties such as high 

clay or salt content, slow permeability, relatively shallow depth to bedrock, and 

sparse vegetation ground cover. Wind and water erosion susceptibility is 

increased when vegetation ground cover is sparse. Due to the fragile nature of 

the soils in this portion of the planning area, they are highly susceptible to 

compaction, severe rutting, and erosion, caused by vehicular travel (BLM 1992).

The Alluvial Soils Province contains deep, clayey, loamy, and sandy soils in valley 

bottoms, valley sides, and slopes and upland terraces, with local areas that have 

rock fragments throughout the soil or in the underlying parent material. These 

soils have high vegetation production potential and are therefore used by 

livestock and wildlife, particularly near water sources. Soils with high clay 

contents in these areas are especially susceptible to compaction, which results 

in reduced water infiltration, which then leads to increased surface water runoff 

and associated erosion (BLM 1992).

The Mountains and Foothills Province is composed primarily of loamy and clayey 

soils that range from shallow to deep, and generally have rock fragments 

throughout the soil. The soils are found on bedrock ridges and on footslopes 

that form a rolling to very steep terrain with areas of bedrock and talus. Erosion 

hazards here are slight to high, and compaction susceptibility is moderate to 

high (BLM 1992).

The Headwaters Resource Management Plan notes that soil data is incomplete 

for the Meagher County, which is the only portion of the planning area covered 

by this RMP. This data is still unavailable from the NRCS (it is in the publishing 

phase at this time of writing); however, GIS mapping provided the major soil 

orders in the planning area, described below.

Soils are categorized into 12 orders that are based on the conditions under 

which the soil develop, with each order having specific inherent soil properties.

NRCS data indicates that entisols, mollisols, and vertisols are the predominate 

soils of the planning area. Entisols are often classified as young soils, or soils that 

are characterized by little to no soil horizon (layer) development, and poor 

surface nutrient or organic content. Soil characteristics of Mollisols include dark 
3. Affected Environment (Soil Resources)

3-84 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

colored soils with high base chemical content (as opposed to acidic content), 

high mineral content, and a nutrient enriched surface layer (A horizon). 

Vertisols are clayey soils that often swell when moistened and shrink when dry, 

resulting in characteristic cracks in the soil through at least part of the year 

(NRCS 1999).

Soil orders that comprise the remaining portions of the planning area include 

Alfisols, Inceptisols, and Aridisols. Alfisols are characterized by a thin or light 

surface horizon that is rich in nutrients, and often have a clayey subsurface 

horizon. Inceptisols commonly occur in areas of active erosion, such as slopes, 

and as a result are characterized by poorly developed soil layers or horizons, 

with thin surface layers that often have little organic content. Aridisols are 

characterized by a low water holding potential or capacity, and can have high 

salt contents (NRCS 1999).

3.18.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

Soil classifications and interpretations on BLM-administered land are provided 

through a series of tables that breakdown the planning area into dominant soil 

orders, NRCS farmlands, acreage with sensitive soils, and soil restoration 

potential classes.

Table 3-50 provides acreage numbers for soils within the BLM-administered 

lands that occur within the planning area (see Figure 3-8, Major Soil Orders, in 

Appendix A).

Table 3-50

Dominant Soil Order on BLM-Administered Lands

Headwaters

Total

(acres)

PH

(acres)

GH

(acres)

Alfisols 313 0 13 (4%)

Entisols 139 0 60 (43%)

Inceptisols 1,138 0 3 (0.3%)

Mollisols 4,330 0 265 (6%)

Undefined 1,961 0 70 (4%)

Judith Resource 

Area Acreage PH GH

Alfisols 48,771 34,511 (71%) 1,612 (3%)

Aridisols 24,538 21,078 (86%) 2,034 (8%)

Entisols 312,956 88,252 (28%) 79,429 (25%)

Inceptisols 44,228 12,430 (28%) 8,652 (20%)

Mollisols 76,952 29,934 (39%) 9,193 (12%)

Vertisols 63,876 42,919 (67%) 6,044 (9%)
3. Affected Environment (Soil Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-85

Table 3-50

Dominant Soil Order on BLM-Administered Lands

Headwaters

Total

(acres)

PH

(acres)

GH

(acres)

Undefined 14,773 4,093 (28%) 4,933 (33%)

Source: BLM 2012a

NRCS farmlands on BLM-administered and private lands within the planning 

area are shown in Table 3-51 NRCS Farmlands in Planning Areaand in Figure 

3-9, NRCS Farmland Classification, in Appendix A.

Table 3-51

NRCS Farmlands in Planning Area

Headwaters BLM 

(acres)

BLM PH

(acres)

BLM GH

(acres)

Private 

(acres)

Private

PH

(acres)

Private 

GH

(acres)

Prime 200 0 0 37,180 0 16,860

(45%)

Statewide 

Importance

270 0 10

(4%)

77,120 0 36,710

(48%)

Not Primeland 15,740 0 420

(3%)

815,110 0 577,740

(71%)

Prime if Irrigated 70 0 0 24,550 0 14,670

(60%)

Judith Resource 

Area

BLM 

(acres)

BLM PH

(acres)

BLM GH

(acres)

Private 

(acres)

Private

PH

(acres)

Private 

GH

(acres)

Prime 800 250

(31%)

150

(19%)

341,230 1,950

(0.5%)

13,780

(4%) 

Statewide 

Importance

49,330 15,880

(32%)

7,120

(49%)

801,220 104,780

(13%)

85,280

(11%)

Not Primeland 560,720 210,960

(38%)

102,660

(18%)

3,974,740 1,071,280

(27%)

552,210

(14%)

Prime if Irrigated 18,270 6,130

(34%)

1,960

(11%)

324,630 29,960

(9%)

59,570

(18%)

Source: BLM 2012a

Sensitive soils on BLM-administered lands and BLM sub-surface administered 

lands within the planning area are shown in Table 3-52. Sensitive soils in the 

planning area are classified as soils that are susceptible to water erosion and 

soils that have low restoration potentials. The planning area does not have soils 

susceptible to wind erosion. 
3. Affected Environment (Soil Resources)

3-86 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 3-52

Sensitive Soils in the Planning Area

Land Status 

Acreage with 

Severe Water 

Erosion Potential

Acreage with Low 

Soil Restoration 

Potential

BLM 179,431 73,388

Department of Defense 2 0

USFWS 25,327 5,872

Private 720,505 403,104

State Land 81,471 39,356

State Water 3,523 970

Forest Service 16,489 399

Water 327 1,565

Source: BLM 2012a

Soil Restoration Potential on BLM-administered lands within the planning area is

shown in Table 3-53, and Figure 3-10 in Appendix A.

Table 3-53

Soil Restoration Potential on BLM-Administered Lands

Headwaters Total (acres) PH (acres) GH (acres)

High 4,626 0 270 (6%)

Moderate 1,172 0 41 (3%)

Low 123 0 60 (49%)

Not Rated 1,964 0 70 (4%)

Judith Resource Area Total PH (acres) GH (acres)

High 191,904 78,718 (41%) 32,714 (17%)

Moderate 309,409 93,798 (30%) 70,772 (23%)

Low 73,265 59,567 (81%) 3,639 (5%)

Not Rated 11,516 1,133 (10%) 4,471 (39%)

Source: BLM 2012a

3.18.3 Trends

Qualitative observations indicate that soil health, stability, and watershed health 

has improved overall on BLM-administered lands; however, there are areas 

where soil health and stability is diminishing due to concentrated commercial 

and recreational use and activities.
3. Affected Environment (Water Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-87

3.19 WATER RESOURCES

Streams and water quality are the focus of this section. Wetlands (including 

riparian areas) are discussed in Section 3.6. Water on BLM-administered lands 

is regulated by the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Public Land 

Health Standards, and other laws, regulations, and policy guidance at the federal, 

state, and local levels.

3.19.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

The major sources of surface water in the planning area are the Missouri River, 

Sacagawea River (Crooked Creek), Musselshell River, Sun River, Dearborn 

River, Judith River, and Smith River. These rivers are tributaries of the Missouri 

River. Smaller watercourses in the planning area involve streams that can be 

ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial. Lakes can be permanent or temporary

(see Figure 3-11 in Appendix A). Wetlands and floodplains vary in extent and 

depth throughout the year (see Figure 3-2 in Appendix A). Permanent 

waters can also be in the form of wells, springs, ponds, diversions, and 

reservoirs developed for human, wildlife or livestock consumption, as seen in 

Table 3-54. Dams and pits provide drinking water sources for GRSG, but can 

also provide habitat for mosquitos, which can increase the risk of spreading 

West Nile virus transmission among GRSG populations. Other water 

developments such as underground wells do not provide a drinking water 

source for GRSG, but also do not provide a habitat for mosquitos.

Table 3-54

Developed Water Sources in the Planning Area

Habitat Type Feature Type Number of Features 

No Habitat

Dam/Pit 2,919

Other -

GH

Dam/Pit 838

Other 3,816

PH

Dam/Pit 2,420

Other 3,699

Source: BLM 2012a

3.19.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

This discussion of existing conditions includes a description of surface water, 

water quality, and groundwater. The description is limited to BLM-administered 

lands within the planning area, especially lands within GRSG habitat.

Surface Water

Stream flow volumes differ greatly within the planning area. Flows in unregulated 

streams have large seasonal variations, with the largest flows generally occurring 

during spring or early summer as a result of snowmelt and rainstorms. Peak 

flows on prairie streams occur in March or April resulting from snowmelt. 
3. Affected Environment (Water Resources)

3-88 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Larger peak flows on small drainages can occur from intense summer 

thunderstorms, but generally not on an annual basis. Peak flows on mountain 

streams occur from late May to early June. The peaks are less sharp than on 

prairie streams. Summer rainstorms can result in short intervals of increased 

stream flow during June through September. During winter, stream flow in 

prairie streams is greatly reduced or absent as a result of little ground water 

inflow and ice formation (BLM 1994).

Ephemeral streams do not flow during an average water year but do flow in 

response to large precipitation events. Intermittent streams flow during spring 

runoff for an average water year, but generally dry up later in the summer. 

Perennial streams contain some water all year for an average water year. Most 

of the streams on BLM-administered land in the planning area are intermittent 

and flow from March to July. However, streams can still contain water during 

other months due to stored water being fed to the streams from shallow 

groundwater sources or floodplains. Table 3-55 lists information watersheds 

on BLM-administered lands; Table 3-56 lists information for perennial and 

intermittent streams on BLM-administered lands in the planning area; and Table 

3-57 lists information for ponds and lakes on BLM-administered lands in the 

planning area.

Table 3-55

Watershed Acreages in the Planning Area

Watershed BLM PH BLM PH GH BLM GH

Arrow 26,275 0 0 73,548 20,801

Belt 1677 0 0 0 0

Box Elder 58,422 195,060 49,704 24,276 1,950

Bullwhacker-Dog 9,438 53,763 437 12,442 1,125

Flatwillow 55,548 119,038 39,583 87,849 5,582

Fort Peck Reservoir 32,086 108,179 12,901 51,364 14,393

Judith 25,635 0 0 86,464 14,915

Lower Musselshell 123,465 120,300 23,523 49,482 22,047

Middle Musselshell 10252 85,364 6,364 30,541 3,888

Smith 153 0 0 2,827 0

Upper Missouri 645 0 0 2,384 0

Upper Musselshell 1,044 0 0 37,917 144

Source: BLM 2012a
3. Affected Environment (Water Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-89

Table 3-56

Streams on BLM-Administered Lands in the Planning Area

RMP Intermittent or Perennial

Stream Miles GRSG Habitat Type

Headwaters Intermittent: 21.0 No habitat

Headwaters Perennial: 0.8 No habitat

Headwaters Intermittent: 3.4 GH

Headwaters Perennial: 0.0 GH

Judith Resource Area Intermittent: 1237.4 No habitat

Judith Resource Area Perennial: 22.9 No habitat

Judith Resource Area Intermittent: 706.1 GH

Judith Resource Area Perennial: 8.1 GH

Judith Resource Area Intermittent: 1320.4 PH

Judith Resource Area Perennial: 12.8 PH

Source: BLM 2012a

Table 3-57

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

Lands in the Planning Area

RMP GRSG Habitat Type in Wetlands Acres

Headwaters GH <1

Headwaters Outside of GRSG habitat <1

Judith Resource Area PH 974

Judith Resource Area GH 60

Judith Resource Area Outside of GRSG habitat 209

Total 1,243

Source: BLM 2012a

Riparian areas are ecosystems that occur along rivers, streams, or waterbodies. 

These areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of 

permanent surface or subsurface water influence. Typical riparian areas are 

lands along, adjacent to, or contiguous with perennially and intermittently 

flowing rivers, streams, and shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water 

levels. Excluded are such sites as ephemeral streams or washes that do not 

exhibit vegetation dependent on free water in the soil. Wetlands are areas that 

are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and 

duration sufficient to support and which, under normal circumstances, do 

support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil 

conditions. Wetlands include marshes, swamps, lakeshores, sloughs, bogs, wet 
3. Affected Environment (Water Resources)

3-90 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

meadows, estuaries, and riparian areas. Even though riparian and wetland areas 

occupy only a small percentage of BLM-administered land in the planning area 

(approximately 0.4 percent), these areas provide a wide range of functions 

critical to many different wildlife species, improve water quality, provide 

scenery, and provide recreational opportunities. 

Healthy surface water sources (such as ponds, lakes, and wetlands) provide 

habitat for insects and animals that are predators of mosquitos. Areas that both 

have standing water and do not support predators of mosquitos can be areas 

where mosquito populations increase. The conditions of wetlands (including 

riparian areas) are discussed in Section 3.6.

Water developments are also influential sources of water for wildlife. Water 

developments can function for multiple uses. They provide additional and 

alternative sources of water for wildlife and livestock, and can decrease use of 

riparian areas. Within the planning area, most of the water developments are 

intended for livestock, followed by water developments intended for fish. There 

are 13,702 water developments in the decision area, and 10,733 water 

developments in GRSG habitat, none of which are for GRSG. However, wildlife 

will often take advantage of available water developments.

Water Quality

Water quality, as defined by the Clean Water Act, includes all the physical, 

biological, and chemical characteristics which affect existing and designated 

beneficial uses. The State of Montana is required to identify which beneficial 

uses a water body currently supports or could support in the future. Water 

quality standards are established to protect the beneficial uses of the state’s 

waters. Beneficial uses are identified for specific waters.

The State of Montana is required by Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act to 

identify waters which are water quality impaired because of failing to meet their 

designated beneficial uses. Section 303(d) requires that each state develop a list of 

water bodies that fail to meet water quality standards and delineate stream 

segments and listing criteria for all streams. The Section 303(d) list of impaired 

waters is updated biannually, and the state is required to develop a total 

maximum daily load allocation for each pollutant of concern. Table 3-58 lists 

information for impaired streams on BLM-administered lands in the planning area.

Upland and, especially riparian land health conditions greatly influence water 

quality. The functioning condition of riparian and wetland areas is a result of the 

interaction of geology, soil, water, and vegetation (BLM 1998). Riparian areas 

surrounding rivers, streams, and springs (lotic waters) are in PFC when 

adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to:

 Dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflows, thereby 

reducing erosion and improving water quality
3. Affected Environment (Water Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-91

Table 3-58

Impaired Streams on BLM-Administered Lands in the Planning Area

RMP

GRSG 

Habitat 

Type

Cause or Source of Stream 

Impairment Stream Name Miles

Headwaters No Habitat

Sedimentation/Siltation [CFL 1990], 

Phosphorus (Total) [CFL 2006], Nitrogen 

(Total) [CFL 2006], Temperature, water 

[CFL 1988]

Elk Creek 0.26

Sedimentation/Siltation [CFL 1990], 

Temperature, water [CFL 2006], 

Phosphorus (Total) [CFL 2006]

Battle Creek 0.42

Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones, 

Natural Sources

North Fork 

Musselshell River 0.32

Judith 

Resource 

Area

No Habitat

Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones, 

Natural Sources Blood Creek 9.02

Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones, 

Flow Alterations from Water Diversions, 

Impacts from Resort Areas (Winter and 

Non-winter Resorts), Agriculture, Impacts 

from Hydrostructure Flow 

Regulation/modification, Streambank 

Modifications/destabilization

Musselshell River 1.33

Cadmium [CFL 1992], pH [CFL 1992], 

Mercury [CFL 1992], Copper [CFL 1992], 

Zinc [CFL 1992]

Armells Creek 1.60

Cyanide [CFL 2004], Thallium [CFL 2004], 

Selenium [CFL 2004], Iron [CFL 2004]

Last Chance 

Creek 0.14

Iron [CFL 2006], Phosphorus (Total) [CFL 

2006], Aluminum [CFL 2006], Lead [CFL 

2006], Nitrogen (Total) [CFL 2006]

Fargo Coulee 0.09

Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) 

[CFL 2004], Sedimentation/Siltation [CFL 

2004]

Dog Creek 10.98

pH [CFL 1992], Lead [CFL 1992], Zinc 

[CFL 1992] Chicago Gulch 1.33

pH [CFL 1992], Lead [CFL 1992], Zinc 

[CFL 1992] Collar Gulch 2.50

Sedimentation/Siltation [CFL 1988], 

Chromium (total) [CFL 1988], Copper 

[CFL 1988]

Belt Creek 0.20

Sedimentation/Siltation [CFL 1996], 

Nitrates [CFL 2000] Big Otter Creek 0.00

Sedimentation/Siltation [CFL 2002] North Fork 

Flatwillow Creek 0.28

Selenium [CFL 2006], Total Dissolved 

Solids [CFL 2006], Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite 

+ Nitrate as N) [CFL 1990]

Coffee Creek 0.92
3. Affected Environment (Water Resources)

3-92 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 3-58

Impaired Streams on BLM-Administered Lands in the Planning Area

RMP

GRSG 

Habitat 

Type

Cause or Source of Stream 

Impairment Stream Name Miles

Judith 

Resource 

Area

GH

Agriculture, Grazing in Riparian or 

Shoreline Zones, Loss of Riparian Habitat, 

Rangeland Grazing

Judith River 6.96

Agriculture, Channelization, Streambank 

Modifications/destabilization, Impacts from 

Hydrostructure Flow 

Regulation/modification

Musselshell River 0.91

Iron [CFL 2006] Arrow Creek 0.74

Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) 

[CFL 2004], Sedimentation/Siltation [CFL 

2004]

Dog Creek 1.33

Selenium [CFL 2006], Iron [CFL 2006], 

Total Dissolved Solids [CFL 1992] Wolf Creek 0.25

Selenium [CFL 2006], Total Dissolved 

Solids [CFL 2006], Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite 

+ Nitrate as N) [CFL 1990]

Coffee Creek 0.23

Judith 

Resource 

Area

PH

Unknown Reason for Stream Impairment Snoose Creek 4.59

Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones, 

Natural Sources Blood Creek 11.86

Agriculture, Channelization, Streambank 

Modifications/destabilization, Impacts from 

Hydrostructure Flow 

Regulation/modification

Musselshell River 0.03

Iron [CFL 2006], Phosphorus (Total) [CFL 

2006], Aluminum [CFL 2006], Lead [CFL 

2006], Nitrogen (Total) [CFL 2006]

Fargo Coulee 0.03

Iron [CFL 2006], Sulfates [CFL 2006], 

Phosphorus (Total) [CFL 2006], 

Sedimentation/Siltation [CFL 1994], Specific 

Conductance [CFL 2006], Solids 

(Suspended/Bedload) [CFL 1994], Nitrogen 

(Total) [CFL 2006]

North Willow 

Creek 2.03

Total Dissolved Solids [CFL 2006], 

Sedimentation/Siltation [CFL 1988], Specific 

Conductance [CFL 2006]

McDonald Creek 0.04

Source: BLM 2012a

CFL = cycle first listed

 Filter sediments, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development

 Improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge

 Develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting 

action
3. Affected Environment (Water Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-93

 Develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the 

habitat, water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish 

production, waterfowl breeding and other uses

 Support greater biodiversity

Streams that are in PFC typically have channel dimensions that are appropriate 

for the landscape and setting and adequate riparian-wetland vegetation to 

stabilize banks from cutting action. Both of these features help to reduce 

erosion and mitigate non-point source pollutants, thereby improving water 

quality. Functional conditions of streams on BLM-administered lands can be 

found in Table 3-22. However, PFC does not connote adequate or good water 

quality. Water of poor water quality flowing into a section of stream with PFC 

would still have poor water quality.

Groundwater

Groundwater is used for irrigation, domestic use, and livestock use. The quality 

of the groundwater is a function of the chemical makeup of the underground 

formation containing the water. Springs and seeps occur in areas where water 

from aquifers reaches the surface. Many springs begin in stream channels; others 

flow into small ponds or marshy areas that drain into channels. Some springs 

and seep areas form their own channels that reach flowing streams, but other 

springs lose their surface expression and recharge alluvial fill material or 

permeable stratum.

Springs and seeps are important to aquatic habitats because of the perennial 

base flow they provide to a stream. The outflow from springs in summer usually 

helps to maintain lower water temperatures. In winter, especially in small 

streams, base flow helps to maintain an aquatic habitat in an otherwise frozen 

environment.

Springs have been disturbed either by management activities that have affected 

the volume of water available to the vegetation and soils where springs begin, or 

by activities that have affected the vegetation and soils directly. Activities, such 

as grazing, water developments, recreation use, mining, road construction, and 

vegetation management, have affected spring systems in the past. Activities such 

as well drilling or blasting can affect springs by reducing the amount of water in 

their aquifers or by affecting subsurface flow patterns.

3.19.3 Trends

Demands on water resources have increased over the past few decades. 

Although most early water rights were established for irrigation and livestock, 

today’s demand includes municipal water supplies, commercial and industrial 

supplies, and maintenance of adequate stream flows for fish, recreation, and 

water quality.
3. Affected Environment (Water Resources)

3-94 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Management activities involving ROW disturbance, grazing, and fire have created 

situations that alter land health, thereby impairing water quality. Livestock water 

impoundments have altered surface and subsurface water flow. The number of 

new livestock water impoundments has leveled off due to a lack of appropriate 

locations for such developments. Consequently, future water developments are 

expected to rely more on wells and stock tanks.

The availability of water in much of the planning area is limited and may hamper 

additional developments that depend on water. Future water development for 

wildlife, recreation, and livestock would require a water right before project 

implementation could occur. Any additional water developments would require 

adhering to Montana state laws for surface and ground water.

3.20 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES—OTHER SPECIES OF ISSUE

This section provides a description of special status species other than GRSG. 

Refer to Section 3.4, Greater Sage-Grouse, for a discussion of GRSG. Section 

3.4 also includes a discussion of special status species policies and regulations.

3.20.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

The planning area consists of over 7.3 million acres of land which provides 

potential habitat for special status species (Table 3-59). The BLM directly 

manages approximately 593,993 acres of habitat within the planning area. Private 

landowners, the State of Montana, and others (not managed by an organization) 

hold the remaining 6.7 million acres within the planning area. It is critical to 

work with all landowners and resource agencies throughout the planning area 

to provide protection for special status species since the majority of habitat 

across the landscape is held by entities outside of the BLM.

Table 3-59

Habitat by Ownership within the Planning Area

BLM State Private Other Total

GH (acres) 112,341

(11%)

83,438 

(8%)

816,869 

(80%)

2,378

(0.2%)

1,015,035

PH (acres) 233,219 

(19%)

90,587

(7%)

878,171 

(73%)

6,017 

(0.5%)

1,207,994

Outside of GRSG 

habitat (acres)

248,435

(5%)

352,479 

(7%)

3,473,125 

(68%)

1,014,451 

(20%)

5,088,490

Total 593,995

(8%)

526,504 

(7%)

5,168,165

(71%)

1,022,855 

(14%)

7,311,519

Source: BLM 2012a

Federally Proposed, Threatened, and Endangered Species

Within the counties of the planning area (Chouteau, Fergus, Judith Basin, 

Meagher and Petroleum), the USFWS (USFWS 2015) identified Canada lynx 

(Threatened), Black-footed ferret (Endangered), and Pallid sturgeon 
3. Affected Environment (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-95

(Endangered) in one or more counties “where one would reasonably expect the 

species to occur.” No proposed species are listed for any counties within the 

planning area.

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) Threatened

No Critical Habitat occurs in the planning area. GRSG GH in Meagher County 

occurs in mapped lynx secondary habitat (Forest Service 2007) and is adjacent 

to unoccupied habitat on the Helena and Lewis & Clark National Forests. The 

remaining PH and GH are outside of mapped lynx habitat.

Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) Endangered

The nearest ferret population is approximately 10 miles north of GRSG habitat 

in the planning area and is north of the Missouri River on the Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge in Phillips County. No prairie dog colonies occur in the 

planning area on PH and GH of sufficient size to support black-footed ferrets.

Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) Endangered

Pallid sturgeon occurs in the Missouri River, and GH occurs adjacent to 

sturgeon habitat west of Fort Benton. No active leks occur in this area, and the 

closest lek occurs on state land 1.5 miles from the Missouri River. The closest 

PH in the planning area is approximately 1.5 miles south of the Missouri River.

More detailed information regarding special status species, including status and 

general habitat descriptions for confirmed or potentially known species to 

inhabit the planning area, can be found in Appendix L.

3.20.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

The planning area has over 1.2 million acres of PH and over one million acres of 

GH; however, the BLM manages 233,219 acres of PH and 112,341 acres of GH 

(refer to Table 3-59). The BLM-administered lands have the potential to 

provide habitat to a wide range of special status species (see Appendix L).

3.20.3 Trends

The State of Montana provides status and trends data for special status species 

on the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) website (MTNHP 2014a

and 2014b). Below is a general description of the current trends for special 

status animal and plant species in Montana.

Animals

A list of special status animal species with the potential to inhabit the planning 

area is included in Appendix L. Special status mammals, birds, reptiles and 

amphibians are vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in Montana due to 

limited or declining populations and declining range or habitat. Breeding 

populations of mountain plover and chestnut-collared longspur are at greatest 

risk of extirpation or extinction for bird species. The northern leopard frog is 

likely to occur in GRSG habitat and is at high risk to global extinction or 

extirpation in the state.
3. Affected Environment (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

3-96 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Plants

No special status plant species are known to inhabit BLM-administered lands 

within the planning area; however, whitebark pine has been documented within 

the planning area counties and is vulnerable to pine beetle outbreaks (MTNHP 

2014a).

3.21 FISH AND WILDLIFE

MFWP and USFWS are directly responsible for the management of fish and 

wildlife species in the planning area, and the BLM is responsible for land 

management. Therefore, on BLM-administered lands in the planning area, the 

BLM is directly responsible for the management of habitat for fish and wildlife 

species and indirectly responsible for the health of fish and wildlife populations 

that are supported by these habitats.

Implementation of any of the alternatives would result in general and 

unquantifiable indirect beneficial effects for fish in terms of greater protection 

through new restrictions on surface and resource use resulting in reduced 

opportunities for surface disturbance or habitat disruption where they exist.

Therefore, general fish species will not be discussed further in Chapter 3.

The wildlife habitats that occur in the planning area are primarily characterized 

in the vegetation, soil, and water, and vegetation existing conditions discussions 

in Sections 3.6, Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and 

Wetlands), 3.18, Soil Resources, and 3.19, Water Resources, respectively. See 

Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 for acres of PH and GH within vegetation types on 

lands in the LFO. The discussions of aquatic and terrestrial habitat below 

identify attributes of these resources that are particularly important to their 

role in providing habitat. Table 3-60 lists species of high priority for BLM 

management efforts due to their economic value, regulatory status, high public 

interest, or other qualities. Special status species are described in Section 3.20, 

Special Status Species—Other Species of Issue.

Table 3-60

Wildlife Species of the Lewistown Field Office

Species or Group Rationale for Key Designation

Birds

Waterfowl and migratory birds (cranes, ducks, 

geese, and swans)

Economic and recreational value/high interest 

and protected by law

Upland game (partridge, pheasant, and grouse) Economic and recreational value

Eagles/other raptors (hawks) High interest, protected by law, keystone 

species

Mammals

Big game (elk, deer, pronghorn) High interest, economic and recreational value
3. Affected Environment (Fish and Wildlife)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-97

Table 3-60

Wildlife Species of the Lewistown Field Office

Species or Group Rationale for Key Designation

Herptiles

Reptiles Ecological function and indicators of ecosystem 

health

Amphibians Ecological function and indicators of ecosystem 

health

Source: MTNHP 2014b

3.21.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

There are 7.3 million acres within the planning area and the BLM directly 

manages nearly 593,995 acres of wildlife habitat (refer to Table 3-59). The 

remaining 6.7 million acres are primarily held by private landowners. The 

presence and interspersion of many habitat types support a large number of 

wildlife species throughout the planning area regardless of ownership. The 

discussion of wildlife populations and habitat addresses the entire planning area, 

not just the lands managed by BLM. Since wildlife are mobile and may readily 

cross these boundaries, it is important to work cooperatively with all 

landowners and resource agencies to improve wildlife management throughout 

the planning area.

Big game including elk (Cervus canadensis), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), 

white-tailed deer (O. virginianus), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), mountain 

lion (Puma concolor), black bear (Ursus americanus); upland game birds including 

pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus), 

and gray (Hungarian) partridge (Perdix perdix); and numerous waterfowl species 

are among the species that use habitat in the planning area. The diversity and 

populations of wildlife throughout the planning area provide considerable 

recreational opportunities and economic benefits for the State of Montana. A 

minimum of 81 species of mammals, 303 species of birds, and 21 species of 

amphibians and reptiles occur in the planning area (MTNHP 2014b).

Wildlife species of primary management concern to one or more agencies, such 

as the BLM, MFWP, and USFWS include game species, rare, or keystone 

species. Therefore, they require consideration in management activities and may 

affect land management decisions. A keystone species is one whose presence 

and role within an ecosystem has a disproportionate effect on other organisms 

within the system. 

3.21.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

The LFO has 345,560 acres of GRSG habitat including 233,219 acres of PH

(refer to Table 3-59). These lands have the potential to provide habitat to a 

wide range of wildlife species as described above in Section 3.21.1, Conditions 

of the Planning Area.
3. Affected Environment (Fish and Wildlife)

3-98 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

3.21.3 Trends

Wildlife species trend data for the planning area were obtained from the 

MTNHP Tracker web tool (MTNHP 2014b). Below are general descriptions of 

the current trends for key wildlife species groups as described in Section 

3.21.1.

The majority of waterfowl within the planning area are common, widespread, 

and abundant (although they may be rare in parts of their ranges). These 

common waterfowl species are not considered vulnerable in most of its range 

or during the breeding season. Harlequin duck populations are at risk; hooded 

merganser and trumpeter swan are potential species of concern and species of 

concern respectively. Gray partridge and ring-necked pheasant are introduced 

upland game bird species, and their statuses are not ranked by the State of 

Montana. These upland birds occur year round in all five counties within the 

planning area. GRSG are currently being considered for listing by the ESA. For 

more information regarding GRSG refer to Section 3.4. The sharp-tailed 

grouse population within the planning area is secure though it may be quite rare 

in parts of its range. Sensitive raptor species are secure to declining throughout 

the planning area. Big game species of Montana including elk, mule deer, whitetail deer, and pronghorn antelope as well as black bear are considered common, 

widespread, and abundant. Mountain lion populations are secure to declining 

within its range. In general, reptile and amphibian populations within the LFO 

are not in decline or at risk of extinction (Maxell et al. 2009).

3.22 RENEWABLE ENERGY

Renewable energy projects on BLM-administered lands throughout the US 

include wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass projects and the siting of 

transmission facilities needed to deliver this power to the consumer. 

Geothermal heat is also considered a leasable mineral and is governed by the 

Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. There are no geothermal resources within the 

planning area; therefore, geothermal resources will not be discussed in 

Chapter 3 or Chapter 4.

As of 2010, the BLM’s renewable energy policy is directed by the following 

regulations and executive orders:

 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Title II, Section 211), which requires 

the DOI to approve at least 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy

on public lands by 2015.

 Executive Order 13212, Actions to Expedite Energy-Related 

Projects, which requires federal agencies to expedite review of 

energy project applications.

 Secretarial Order 3285, which requires the DOI to identify and 

prioritize specific locations best suited for large-scale renewable 

energy production.
3. Affected Environment (Renewable Energy)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-99

Additionally, the BLM has specific guidance for certain types of renewable 

energy. The main IMs are summarized here:

 IM 2011-003, Solar Energy Development Policy (BLM 2011c), 

establishes policy for the processing of ROW applications for solar 

energy development projects on BLM-administered lands and 

evaluating the feasibility of installing solar energy systems on BLM 

administrative facilities and projects.

 IM 2009-043, Wind Energy Development Policy (BLM 2008e), 

provides updated guidance on processing ROW applications for 

wind energy projects on BLM-administered lands.

 IM 2011-061, Solar and Wind Energy Applications – Pre-Application 

and Screening (2011d), establishes screening criteria used by the 

BLM to assist in prioritizing the processing of and in determining 

what actions to take on new and existing solar and wind energy 

development ROW applications. The processing of applications with 

the least environmental resource conflicts should facilitate the 

development of environmentally responsible solar and wind energy 

projects on the public lands, consistent with the provisions of the 

Secretarial Order.

 IM 2004-227, Biomass Utilization Strategy (BLM 2004b), updated in 

July 2005, provides sets of goals to help focus and increase 

utilization of biomass from BLM-administered lands. In June 2005, 

the final rule in the Federal Register revised the authority of 48 

CFR, Part 1452 by adding 1452.237-71, which is a new contract 

clause for removal and utilization of woody biomass generated as a 

result of land management service contracts whenever ecologically 

and lawfully appropriate. The BLM issued IM 2009-120 in May 2009, 

which updated the contract clause for utilization for woody biomass 

(BLM 2009d).

Solar and wind projects are authorized via the ROW authorization process. 

ROW applications for development on BLM-administered lands must be 

accompanied by a processing fee as set forth in 43 CFR, Part 2804.14. ROW 

applications are generally accepted and processed on a first-come, first-served 

basis. The ROW regulations (43 CFR, Part 2804.23[c]) provide authority for 

offering BLM-administered lands under competitive bidding procedures for 

ROW authorizations. The BLM may initiate a competitive process if a land use 

planning decision has specifically identified an area for competition, or when two 

or more applications are submitted for the same facility or system. The BLM 

may also consider other public interest and technical factors in determining 

whether to offer lands for competitive leasing. Competitive bidding follows 

procedures required by 43 CFR, Part 2804.23(c).
3. Affected Environment (Renewable Energy)

3-100 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

3.22.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

WAFWA Management Zones 1 and 4

There are no acres of solar or wind energy ROWs in the planning area (Manier 

et al. 2013). Below is a summary of renewable energy interest in Montana.

Solar

No interest in commercial-scale solar energy development has occurred in 

Montana. Fewer annual days of sunshine and the low angle of the sun during the 

winter contribute to low solar development in the state.

Wind Energy

A number of new wind farms have been developed and proposed on private 

lands along the I-15 corridor in northwestern Montana in proximity to the 

recently approved Montana Alberta Tie Line transmission project. Projects 

continue to be proposed all across Montana in a number of counties. However, 

the distance from current transmission infrastructure continues to be a 

challenge for wind developers in Montana, and grid capacity is also be a limiting 

factor. Currently, the only wind facility authorized on BLM-administered lands in 

the Montana/Dakotas is located in South Dakota.

The LFO planning area has three sites on private lands, with a total of 42 wind 

turbines (Diffendorfer et al. 2014). Spion Kop in Chouteau County is near the 

south end of the Highwood Mountains and has 25 turbines. In the Belt 

Mountains, 17 turbines (11 in the north area and 6 in the south) are in two 

areas near Martinsdale in Meagher County. The wind facility near Judith Gap is 

in Wheatland County outside of the planning area.

Biomass

Montana may have good prospects for biomass development using its 

agricultural resources and land base. The growth of this energy development

will still be hampered in Montana by lack of easy access to large consumption 

markets.

3.22.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory only considers solar resources to 

be viable when they occur at intensities of 6.0 kilowatt hours per square meter 

per day, and allocate designations of “Good,” “Excellent,” or “Premium.” Solar 

potential on BLM-administered land in the Lewistown District is below 6.0 

kilowatt hours per square meter per day. Therefore, no BLM-administered lands 

in the planning area are considered likely to be pursued by commercial energy 

developers for utility scale solar (that is, ≥20 megawatts electricity that will be 

delivered into the electricity transmission grid [Manier et al. 2013]).

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory only considers wind resources to 

be viable when they occur at intensities of 400 watts per square meter or 

higher, and allocate designations of “Good,” “Excellent,” or “Outstanding” wind 
3. Affected Environment (Renewable Energy)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-101

potential. Only 16 percent, or 62,916 acres, of the BLM-administered land in the 

Lewistown District has wind potential greater than 400 watts per square meter. 

Approximately 70 percent of this acreage is found within PH and another nine 

percent of this acreage is found within GH. Table 3-61 shows the wind 

potential for all the BLM-administered Lands in LFO.

Table 3-61

Wind Potential on Slopes <15% on BLM-administered Lands

Wind Potential Total acres PH acres GH acres

Class 2, Poor, (below 300) 83,774 10,657 (13%) 1,552 (2%)

Class 3, Fair, (300-400) 248,989 165,627 (67%) 30,176 (12%)

Class 4, Good (400-500) 55,950 41,601 (74%) 5,247 (9%)

Class 5, Excellent (500-600) 5,701 2,121 (37% 301 (5%)

Class 6, Outstanding (600+) 1,265 6 (0.5%) 46 (4%)

Source: BLM 2012a

3.22.3 Trends

Within the planning area, greater pressure to develop renewable energy

resources on BLM-administered lands could occur as a result of public energy 

policy coming from individual states or the federal government. The 

development of more energy-efficient technologies for wind, biomass, and solar 

power will continue to grow with increasing regulation and price of fossil fuels 

and the increasing demand for energy products. In Montana, the source of 

renewable energy will most likely be wind energy, as Montana is ranked as the 

fifth highest state in wind energy potential by the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory (NREL 2011).

3.23 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

This section discusses the social and economic conditions of the planning area. 

These conditions are discussed in greater detail in the Lewistown Field Office 

Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS Socioeconomic Baseline Assessment Report 

prepared in support of the planning effort (Forest Service Enterprise 2013).

Changes in BLM management of GRSG habitats are anticipated to have a 

considerable impact on existing GRSG populations and have the potential to 

affect local social and economic conditions. Certain defining features of every 

area influence and shape the nature of local social and economic conditions.

These defining characteristics include the local population, the presence of or 

proximity to large cities or regional population centers, types of longstanding 

industries, predominant land and water features, and unique area amenities. The 

characteristics of counties in Central Montana containing GRSG habitat 

influence the relationship between BLM-administered lands and local social and 

economic activity.
3. Affected Environment (Social and Economic Conditions)

3-102 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Changes in management of BLM-administered lands can have social and 

economic effects which extend beyond the immediate boundaries of the lands

managed, affecting the social and economic conditions of neighboring counties 

and communities. Individual counties and communities may respond to change 

differently than the larger region; consequently a multidimensional approach is 

used to analyze the impacts of the proposed GRSG conservation measures. For 

this analysis, social and economic conditions, current conditions and trends are 

presented for a five-county region which includes Chouteau, Fergus, Judith 

Basin, Meagher, and Petroleum counties. Data is provided for the state as a 

whole as a reference region where appropriate.

3.23.1 Existing Conditions

Population Change

While the total US population grew by 24 percent between 1970 and 2010, the 

five-county impact area experienced an 11 percent decline. Over the past four 

decades populations in all five counties of the planning area have fallen: Chouteau 

(-660 people), Fergus (-1,025 people), Judith Basin (-595 people), Meagher (-231 

people), and Petroleum (-181 people) (Diagram 3-5). Population declines within 

the five-county region have gradually tapered off over the last decade as the total 

population within the five-county region fell by 761 people, or just over three

percent. Although population loss in Petroleum County halted and losses in 

Chouteau (-3 percent), Fergus (-3 percent), and Meagher (-2 percent) slowed, 

Judith Basin continued to experience a significant loss of 11 percent.

Diagram 3-5

Population Change for the Five-County Impact Area

Source: US Department of Commerce, 2005, 2000, and 2010
3. Affected Environment (Social and Economic Conditions)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-103

Employment and Economic Specialization

Average annual unemployment in the five-county impact area has remained 

relatively constant over the last decade, with unemployment in each of the five 

counties remaining below state and national averages. While national 

unemployment in the US rose from four percent in 2000 to 9.6 percent in 2010, 

unemployment in the five-county impact area remained relatively more constant 

increasing from 4.9 percent in 2000 to 5.8 percent in 2010. Average annual 

unemployment varied across the five counties but was reported to be lower 

than the 2010 national average in all five counties. In 2010, Chouteau, Fergus, 

Judith Basin, Meagher, and Petroleum counties were reported to have had an 

average annual unemployment rate of 4.4 percent, 6.1 percent, 5.6 percent, 8.6 

percent, and 6.3 percent, respectively, while unemployment was 6.9 percent in 

Montana and 9.6 percent for the US (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011).

Employment within the five-county impact area is distributed amongst economic 

sectors and displayed below in Diagram 3-6 relative to statewide employment 

in these sectors. The bottom six highlighted sectors are directly related to BLM 

land management. The contributions from BLM represent only a portion of the 

industry employment displayed in these six sectors. The government sector 

includes all federal, state, and local employment, while the grazing sector 

includes both cattle and sheep ranching. The last four sectors are all specifically 

attributable to tourism and recreation (Forest Service Enterprise 2013). Further 

discussion of the contributions to these sectors from BLM management is 

presented below.

Using the ratio of the percent employment in each industry in the region of 

interest (five-county impact area) to the percent of employment in that industry 

for a larger reference region (the state of Montana) reveals whether labor 

specialization exists within the impact area. For a given industry, when the 

percent employment in the impact area is greater than in the reference region, 

local employment specialization exists in that industry (Forest Service 1998).

Identification of employment specialization within the impact area provides a 

frame of reference for the contributions of BLM-administered lands within the 

impact area. Applying this criterion to 2010 data reveals that the planning area 

can be characterized as most specialized in the agricultural sectors, which 

include sectors related to livestock grazing. Since BLM-administered lands within 

the five-county area provide local livestock producers with forage to 

supplement other sources of feed, a portion of this specialization can be 

attributable to BLM management.

Community Well-Being

Community well-being relates to the economic, social, cultural, and political 

components of community life which allows residents to fulfill their basic needs, 

while creating an enjoyable place for citizens to live. While many factors 

contribute to quality of life in a region, unemployment, poverty and personal 
3. Affected Environment (Social and Economic Conditions)

3-104 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Diagram 3-6

Employment Distribution in the Five-County Impact Area and Montana

Source: IMPLAN 2010
3. Affected Environment (Social and Economic Conditions)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-105

income are the most commonly used social indicators of well-being. As 

discussed above, labor participation in Chouteau, Fergus, Judith Basin, Meagher, 

and Petroleum counties is high; average annual unemployment rates have 

persistently been lower than state and national averages over the last decade.

Following the Office of Management and Budget's Directive 14, the US Census 

Bureau uses a set of predetermined income thresholds which vary by family size 

and composition to detect who is poor. If the total income for a family or an 

unrelated individual falls below the relevant threshold, then the family or 

unrelated individual is classified as being "below the poverty level." While 

poverty rates for individuals and families at the state (14.5 percent and 9.7 

percent) and national (13.8 percent and 10.1 percent) level remained high in 

2010, poverty in the five-county area was reported to be even more prevalent 

with 16.4 percent of individuals and 12.9 percent of families living below the 

poverty level in 2010. Poverty at the county level varied across the five counties, 

with Judith Basin reporting the lowest rates and Chouteau reporting the highest. 

In 2010, 21 percent of individuals and 14.8 percent of families in Chouteau, 14.7 

percent of individuals and 12.5 percent of families in Fergus, 9.9 percent of 

individuals and 6.4 percent of families in Judith Basin, 19 percent of individuals 

and 14.1 percent of families in Meagher, and 16.7 percent of individuals and 18.1 

percent of families in Petroleum were estimated to be living in poverty (US 

Department of Commerce 2012a).

Total personal income (TPI) and per capita personal income (PCPI) are two 

more widely used measures of economic well-being within communities. From 

1970 to 2010, annual TPI in the five-county impact area increased from $581 

million to $769 million, and annual PCPI increased from $23,683 to $35,183 (all 

measures adjusted for inflation to 2011 dollars). This translates to a TPI increase 

of 32 percent and a PCPI increase of 48 percent over this time period (US 

Department of Commerce 2012b). While PCPI is a useful measure of economic 

well-being it should be examined alongside changes in real earnings per job. 

Since PCPI includes income from 401(k) plans as well as other non-labor income 

sources like transfer payments, dividends, and rent, it is possible for per capita 

income to rise, even if the average wage per job declines over time. While PCPI 

rose between 1970 and 2010 by 48 percent, average earnings per job shrank by 

21 percent (from $38,663 to $30,511; values adjusted for inflation to 2011 

dollars) (Forest Service Enterprise 2013). Increased PCPI in the face of falling 

wages indicates that non-labor income’s share of TPI significantly rose during 

this period.

Components of Personal Income

Further examining trends within personal income provides insight to the area 

economy and its connection to BLM-administered lands within the five-county 

impact area. There are three major sources of personal income: (1) labor 

earnings or income from the workplace; (2) investment income, or income 

received by individuals in the form of rent, dividends, or interest earnings; and 
3. Affected Environment (Social and Economic Conditions)

3-106 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

(3) transfer payment income or income received as Social Security, retirement 

and disability income or Medicare and Medicaid payments.

In 2010, labor earnings accounted for nearly half of TPI in the five-county region, 

but long-run trends indicate that labor earnings’ share of TPI has been declining. 

Labor earnings’ share of TPI has decreased from 1970 to 2010 (from 72.3 to 

49.9 percent) while the share of non-labor income has risen (from 27.7 to 50.1 

percent). As a share of TPI, investment income and transfer payments rose from 

18.6 to 28.1 and 9.1 to 22 percent, respectively, over this 40-year time period. 

Although transfer payments’ share of TPI rose drastically over this period, data 

indicated this increase was only slightly due to increases in income maintenance 

payments related to welfare or unemployment. The data shows the share of 

income maintenance increased from less than one percent to 3.7 percent while 

the share of age related transfer payments in the form of retirement, disability 

insurance, and Medicare increased from six to 15.3 percent between 1970 and 

2010 (US Department of Commerce 2012b). Increased shares of age-related 

transfer payments is an indication that the region’s population is growing older, 

with people 65 and older accounting for a large percent of the region’s 

population.

Area Economic Conditions Related to Grazing

From 1970 to 2010, employment in the farm sector (including livestock grazing) 

decreased by 43.9 percent (from 4,030 to 2,740 jobs), with nearly 78 percent of 

farm employment in 2010 attributable to farm proprietors. Although 

employment has been declining, the farm sector continued to support 13,090 

jobs (or 17.3 percent of total employment) in the five-county area in 2010 (US 

Department of Commerce 2012a). In 2011, livestock production in Montana 

accounted for 40.1 percent of the state’s total farm receipts and was valued at 

$1.4 billion dollars (NASS 2012). According to agricultural statistics collected by 

the state, the five-county area was reported to have an inventory of 2,500,000 

cattle and calves, and 225,000 head of sheep in 2011.

Under the Taylor Grazing Act and FLPMA, the BLM permits grazing on 

administered allotments for the purpose of fostering economic development for 

private ranchers and ranching communities by providing ranchers access to 

additional forage (Forest Service Enterprise 2013). The BLM estimates the 

grazing potential of each allotment permitted for grazing under ideal forage 

conditions, but determines the number of AUMs allocated each year based on 

range conditions. Currently, the LFO allocates 103,806 AUMs annually on 

allotments potentially affected by conservation measures under this RMPA. On 

an annual basis use of the allocated forage can be less based on market 

conditions, drought or range practices to protect other resources. Allocated 

forage in the decision area was used to estimate employment and labor income 

contributions to the five-county impact area economy using an IMPLAN inputoutput model. If all allocated AUMs were used, about 201 jobs (direct, indirect 

and induced) and $2.8 million in labor income (direct, indirect and induced) 
3. Affected Environment (Social and Economic Conditions)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-107

would be contributed to the impact area economy on an average annual basis.

Direct employment to the grazing (refer to Diagram 3-6) sector amounts to 

approximately 128 jobs which accounts for 29 percent of employment in this 

sector (IMPLAN 2010).

Lands and Realty 

Lands and realty can be divided between land use authorizations and land tenure 

adjustments. Land use authorizations consist of ROWs, communication sites, 

and other leases or permits, while land tenure adjustments focus primarily on 

land exchange, acquisition (including purchase and easement acquisition), and 

disposal. Land tenure adjustments can be important to local and regional 

economies depending on their complexity and impacted resources, but overall 

land tenure adjustments are currently inactive within the planning area. 

Therefore, the discussion in this section focuses on land use authorizations (e.g., 

ROWs) given their importance to local and regional communities.

Currently, there are ROWs within GRSG habitat: 643 in PH and 266 in GH.

These include ROWs for roads, trails and highways, transmission lines, 

telephone or communication lines, water facilities, railroad, pipeline and conduit.

The area community and economy depends in part on these ROWs for access 

on roads, power to businesses and homes, and communication lines for 

expanding technology. Future expansion of Central Montana’s rural fiber optic 

network may cross BLM-administered land in the decision area. Currently, there 

are no existing wind energy ROWs within the decision area.

Recreation

The economic influence of recreation use on BLM-administered lands is related 

to local expenditures for goods and services such as gasoline, lodging, meals, and 

supplies. To understand the local economic influence of recreation use, it is 

important to understand that local expenditures vary depending on the type of 

activity, whether the recreation use is from local residents or non-local 

residents, and whether the activity involves overnight stays. Local expenditures 

related to recreation use support local employment and labor income.

Generally, employment related to recreation and tourism tends to be seasonal 

and relatively low paid, with a high portion of the labor force self-employed. The 

recreation opportunities available in the decision area play an important role in 

the quality of life of local residents, and also attract visitors from elsewhere in 

the state and region. The BLM-administered lands in the decision area received 

an estimated 45,500 recreation visits in 2012 (Forest Service Enterprise 2013). 

Major recreation activities on BLM-administered lands in the decision area 

include motorized and non-motorized activities such as hunting, hiking, and 

wildlife viewing.

Market and Non-Market Values

Generally goods and services can be traded in markets where interactions 

between buyers and sellers dictate the price, or value, of a good through the 
3. Affected Environment (Social and Economic Conditions)

3-108 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

unit prices and quantities sold. BLM-administered lands produce a wide range of 

environmental goods and services which society benefits from. Some goods, like 

forage for cattle, can easily be valued because livestock feed can be bought and 

sold in markets. Other resources provided by these lands, such as recreational 

opportunities, ecological processes, and habitat for unique species, cannot be 

bought and sold in traditional markets, which is why they are often 

characterized as non-market goods. Measuring the value of these non-market 

goods is important because these resources tend to be undervalued and 

estimates can enable management to make more informed decisions regarding 

their use to more accurately reflect their true value to society.

Non-market values can be broken down into two categories, use and non-use 

values. The use-value of a non-market good is the value to society from the 

direct use of the asset; these values are derived from BLM-administered lands 

through recreational activities such as hiking, bird watching and OHV use. In 

addition to hunting, other non-market values exist for public goods such as air 

quality, scenery and water quality. The use of non-market goods often requires 

consumption of associated market goods, such as lodging and gas.

Non-use, or passive use, values of a non-market good reflect the value of an 

asset beyond its current use. These can be described as existence, option and 

bequest values. Existence values are the amount society is willing to pay to 

guarantee that an asset simply exists. An existence value for BLM-administered

lands might be the value of knowing that undisturbed GRSG habitat exists or the 

value associated with undeveloped scenic landscapes. In addition to implicit 

existence values, society's willingness to pay to preserve resources for future 

use attaches additional passive use values. The potential benefits people would 

receive from future use are referred to as option values when future use is 

expected to occur within the same generation and bequest values when 

preservation allows future generations to benefit from the resource use. Within 

the LFO bequest and option values might exist for numerous plant and animal 

species, landscapes, heritage sites, and recreational trails. While use and non-use 

values exist for these lands, the methodologies for measuring these values are 

controversial and difficult to apply, making evaluation during the planning 

process not feasible. However, this does not preclude their consideration.

3.24 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, states “each Federal agency 

shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 

addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income populations...” (Executive Order 12989). 

Minority populations as defined by CEQ guidance under the NEPA (CEQ 1997) 

include individuals in the following population groups: American Indian or 
3. Affected Environment (Environmental Justice)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 3-109

Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or 

Hispanic. A minority population is identified where “(a) the minority population 

of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population 

percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater...” (CEQ 1997). 

Additionally, “[a] minority population also exists if there is more than one 

minority group present and the minority percentage, as calculated by 

aggregating all minority persons, meets one of the above-stated thresholds” 

(CEQ 1997). Low-income populations are determined by the US Census Bureau 

based upon poverty thresholds developed every year.

US Census data is used to determine whether the populations residing in the 

study area constitute an “environmental justice population” through meeting 

either of the following criteria:

 At least one-half of the population is of minority or low-income 

status; or

 The percentage of population that is of minority or low-income 

status is at least 10 percentage points higher than for the entire 

State of Montana.

Data for the identification of low-income is from the US Census Bureau, Small 

Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE). The SAIPE program produces 

yearly single year poverty estimates for states, counties, and school districts and 

is considered the most accurate for these geographic scales, especially for areas 

with populations of 65,000 or less (US Department of Commerce 2014). 

Minority populations are identified using the US Census Population Estimates 

program which provides estimates for the resident population by age, sex, race, 

and Hispanic origin at the national, state and county scales. Total minority 

population refers to that part of the total population which is not classified as 

Non-Hispanic White Only by the US Census Bureau. By using this definition of 

minority population, the percentage is inclusive of Hispanics and multiple race 

categories and any other minority single race categories. This definition is most 

inclusive of populations that may be considered as a minority population under 

Executive Order 12898. Estimates from SAIPE and the Population Estimates 

program are used in federal funding allocations.

3.24.1 Existing Conditions

For this planning effort the identification of environmental justice populations is 

conducted at the county level due to the large geographic area. The American 

Indian population makes up over 20 percent of the population of Chouteau 

County meeting the criteria of having an environmental justice minority 

population by having a minority population at least 10 percentage points higher 

than the State of Montana (6.5 percent American Indian) (Error! Reference 

source not found.). Although poverty exists in all of the counties, none of the 

counties meet the criteria above for having an Environmental Justice poverty 

population.
3. Affected Environment (Environmental Justice)

3-110 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 3-62

Environmental Justice Data for the Planning Area by County, 2013

Race Alone

WhiteBlack or African AmericanAmerican Indian & Alaska NativeAsianNative Hawaiian & Other Pacific IslanderTwo or More RaceHispanic (of any Race)Total Minority

1

Poverty Percent, All Ages

Montana 89.5% 0.6% 6.5% 0.8% 0.1% 2.5% 3.3% 13.0% 16.1%

Chouteau County 76.6% 0.2% 20.9% 0.5% 0.1% 1.8% 2.0% 24.3% 21.8%

Fergus County 96.3% 0.4% 1.3% 0.3% 0.0% 1.7% 2.1% 5.5% 14.4%

Judith Basin 

County

97.7% 0.0% 1.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.8% 1.5% 3.8% 14.3%

Meagher County 97.0% 0.4% 0.6% 0.5% 0.0% 1.5% 1.8% 4.5% 19.6%

Petroleum 

County

98.4% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2.6% 14.8%

Source: US Department of Commerce 2014

1Total minority population refers to the part of the total population which is not classified as Non-Hispanic White 

Only by the US Census Bureau.

Overall, the planning area does have at least one county that meets the criteria 

for environmental justice populations.
Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

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 .......................................................... 4-5

4.2.3 Incomplete or Unavailable Information .................................................................... 4-6

4.3 Greater Sage-Grouse ................................................................................................................... 4-7

4.3.1 Methods and Assumptions .......................................................................................... 4-7

4.3.2 Nature and Type of Effects ......................................................................................... 4-8

4.3.3 Impacts Common to Alternatives B—–D and the Proposed Plan 

Amendment ................................................................................................................... 4-17

4.3.4 Alternative A ................................................................................................................. 4-17

4.3.5 Alternative B ................................................................................................................. 4-23

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

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

4.3.8 Proposed Plan Amendment ....................................................................................... 4-33

4.3.9 Impacts Summary ......................................................................................................... 4-37

4.4 Lands and Realty ......................................................................................................................... 4-54

4.4.1 Methods and Assumptions ........................................................................................ 4-54

4.4.2 Nature and Type of Effects ....................................................................................... 4-55

4.4.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ..................................................................... 4-56

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

4.4.5 Alternative B ................................................................................................................. 4-57

4.4.6 Alternative C ................................................................................................................ 4-59

4.4.7 Alternative D ................................................................................................................ 4-59

4.4.8 Proposed Plan Amendment ....................................................................................... 4-60

4.5 Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands) .................................... 4-61

4.5.1 Methods and Assumptions ........................................................................................ 4-61

4.5.2 Nature and Type of Effects ....................................................................................... 4-63

4.5.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ..................................................................... 4-68

4.5.4 Alternative A ................................................................................................................. 4-68

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

Amendment ................................................................................................................... 4-75

4.5.6 Alternative B ................................................................................................................. 4-75

4.5.7 Alternative C ................................................................................................................ 4-77

4.5.8 Alternative D ................................................................................................................ 4-79

4.5.9 Proposed Plan Amendment ....................................................................................... 4-81

4.6 Wildland Fire Management and Ecology ............................................................................... 4-83

4.6.1 Methods and Assumptions ........................................................................................ 4-83

4.6.2 Nature and Type of Effects ....................................................................................... 4-84

4.6.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ..................................................................... 4-86

4.6.4 Alternative A ................................................................................................................. 4-86

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

Amendment ................................................................................................................... 4-88

4.6.6 Alternative B ................................................................................................................. 4-88

4.6.7 Alternative C ................................................................................................................ 4-90
Table of Contents 

4-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015 

4.6.8 Alternative D ................................................................................................................ 4-92

4.6.9 Proposed Plan Amendment ....................................................................................... 4-93

4.7 Fluid Minerals ............................................................................................................................... 4-95

4.7.1 Methods and Assumptions ........................................................................................ 4-95

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

4.7.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ..................................................................... 4-98

4.7.4 Alternative A ................................................................................................................. 4-98

4.7.5 Alternative B ................................................................................................................. 4-98

4.7.6 Alternative C ................................................................................................................ 4-99

4.7.7 Alternative D ................................................................................................................ 4-99

4.7.8 Proposed Plan Amendment .................................................................................... 4-100

4.8 Solid Leasable Minerals ........................................................................................................... 4-100

4.8.1 Methods and Assumptions ..................................................................................... 4-100

4.8.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-102

4.8.3 Alternative A .............................................................................................................. 4-102

4.8.4 Alternative B .............................................................................................................. 4-103

4.8.5 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-103

4.8.6 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-103

4.8.7 Proposed Plan Amendment .................................................................................... 4-104

4.9 Solid Minerals (Locatable Minerals) ..................................................................................... 4-104

4.9.1 Methods and Assumptions ..................................................................................... 4-104

4.9.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-106

4.9.3 Alternative A .............................................................................................................. 4-106

4.9.4 Alternative B .............................................................................................................. 4-106

4.9.5 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-107

4.9.6 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-107

4.9.7 Proposed Plan Amendment .................................................................................... 4-108

4.10 Solid Minerals (Salable Minerals) .......................................................................................... 4-108

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

4.10.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-110

4.10.3 Alternative A .............................................................................................................. 4-110

4.10.4 Alternative B .............................................................................................................. 4-111

4.10.5 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-111

4.10.6 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-112

4.10.7 Proposed Plan Amendment .................................................................................... 4-113

4.11 Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management ............................................. 4-114

4.11.1 Methods and Assumptions ..................................................................................... 4-114

4.11.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-116

4.11.3 Alternative A .............................................................................................................. 4-116

4.11.4 Alternative B .............................................................................................................. 4-117

4.11.5 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-117

4.11.6 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-118

4.11.7 Proposed Plan Amendment .................................................................................... 4-118

4.12 Recreation ................................................................................................................................. 4-119

4.12.1 Methods and Assumptions ..................................................................................... 4-119

4.12.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-120

4.12.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives .................................................................. 4-122

4.12.4 Alternative A .............................................................................................................. 4-122

4.12.5 Alternative B .............................................................................................................. 4-124

4.12.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-125
Table of Contents 

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-3

4.12.7 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-127

4.12.8 Proposed Plan Amendment .................................................................................... 4-128

4.13 Range Management .................................................................................................................. 4-129

4.13.1 Methods and Assumptions ..................................................................................... 4-129

4.13.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-130

4.13.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives .................................................................. 4-134

4.13.4 Alternative A .............................................................................................................. 4-135

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

Amendment ................................................................................................................ 4-138

4.13.6 Alternative B .............................................................................................................. 4-138

4.13.7 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-140

4.13.8 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-142

4.13.9 Proposed Plan Amendment .................................................................................... 4-144

4.14 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ......................................................................... 4-147

4.14.1 Methods and Assumptions ..................................................................................... 4-147

4.14.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-148

4.14.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives .................................................................. 4-149

4.14.4 Alternative A .............................................................................................................. 4-150

4.14.5 Alternative B .............................................................................................................. 4-150

4.14.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-151

4.14.7 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-152

4.14.8 Proposed Plan Amendment .................................................................................... 4-152

4.15 Air Resources ........................................................................................................................... 4-152

4.15.1 Methods and Assumptions ..................................................................................... 4-152

4.15.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-153

4.15.3 Alternative A .............................................................................................................. 4-154

4.15.4 Alternative B .............................................................................................................. 4-154

4.15.5 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-155

4.15.6 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-155

4.15.7 Proposed Plan Amendment .................................................................................... 4-156

4.16 Climate ....................................................................................................................................... 4-156

4.16.1 Methods and Assumptions ..................................................................................... 4-156

4.16.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-157

4.16.3 Alternative A .............................................................................................................. 4-157

4.16.4 Alternative B .............................................................................................................. 4-158

4.16.5 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-158

4.16.6 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-159

4.16.7 Proposed Plan Amendment .................................................................................... 4-159

4.17 Soil Resources .......................................................................................................................... 4-160

4.17.1 Methods and Assumptions ..................................................................................... 4-160

4.17.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-161

4.17.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives .................................................................. 4-163

4.17.4 Alternative A .............................................................................................................. 4-163

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

Amendment ................................................................................................................ 4-165

4.17.6 Alternative B .............................................................................................................. 4-165

4.17.7 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-167

4.17.8 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-169

4.17.9 Proposed Plan Amendment .................................................................................... 4-171

4.18 Water Resources ..................................................................................................................... 4-172
Table of Contents 

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

4.18.1 Methods and Assumptions ..................................................................................... 4-172

4.18.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-173

4.18.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives .................................................................. 4-175

4.18.4 Alternative A .............................................................................................................. 4-175

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

Amendment ................................................................................................................ 4-177

4.18.6 Alternative B .............................................................................................................. 4-178

4.18.7 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-180

4.18.8 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-182

4.18.9 Proposed Plan Amendment .................................................................................... 4-184

4.19 Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue ............................................................... 4-185

4.19.1 Methods and Assumptions ..................................................................................... 4-185

4.19.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-187

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

4.19.4 Alternative A .............................................................................................................. 4-191

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

Amendment ................................................................................................................ 4-195

4.19.6 Alternative B .............................................................................................................. 4-195

4.19.7 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-198

4.19.8 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-202

4.19.9 Proposed Plan Amendment .................................................................................... 4-205

4.20 Fish and Wildlife ....................................................................................................................... 4-207

4.20.1 Methods and Assumptions ..................................................................................... 4-207

4.20.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-209

4.20.3 Alternative A .............................................................................................................. 4-210

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

Amendment ................................................................................................................ 4-212

4.20.5 Alternative B .............................................................................................................. 4-212

4.20.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-214

4.20.7 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-215

4.20.8 Proposed Plan Amendment .................................................................................... 4-218

4.21 Renewable Energy ................................................................................................................... 4-220

4.21.1 Methods and Assumptions ..................................................................................... 4-220

4.21.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-221

4.21.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives .................................................................. 4-221

4.21.4 Alternative A .............................................................................................................. 4-222

4.21.5 Alternative B .............................................................................................................. 4-222

4.21.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-223

4.21.7 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-224

4.21.8 Proposed Plan Amendment .................................................................................... 4-224

4.22 Social and Economic Conditions .......................................................................................... 4-225

4.22.1 Methods and Assumptions ..................................................................................... 4-225

4.22.2 Alternative A .............................................................................................................. 4-226

4.22.3 Alternative B .............................................................................................................. 4-227

4.22.4 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-229

4.22.5 Alternative D and Proposed Plan Amendment ................................................. 4-230

4.23 Environmental Justice .............................................................................................................. 4-231

4.24 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................................... 4-231

4.25 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................................ 4-232

4.26 Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity .............. 4-233
Table of Contents 

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

TABLES Page 

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-of-way 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

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
This page intentionally left blank.
June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-1

CHAPTER 4

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.1 CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT EIS AND FINAL EIS

 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 4. Analysis shown under the draft alternatives may be 

referenced in the Proposed Plan Amendment analysis with such 

statements as “impacts would be the same as, or similar to, 

Alternative D” or “impacts would be the same as Alternative D, 

except for...,” as applicable.

 Section 4.3, Greater Sage-Grouse, was updated to include the 

following:

– Potential impacts on GRSG from conversion of private 

rangeland to agricultural land were added to the analysis of 

impacts from land tenure decisions.

– Additional impacts on GRSG from predation.

– Potential increases in wildfires due to climate change.

– Potential impacts on GRSG and habitat from excluding 

livestock grazing from BLM-administered lands.

– Discussion of potential impacts on GRSG populations from 

conifer encroachment.

4.2 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the likely direct and indirect impacts on the human and 

natural environment that could occur from implementing the Proposed Plan 

Amendment and draft alternatives presented in Chapter 2. Cumulative impacts 

from the proposed alternatives are presented Chapter 5. This chapter is 

organized by topic, similar to Chapter 3. Each topic area includes a method of 

analysis section that identifies indicators, methods, and assumptions; a discussion 
4. Environmental Consequences (Introduction)

4-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

of the nature and type of effects; a summary of effects common to all 

alternatives; and an analysis of impacts for each of the four draft alternatives and 

Proposed Plan Amendment. A separate section describing irretrievable or 

irreversible commitment of resources is presented at the end of the chapter. 

Indicators are factors that describe resource condition and change and can help 

the BLM determine trends over time. The section on methods and assumptions 

describes methodologies and assumptions for assessing impacts specific to the 

resource or resource use. These are in addition to those general assumptions 

and methodologies listed in Section 4.2.1, Analytical Assumptions, and

Section 4.2.2, General Methodology for Analyzing Impacts. The nature and 

type of effects section describes in general terms impacts on resources or 

resource uses from allowable uses or restrictions on allowable uses. Impacts 

describe how the indicators would change the magnitude of the nature and type 

of effect.

All management actions proposed in Chapter 2 are primarily planning-level 

decisions and do not result in direct, on-the-ground changes. However, by 

planning for uses on BLM-administered surface estate and federal mineral estate

during the planning horizon for the Judith Resource Area RMP and Headwaters 

RMP, this impact analysis focuses on impacts that could eventually result in onthe-ground changes. Impacts for some resources or resource uses, such as 

livestock grazing and OHV use, could be confined to the BLM-administered 

surface estate. Other impacts, such as energy and minerals and requirements to 

protect GRSG from such activity, could apply to all BLM-administered federal 

mineral estate (including split estate). Some BLM management actions may affect 

only certain resources under certain alternatives. This impact analysis identifies 

impacts that may enhance or improve a resource as a result of management 

actions, as well as those impacts that have the potential to impair a resource. 

However, the evaluations are confined to the actions that have direct, 

immediate, and more prominent effects. If an activity or action is not addressed 

in a given section, no impacts are expected, or the impact is expected to be 

negligible based on professional judgment.

The BLM manages BLM-administered lands for multiple uses in accordance with 

FLPMA. Land use decisions are made to protect the resources while allowing 

for different uses of those resources, such as energy and mineral development, 

OHV use, recreation, and livestock grazing. When there are conflicts among 

resource uses or when a land use activity could result in unacceptable or 

irreversible impacts on the environment, the BLM may restrict or prohibit some 

land uses in specific areas. To ensure that the BLM meets its mandate of 

multiple use in land management actions, the impacts of the Proposed Plan 

Amendment and draft alternatives on resource uses are identified and assessed 

as part of the planning process. The projected impacts on land use activities and 

the environmental impacts of land uses are characterized and evaluated for each 

of the draft alternatives and Proposed Plan Amendment.
4. Environmental Consequences (Introduction)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-3

Impact analysis is a cause-and-effect process. The detailed impact analyses and 

conclusions are based on the BLM planning team’s knowledge of resources and 

the project area; reviews of existing literature; and information provided by 

experts in the BLM, other agencies, and interest groups, as well as by concerned 

citizens. The baseline used for the impact analysis is the current condition or 

situation, as described in Chapter 3. Impacts on resources and resource uses 

are analyzed and discussed in detail commensurate with resource issues and 

concerns identified throughout the process. Occasionally, impacts are described 

using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms.

This chapter describes the environmental consequences associated with the 

impacts on GRSG and its habitat from activities carried out in conformance with 

this plan, in addition to BLM management actions. 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, the 

BLM would require 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 compensatory mitigation for impacts by applying beneficial mitigation 

actions. In addition, to help implement the Proposed Plan Amendment, a 

WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy (per Appendix G) 

would be developed within one year of the issuance of the ROD. The Strategy 

would elaborate on the components identified in Chapter 2 (avoidance, 

minimization, compensatory mitigation, additionality, timeliness, and durability), 

and would be considered by the BLM for BLM management actions and third 

party actions that result in habitat loss and degradation. The implementation of 

a Regional Mitigation Strategy would benefit GRSG, the public, and land-users by 

providing a reduction in threats, increased public transparency and confidence, 

and a predictable permit process for land-use authorization applicants.

4.2.1 Analytical Assumptions

Several assumptions were made to facilitate the analysis of the projected 

impacts. These assumptions set guidelines and provide reasonably foreseeable 

projected levels of development that would occur within the Lewistown Field 

Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS planning area during the planning period. 

These assumptions should not be interpreted as constraining or redefining the 

management objectives and actions proposed for each alternative, as described 

in Chapter 2. The following general assumptions apply to all resource 

categories. Any specific resource assumptions are provided in the Methods and 

Assumptions section for that resource.

 Each draft alternative and the Proposed Plan Amendment in 

Chapter 2 constitute a possible RMPA and would be implemented.

 Implementing actions from any of the draft RMPA alternatives or 

Proposed Plan Amendment would be in compliance with all valid 
4. Environmental Consequences (Introduction)

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

existing rights, federal regulations, BLM policies, and other 

requirements.

 Implementation-level actions necessary to execute the land use 

plan-level decisions in this RMPA would be subject to further 

environmental review, including NEPA, as appropriate. 

 Direct impacts of implementing the RMPA primarily occur on the 

decision area lands, and indirect impacts primarily occur on the 

decision area and adjacent private lands.

 Local climate patterns of historic record and related conditions for 

plant growth may change with warmer, drier conditions likely to 

occur throughout the life of the Judith Resource Area RMP and 

Headwaters RMP.

 In the future, as tools for predicting climate changes in the planning 

area improve and changes in climate affect resources and 

necessitate changes in how resources are managed, the BLM may 

reevaluate decisions made as part of this planning process and adjust 

management accordingly.

 The discussion of impacts is based on the best available data. 

Knowledge of the planning area and professional judgment, based on 

observation and analysis of conditions and responses in similar 

areas, are used to infer environmental impacts where data are 

limited.

 RDFs apply to certain activities (i.e., water developments, mineral 

development, and fire fuels management) conducted by the BLM.

Because the BLM does not have jurisdiction over split estate lands 

for activities not related to fluid mineral leasing and development, 

RFDs apply only to the 593,995 acres of BLM surface in the decision 

area.

 Restrictions on land use authorizations are identified for ROW

avoidance or ROW exclusion areas. Because the BLM does not 

have jurisdiction over split estate lands for land use authorizations, 

ROW avoidance and ROW exclusion restrictions apply only to the 

593,995 acres of BLM surface in the decision area.

 Administrative access includes motorized wheeled cross-country 

travel for lessees and permittees that 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 (BLM 2003b).
4. Environmental Consequences (Introduction)

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

 Data from GIS have been used in developing acreage calculations 

and to generate the figures in Appendix A. Calculations depend on 

the quality and availability of data. Most calculations in this RMPA

are rounded to the nearest 10 acres or 0.1-mile. Given the scale of 

the analysis, the compatibility constraints between datasets, and lack 

of data for some resources, all calculations are approximate and are 

for comparison and analytic purposes only. Likewise, the figures in 

Appendix A are provided for illustrative purposes and are subject 

to the limitations discussed above. The BLM may receive additional 

GIS data; therefore, acreages may be recalculated and revised.

4.2.2 General Methodology for Analyzing Impacts

Potential impacts or effects are described in terms of type, context, duration, 

and intensity, which are generally defined as follows:

 Type of Impact – Because types of impacts can be interpreted 

differently by different people, this chapter does not differentiate 

between beneficial and adverse impacts (except in cases where such 

characterization is appropriate or required by law, regulation, or 

policy). The presentation of impacts for key planning issues is 

intended to provide the BLM decision maker and reader with an 

understanding of the multiple use tradeoffs associated with each 

alternative. The impact analysis presents the effects caused by an 

action and the reader is left to interpret if that is a beneficial or 

adverse impact. Different readers may interpret the effect as either 

adverse or beneficial.

 Context – Context describes the area or location (site specific, local, 

planning area wide or regional) in which the impact would occur. 

Site-specific impacts would occur at the location of the action, local 

impacts would occur within the general vicinity of the action area, 

planning area-wide impacts would affect a greater portion of the 

planning area, and regional impacts would extend beyond the 

planning area boundaries.

 Duration – Duration describes the length of time an effect would 

occur, either short term or long term. Unless specifically defined for 

a resource topic, short term is defined as anticipated to begin and 

end within the first five years after the action is implemented. Long 

term is defined as lasting beyond five years to the end of or beyond 

the planning time frame of the Judith Resource Area RMP and 

Headwaters RMP.

 Intensity – Rather than categorize impacts by intensity (e.g., major, 

moderate, and minor), this analysis discusses impacts using 

quantitative data wherever possible (e.g., miles and acres). Where 

quantifiable data are unavailable, impacts are characterized 

qualitatively.
4. Environmental Consequences (Introduction)

4-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

 Direct and Indirect Impacts – Direct impacts are caused by an action 

or implementation of an alternative and occur at the same time and 

place. Indirect impacts result from implementing an action or 

alternative but usually occur later in time or are removed in 

distance and are reasonably certain to occur.

Analysis shown under other alternatives may be referenced in the other 

alternatives with such statements as “impacts would be the same as, or similar 

to, Alternative A” or “impacts would be the same as Alternative A, except for . . 

.,” as applicable.

Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources is discussed in Section 

4.25, Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources. Irreversible 

commitments of resources result from actions in which resources are 

considered permanently changed. Irretrievable commitments of resources result 

from actions in which resources are considered permanently lost.

4.2.3 Incomplete or Unavailable Information

The CEQ established implementing regulations for NEPA, requiring that a 

federal agency identify relevant information that may be incomplete or 

unavailable for an evaluation of reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects 

(40 CFR, Part 1502.22). If the information is essential to a reasoned choice 

among alternatives, it must be included, unless the cost of obtaining the 

information is exorbitant. Knowledge and information is, and would always be, 

incomplete, particularly with infinitely complex ecosystems considered at 

various scales.

The best available information pertinent to the decisions to be made was used 

in developing the RMPA. Considerable effort has been taken to acquire and 

convert resource data from the BLM and outside sources into digital format for 

use in the RMPA.

Certain information was unavailable for use in developing this RMPA because 

inventories have either not been conducted or are incomplete. Some of the 

major types of data that are incomplete or unavailable include:

 Field inventory of soils and water conditions

 Field inventory of vegetation composition

 Field inventory of wildlife and special status species occurrence and 

condition

For these resources, estimates were made concerning the number, type, and 

significance of these resources based on previous surveys and existing 

knowledge. In addition, some impacts cannot be quantified given the proposed 

management actions. Where this gap occurs, impacts are projected in qualitative 

terms or, in some instances, are described as unknown. Subsequent project-
4. Environmental Consequences (Introduction)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-7

level analysis will provide the opportunity to collect and examine site-specific 

inventory data required to determine appropriate application of RMP-level 

guidance. In addition, ongoing inventory efforts by the BLM and other agencies 

in the planning area continue to update and refine information used to 

implement this RMPA.

4.3 GREATER SAGE-GROUSE

4.3.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Indicators of impacts on GRSG are as follows:

 Acres of sagebrush habitat

 Number of large, medium, and small leks

 Average male lek attendance

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

 Three general categories of human disturbance to habitats or 

disruption to animals would be the most influential on GRSG and 

their habitat: 1) disturbance/disruption from casual use; 2) 

disturbance/disruption from permitted activity; and 3) changes in 

habitat condition, such as from fire or weed invasion.

 RDFs, COAs, and standard operating procedures are used for 

analysis and would be implemented to reduce impacts on GRSG. 

These are subject to modification, based on subsequent guidance 

and new science.

 Short-term effects are defined as those that would occur over a 

time frame of up to two years and long-term effects would occur 

over longer than two years.

 Ground-disturbing activities could positively or negatively modify 

habitat or cause loss or gain of individuals. This all depends on the 

amount of area disturbed, the nature of the disturbance, the species 

affected, and the location of the disturbance. For example, juniper 

reduction treatments disturb the ground but could positively modify 

habitat in the long term.

 Direct impacts of implementing the RMPA primarily occur on the

decision area lands; indirect impacts of implementing the RMPA 

primarily occur on the decision area and adjacent land not 

administered by the BLM.

 Removing livestock grazing from BLM-administered land would 

result in private lands being fenced from BLM-administered land.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

 Removing livestock grazing from BLM-administered land would 

result in pits, dams, and reservoirs being removed from BLMadministered land, or these structures would fail over time. For 

those that support fisheries, important riparian-wetland habitat 

could remain, but this is less than ten percent of the total pits, 

dams, and reservoirs.

 Under Alternative A, land tenure adjustments would be subject to 

current disposal/exchange/acquisition criteria. These include 

retaining lands with threatened or endangered species, high quality 

riparian habitat, or plant and animal populations or natural 

communities of high interest, including GRSG.

 Impact analysis focuses on the Yellowstone Watershed population, 

including the survey areas of Winifred, Crooked Creek, War Horse, 

and Yellow Water Triangle. Leks are categorized as large (more 

than 25 males), medium (fewer than 25 and more than 10 males), 

and small (fewer than 10 males).

4.3.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Factors related to the decline in GRSG distribution and abundance throughout 

their range includes habitat loss and degradation, disease and predation, 

chemicals, and changes in land use (USFWS 2010, p. 14). Habitat loss and 

fragmentation reduces the land area available to support GRSG and increases 

opportunities for other types of disturbance, such as predation, human traffic, 

wildfire, and spread of invasive plant species. The GRSG impacts section focuses

on threats specifically identified for the Yellowstone Watershed population 

within the LFO: sagebrush elimination/agricultural conversion, fire, weed spread 

and conifer encroachment, energy, infrastructure, grazing, and recreation

(USFWS 2013, p. 17).

Loss and fragmentation of sagebrush habitats is a primary cause of the decline of 

GRSG populations, (USFWS 2010). Threats posed by conversion to agriculture, 

infrastructure, wildfire, invasive weeds, conifer encroachment, livestock grazing, 

and energy development are all associated with loss, fragmentation, and 

degradation of habitat. The reasons for declining GRSG populations are habitat 

fragmentation, reductions in lek persistence, lek attendance, population 

recruitment, yearling and adult annual survival, female nest site selection, nest 

initiation, and complete loss of leks and winter habitat (USFWS 2010, p. 21). 

Yellowstone Watershed and Belt Mountains GRSG Analysis

The alternatives analysis in this chapter focuses on the Yellowstone Watershed

population of GRSG. The LFO planning area also includes the Belt Mountain 

population area. Only 439 acres (0.1 percent) of this area is administered by the 

BLM, all GHMA, and no leks are located here; the nearest lek is 2.5 miles away.

BLM management has less impact here because of the small percentage of BLM-
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-9

administered land. The major threats in this area are isolation, conversion to 

agriculture, conifer encroachment, and weed spread.

Most BLM-administered lands within the population are on the northern border 

of mapped habitat; these lands are experiencing conifer encroachment. . The 

BLM and NRCS are currently engaging in a conifer removal project in the North 

Fork area that will improve GRSG habitat. In the short term, there would be no 

difference between alternatives for the amount of sagebrush or grassland 

habitat. In the long term, if conifer encroachment were not treated, 

approximately 120 acres would transition from sagebrush to Douglas-fir.

Alternative A would allow treatment in GH and Alternatives C and D, and the 

Proposed Plan Amendment would allow treatment in GHMA, while Alternative 

B would prioritize treatments in PHMA. It is unlikely that sagebrush habitats 

would be maintained on BLM-administered land in the Belt Mountains 

population under Alternative B.

COT Report Threats—Sagebrush Elimination, Agriculture Conversion

Over time, sagebrush habitats have been removed for crop production or 

development. Such conversion results in the loss of habitat and decreases the 

connectivity between seasonal habitat. This increases population isolation, which 

increases the probability for the loss of genetic diversity. This then increases the 

probability of extirpation from random events (Knick and Hanser 2011).

Habitat loss and fragmentation also increase opportunities for other 

disturbances, such as human traffic, wildfire, and invasive plant spread. While 

habitat conversion for agriculture is not directly tied to BLM management, land 

tenure decisions, such as acquisitions and disposals, can indirectly affect the 

acreage available for agriculture and urbanization. For example, if the BLM were 

to dispose of a parcel characterized as sagebrush-steppe, it could be converted 

to farmland or subdivided into home sites. Lands retained under BLM 

management would not be converted for agriculture or urbanization. In 

Montana, large leks are 4.5 times less likely to occur than small leks when tilling

fragments 21 percent or more of land within a 0.6-mile radius of breeding sites 

(Tack 2009).

The continuing pressure for conversion of private rangeland to agricultural land 

or residential development in LFO poses increasing risks of habitat 

fragmentation, particularly given the patchwork of land ownership in the area.

Temperature increases from climate change may increase crop yields, which 

may encourage parts of the state not previously used for agriculture to be 

converted for that purpose (NRC 2010).

Impacts from ACECs

Special designations (e.g., ACECs, Wilderness, and WSAs) and other 

conservation measures could be established to protect GRSG and their habitats. 

However, this GRSG-specific amendment includes special management 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

prescriptions that provide broad protection from habitat fragmentation, loss,

and human disturbance. No additional protection would be afforded with ACEC 

designation. Existing special designations may protect GRSG or their habitat, but 

they were not established for this purpose.

COT Report Threats—Fire

Fire is particularly damaging to Wyoming big sagebrush, which is most of the 

sagebrush habitat in the LFO. Big sagebrush, unlike silver sagebrush, does not 

re-sprout after a fire; instead, it is replenished by wind-dispersed seed from 

adjacent unburned stands or seeds in the soil. Depending on the species and the 

size of a burn, sagebrush can reestablish itself within five years of a burn. 

However, a return to a full pre-burn community cover can take 13 to 100 years 

(Connelly et al. 2004). While wildfire likely played an important historical role in 

creating a mosaic of habitat for GRSG, current land use patterns have restricted 

the system’s ability to support wildfire. Slow rates of regrowth and recovery of 

sagebrush after disturbance, coupled with high rates of disturbance and 

conversion to introduced plant cover, are largely responsible for the 

accumulating displacement and degradation of the sagebrush ecosystem (Manier 

et al. 2013, pp. 4-6). Climate change is expected to increase the risk of wildfire 

throughout Montana (NRC 2010).

Fire suppression may be used to maintain habitat for GRSG (NTT 2011, pp. 25-

27). Fire suppression may preserve the condition of some vegetation 

communities, as well as habitat connectivity. This is particularly important in 

areas where fire frequency has increased as a result of weed invasion or where 

landscapes are highly fragmented. Fire also increases opportunities for invasive 

species, such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), to expand (Balch et al. 2012); fire 

suppression may limit this expansion. In the LFO, cheatgrass is not widespread

and dominant, though isolated patches may be found. The chance of large 

wildfire in sagebrush is less in the LFO planning area than in the Great Basin, 

due to the planning area’s vegetation (less cheatgrass) and cooler, wetter 

climate.

Controlled burning may be prescribed to treat fuel buildup and can help

sagebrush habitat recover in some vegetation types, especially when silver 

sagebrush is undergoing conifer encroachment. Reseeding with native plants and 

long-term monitoring to ensure the production of GRSG cover and forage 

plants, would assist vegetation recovery (NTT 2011, pp. 26-27). In the LFO,

controlled burning is used primarily in ponderosa pine areas to limit conifer 

spread and is not used in GRSG habitat.

COT Report Threat—Vegetation Management (Conifers, Weeds, and 

Annual Grasses)

Current treatments and active vegetation management typically focus on 

vegetation composition and structure for fuels. Habitat management and 

productivity manipulation also are used to improve habitat and forage for 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-11

ungulates and other grazers. An example of this is soil stabilization to manipulate 

vegetation composition, to increase productivity, or to remove invasive plants

(Knick et al. 2011). Distribution of these treatments can affect the distribution 

of GRSG and sagebrush habitats locally and across a region.

Invasive plants are thought to alter plant community structure and composition, 

productivity, nutrient cycling, and hydrology. They may outcompete native plant 

populations. In particular, invasive plants can reduce and eliminate vegetation 

that GRSG use for food and cover, resulting in habitat loss and fragmentation. 

Invasive plants also may increase the risk of wildfire. An assortment of nonnative 

annuals and perennials and native conifers are currently invading sagebrush 

ecosystems.

Expansion of conifer woodlands, especially juniper (Juniperus spp.), also 

threatens GRSG. This is because conifers do not provide suitable habitat, and 

mature trees displace shrubs, grasses, and forbs required for GRSG through 

competition for resources. GRSG may incur population-level impacts at very 

low levels of conifer encroachment (Baruch-Mordo et al. 2013). Juniper 

expansion is also associated with increased bare ground, the potential for 

erosion, and additional perch sites for raptors. For these reasons, woodland 

expansion may also represent expansion of raptor predation threat, in ways 

similar to perches on power lines and other structures (Connelly et al. 2004).

Landscapes with large, intact patches of sagebrush are preferred to avoid edge 

effects. In addition, GRSG require habitats that include a diversity of herbaceous 

species and healthy native grasses, making management for high condition 

important (Knick et al. 2011).

The distribution of sagebrush is limited, and the cost of habitat restoration is 

high. For these reasons, management plans that protect intact sagebrush and 

restore impacted areas strategically to increase connectivity of intact sagebrush 

have the best chance of increasing high quality sagebrush cover (Connelly et al. 

2004; Beck and Mitchell 2000, cited in Manier et al. 2013, p. 108). Sagebrushpromoting vegetation treatments would increase the amount and quality of 

GRSG habitat.

Managing and controlling invasive weed species in GRSG habitat would decrease 

the spread of weeds that directly compete for resources such as water with 

native plants and that indirectly increase the risk of fire, such as from cheatgrass,

impacts on sagebrush. To reduce the likelihood of invasive weed spread and the 

extent of current infestations, the BLM uses integrated weed management 

techniques through weed control cooperative range improvement agreements. 

The BLM implements vegetation treatments, such as mechanical, chemical, handcutting, and prescribed burning, to reduce weed infestations and conifer 

encroachments. Invasive annual grasses (e.g., cheatgrass and Japanese brome) 

are found throughout the planning area but are usually not dominant. Shortterm, surface-disturbing activities, overgrazing, and drought can increase annual 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

grasses. Proper management and typical precipitation patterns in the planning 

area allow desirable native plants to thrive in the presence of annual grasses.

These conservation efforts would reduce the impacts of weeds or conifers on 

sagebrush and would increase the availability of GRSG habitat. In addition, fuels 

management actions, as described above, can also reduce weeds and conifers 

and create fire breaks. 

Indicators of potential impacts on GRSG from invasive plants and conifers under 

the proposed alternatives are acres of sagebrush habitat and acres meeting 

rangeland health standards.

COT Report Threat—Energy

Energy development requires construction of roads, well pads, wells, and other 

infrastructure, with associated noise, traffic and lights. These improvements

disturb wildlife and alter, degrade, or displace native ecosystems. Wildlife is 

displaced by energy development infrastructure, with power lines and roads 

having the largest effects, according to a meta-analysis of prairie grouse 

populations. Population declines associated with energy development result 

from the abandonment of leks, decreased attendance at the leks that persist, 

lower nest initiation, poor nest success, decreased yearling survival, and 

avoidance of energy infrastructure in important wintering habitat (Holloran 

2005; Aldridge and Boyce 2007).

Industrial activity to develop surface mines and infrastructure could result in 

noise and human activity that disrupt the habitat and life cycle of GRSG, 

potentially resulting in lek or nest abandonment (Patricelli et al. 2013; Blickley et 

al. 2012a; Patricelli et al. 2012; Blickley et al. 2012b). Impacts from roads may 

include direct habitat loss, direct mortality, barriers to migration corridors 

(depending on size of road and season of use) or seasonal habitats, facilitation of 

predators and spread of invasive vegetation species, and other indirect 

influences such as noise (Forman and Alexander 1998, pp. 207-231). The 

number of displaying GRSG on two leks within 1.25 miles of active mines in 

northern Colorado declined by approximately 94 percent. This was over a fiveyear period following an increase in mining activity, though limited recovery 

occurred subsequently (Remington and Braun 1991, cited in Manier et al. 2013, 

p. 71; Braun 1998).

All studies which assessed impacts of energy development on GRSG found 

negative effects, whereas no studies reported a positive influence of 

development on populations or habitats (Naugle et al. 2011). Research has 

reported that breeding populations of GRSG were negatively impacted, with 

declines in lek attendance by male GRSG ranging from 13 to 79 percent at 

conventional well pad densities. This was defined in the study as four to eight

pads per square mile; within the planning area conventional well pad density is 

one per square mile (640 acres). A recent summary of studies investigating 

GRSG response to natural gas development reported impacts on leks from 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-13

energy development were most severe when infrastructure occurred near leks 

and that impacts remained discernible out to distances up to four miles (Naugle 

et al. 2011; Manier et al. 2013, p. 51).

An observed 21 percent decline in GRSG population between pre- and postmine development was primarily attributed to decreased nest success and adult 

female annual survival; the treatment effect was more noticeable closer to gas 

field infrastructure. 

Annual survival of individuals reared near gas field infrastructure (yearling 

females and males) was significantly lower than control individuals that were not 

reared near infrastructure (Holloran et al. 2010, cited in Manier et al. 2013 p. 

59). Generally, oil and gas developments within two to four miles of leks or 

nesting areas had a deleterious effect on populations; the effect increased as well 

density increased (Lyon and Anderson 2003; Walker et al. 2007; Johnson et al. 

2011). Knick and Connelly (2011) found that burned areas and human 

disturbance were the primary factors influencing the fate of leks.

Current oil and gas leases are substantial across GRSG ranges in MZ I, though 

oil and gas leasing is inactive on BLM-administered lands in PHMA and GHMA

within the LFO. The potential for development is based on locations of geologic 

fields for traditional oil and gas, distributed extensively across eastern portions 

of GRSG range (Manier et al. 2013, p. 51). LFO is not leasing any parcels for 

fluid minerals in PHMA or GHMA under any alternative. Private lands are being 

leased; however, three wells targeting the Heath formation less than two years 

ago are plugged or abandoned, and additional wells are not expected.

A lease does not guarantee development; a separate environmental review 

process is conducted before permission is given to drill. Oil and gas leasing is 

not currently active in the LFO area but could become prevalent in the future, 

depending on market conditions.

Restrictions on mineral leasing in GRSG habitat would reduce impacts on the 

species by reducing the disturbances described above.

COT Report Threat—Grazing and Range Management

Livestock grazing is the most widespread land management practice in western 

North America; 70 percent of all lands are grazed (Floyd et al. 2003). Cattle

grazing is also the dominant agricultural use in the LFO. Since the early 1900s, 

livestock use on public lands has declined. 

Simultaneously with reduced stocking of public rangelands has been measurable 

improvements in range condition during the latter half of the 1900s (Box 1990;

Laycock et al. 1996). The focus of rangeland management on livestock 

production has been shifting since the 1960s and 1970s toward conservation, 

ecosystem integrity and services, sustainable use of resources for multiple 

purposes, the restoration of degraded rangelands, and benefits for wildlife 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-14 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

(Connelly et al. 2004; Vavra 2005; Briske et al. 2011; Knick et al. 2011). The 

mere presence of livestock does not mean that long-term destruction is 

occurring to wildlife or habitat. Instead, the degree to which grazing affects 

habitat depends on the number of animals grazing in an area, the time of grazing,

and the grazing system used.

Although the Great Plains ecosystems evolved under grazing pressures from 

hoofed ungulates, the seasonality and intensity of domestic livestock grazing 

under current grazing management may differ from historic bison and elk 

grazing. The impact of grazing on these communities varies with site potential, 

ecological condition, and climate. If not managed optimally or effectively, cattle 

and sheep grazing can cause soil compaction, nutrient enrichment, vegetation 

and nest trampling, direct disturbance, and negative effects on GRSG

recruitment (Connelly et al. 2004 pp.7-29 –7-32). This would result from 

livestock reducing invertebrate prey or increasing GRSG exposure to predators 

(Beck and Mitchell 2000, pp. 998-1000; Knick 2011; Coates 2007, pp. 28-33).

Impacts on habitat vary with livestock densities and distribution: the more 

evenly livestock are distributed, the lower their impact on any given area (Gillen 

at al. 1984). However, cattle show a strong preference for certain areas, leading 

to high use in some areas and little to no use in others. In general, livestock use

is limited by slopes greater than 30 percent, dense forests and vegetation, poor 

or little upland forage, and lack of water.

GRSG habitat structure and composition may be affected positively or 

negatively by livestock grazing (Crawford et al. 2004). Forage utilization 

standards and guidelines, such as BLM Standards for Rangeland Health, were 

developed to identify, with proper management, future conditions of rangeland 

resources.

Properly managed livestock grazing, permitted within standard and guideline 

limits (as specified in the LFO standards for rangeland health in Appendix F), is 

designed to cause no adverse impacts on rangeland or habitat values. Grazing 

plans designed to improve fair and poor condition range with rest periods may 

increase herbaceous cover and concurrently GRSG habitat (Adams et al. 2004). 

Changing the timing of grazing to promote grass and forb growth, and residual 

matter, also benefits GRSG habitat (Woodward 2006). Light grazing may 

produce mosaics in sagebrush communities and increase grass and forb 

production needed for nesting and brood-rearing (Adams et al. 2004). Light to 

moderate grazing does not appear to affect cover of perennial grasses important 

to nest cover (Strand and Launchbaugh 2013); however, heavy grazing may limit 

restoration of bunchgrass and promote invasive species spread (Reisner et al. 

2013).

Areas with excessive utilization for a number of years have negatively impacted 

GRSG habitat. The situation has created conditions that favor annual grass 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-15

dominance and reduce perennial grasses used as nesting and escape cover (Beck 

and Mitchell 2000). Periodic overgrazing can damage range resources for the 

long term. It often exacerbates drought effects when livestock levels are not 

reduced to match the limited forage production.

Livestock’s heavy use of riparian meadows reduces the availability of succulent 

forbs and may cause GRSG to avoid these habitats (Klebenow 1982). Livestock 

may also trample nests and disturb GRSG behavior (Beck and Mitchell 2000; 

Coates 2007, pp.28-33).

Grazing in riparian areas can destabilize streams and river banks, reduce riparian 

shade, and increase sediment and nutrient loads in the aquatic ecosystem. 

Timing of grazing influences effects on meadows and riparian areas. Meadow and 

riparian areas within sagebrush habitat in good condition can withstand 

moderate spring, early summer, or winter use (Shaw 1992; Clary et al. 1996;

Mosley et al. 1997). The length of time livestock access meadows may be more 

important than the level of use (Mosley et al. 1997). Rest from grazing may be 

necessary to restore degraded riparian and meadow habitat (Clary and Webster 

1989).

Grazing infrastructure, such as water features and pipelines for livestock, can 

attract livestock to previously undisturbed habitat areas. This artificially 

concentrates livestock impacts, such as heavy grazing and vegetation trampling 

(Braun 1998). Standing water for livestock can create puddles that serve as 

breeding grounds for mosquitoes that carry West Nile virus (Walker and 

Naugle 2011). Fences provide predator perches and are a cause of direct 

mortality to GRSG (Braun 1998; Stevens et al. 2012). Grazing management that 

provides for sagebrush ecosystem health would enhance habitat for GRSG 

populations.

Birds and other wildlife species do not respond to grazing directly but to habitat 

changes. In general, livestock can influence habitat by modifying plant biomass, 

plant height and cover, and plant species composition. As a result, livestock 

grazing could change habitat and alter species abundances and composition in 

GRSG insect prey. Changes could occur in varying degrees in plant composition 

and change in vegetative structure, affecting cover for nesting birds. Grazing 

could also alter fire regimes (Davies et al. 2010) to varying degrees.

Grazing can reduce the spread of invasive grasses, if applied annually before the 

grasses have cured, and can be used as a tool to reduce fuel load (Connelly et al. 

2004, pp. 7, 28-30).

COT Report Threat—Infrastructure

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Transmission lines and major power lines are widespread throughout GRSG

range. GRSG respond negatively to increased human infrastructure in sagebrush 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-16 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

habitats, including roads, power lines, and communication towers (Knick and 

Connelly 2011; Johnson et al. 2011). Although transmission line and power line 

construction does not generally result in substantial direct habitat loss, it would 

temporally disturb individual GRSG and habitat along the ROW.

Following construction, GRSG avoidance of vertical structures, likely due to 

raptors perching on them, may result in habitat exclusion via behavioral 

response. One study reported that the frequency of raptor/GRSG interactions 

during the breeding season increased 65 percent and golden eagle interactions 

alone increased 47 percent where a transmission line had been constructed

(Ellis 1985). GRSG have been observed to avoid brood-rearing habitats within 

three miles of power lines (LeBeau 2012). Higher densities of power lines within 

four miles of a lek negatively influence lek attendance (Walker et al. 2007).

Wind generating facilities have increased in size and number and currently 

surpass the pace of other renewable developments in the GRSG range (USFWS 

2010). Similar to nonrenewable energy developments, impacts on GRSG from 

wind development facilities include roads, power lines, noise, and increased 

human presence (Connelly et al. 2004). These impacts are associated with both 

construction and operation of wind energy facilities and increase habitat 

fragmentation through habitat loss, degradation, and directly disturb GRSG. 

While there are impacts that are unique to wind development (e.g., noise 

produced by the rotor blades, GRSG mortality from flying into rotors, and 

GRSG avoidance of structures) most of the impacts are from the roads and 

power lines necessary for construction and maintenance (see Infrastructure 

section; Connelly et al. 2004). Only 16 percent, or 62,916 acres, of the BLMadministered land in the Lewistown District has wind potential that is 

considered “Good” or better (greater than or equal to 400 watts per square 

meter).

ROW exclusion areas would prohibit all development of ROWs, while in ROW 

avoidance areas, whether a ROW should be allowed would be considered on a 

case-by-case basis. This flexibility may be advantageous where federal and 

private landownership areas are mixed; exclusion areas may result in more 

widespread development on private lands.

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Ecological impacts of roads and motorized trails include mortality due to 

collisions, behavior modifications due to noise, activity, and habitat loss, physical 

environment alteration, nutrient leaching, erosion, invasive plant spread, 

increased use, and alteration of habitat by humans accessing it. GRSG avoid 

nesting and summering near major roads (for example, paved secondary 

highways) and traffic disturbances. Research suggests that roads within 4.7 miles

of leks negatively influence male lek attendance, with larger roads having greater 

effects (Connelly et al. 2004; Johnson et al. 2011). Negative influences on male 

lek attendance are increased road length and traffic levels on roads and traffic 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-17

activity during the early morning on roads within approximately two miles of 

leks (Holloran 2005; LeBeau 2012; Forman and Alexander 1998; Lyon and 

Anderson 2003, cited in Manier et al. 2013, pp. 44 and 50). Research suggests 

that roads should be sited or traffic should be seasonally limited within 0.8 to 1 

mile from the edge of important areas for nesting, foraging, and breeding to 

protect GRSG from noise disturbance (Patricelli et al. 2013).

Closing and reclaiming unused, minimally used, or unnecessary roads in and 

around GRSG habitat would reduce disturbance to GRSG in those habitats. It 

also would increase the amount of GRSG habitat when the roads are reclaimed 

(NTT 2011, p. 11).

COT Report Threat—Recreation

Recreation in GRSG habitat is benign in most situations, but excessive use may

disturb birds or nesting sites, degrade sagebrush habitat, or allow poaching 

(NTT 2011, p. 12). Activities such as camping, bicycling, OHV use, and hunting 

make use of the extensive network of BLM roads and trails. These activities

impact sagebrush and GRSG by generating noise and dust, spreading invasive 

plants, and altering wildlife behavior (Knick et al. 2011). In addition, road and

trail use may directly cause GRSG mortality via collisions with vehicles.

Closing or seasonally restricting roads used by recreationists in and around 

seasonal GRSG habitats may reduce the impacts on wildlife. Restricting 

permitted access to important habitat areas based on seasonal use and 

coincident with GRSG activities would also protect GRSG (Knick et al. 2011; 

NTT 2011, p. 11).

4.3.3 Impacts Common to Alternatives B—–D and the Proposed Plan 

Amendment

Adoption of a Monitoring Framework (see Section 2.7.2 and Appendix B) to 

oversee the implementation and effectiveness of GRSG habitat improvement 

efforts could result in habitat improvement and long-term viability of GRSG.

4.3.4 Alternative A

COT Report Threats—–Sagebrush Elimination, Agriculture Conversion 

Impacts from Land Tenure Decisions

Land tenure adjustments would be subject to current disposal, exchange, and 

acquisition criteria. These include retaining lands with threatened or endangered 

species, high quality riparian habitat, or plant and animal populations or natural 

communities of high interest. This would likely include retaining or protecting

areas with GRSG and would thus maintain occupied habitats. Thus, management 

under existing land tenure criteria would likely retain GRSG habitat and other 

lands with high value to wildlife.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-18 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

COT Report Threat—Fire

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

As shown in Section 3.7, under current management, 158,700 acres of GRSG 

habitat on BLM-administered land are at high risk of wildfire. Fuels treatment 

may reduce the risk by mechanical means or prescribed fire. 

Prescribed burning may also be used in support of resource management 

objectives, such as restoring grassland or shrubland, reducing conifer 

encroachment, or increasing age-class variety. The intention of prescribed 

burning is to improve wildlife habitat and vegetation production. Sagebrush 

treatments are designed to maintain sagebrush within the canopy at 15 to 50 

percent and to increase succulent forbs in order to improve forage for GRSG 

and increase population stability. Chemical weed treatments may be applied 

following prescribed burns to limit the expansion of weeds or invasive species in 

the burned area.

Rest periods following wildfire or controlled burn are determined on a sitespecific basis. Intensive wildfire suppression would be applied to high-value 

areas, such as sagebrush, fire-sensitive woody riparian areas, and commercial 

forests. Continuation of this policy would protect sagebrush acreage, but high 

risks of wildfire would remain in some areas.

COT Report Threats—Vegetation Management (Conifers and Weeds and 

Annual Grasses)

Under Alternative A, current vegetation management would continue. Grazing 

methods, land treatments, and other improvements would be designed and 

monitored to accomplish objectives, including wildlife habitat needs. Noxious 

weed control would be the responsibility of the affected permittee and lessee 

under existing weed control cooperative range improvement agreements. Each 

year, permittees and lessees would provide the BLM with records and maps of 

treatment areas. Conifer removal projects would continue using mechanical 

means and controlled burns. These approaches would continue to be effective 

in combating the spread of weeds and conifers, subject to budget limitations.

COT Report Threats—Energy

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Mineral exploration and extraction directly disturbs GRSG and degrades their 

habitat, as described under Nature and Type of Effects. Existing leases cover 

71,488 acres in the planning area, 17,639 acres of which are in BLMadministered PH and GH. This acreage would remain the same across all the 

alternatives. As discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects, mineral 

exploration and extraction direct impacts include habitat loss, direct mortality, 

barriers to migration corridors or seasonal habitats, facilitation of predators and 

spread of invasive vegetation species, and other indirect influences such as noise.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-19

Leasing restrictions would reduce these impacts by disturbing/degrading fewer 

acres of sagebrush habitat, and reducing direct disturbance of birds on BLMmanaged minerals.

Under Alternative A, fluid mineral leasing and development would continue on 

previously leased lands, though not all leased areas would ultimately be 

developed. Under current rates of development, no new wells would be drilled 

on previously leased land in the coming decade. Additional widespread lease 

development in the LFO is not expected.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Before coal exploration licenses or prospecting permits for nonenergy leasable 

minerals were approved, environmental review would be required to assess 

impacts and develop mitigation measures. Generally, surface occupancy is 

prohibited within key wildlife areas, floodplains, and public ROWs. There are no 

known coal resources in the planning area; therefore, actions associated with 

coal extraction would not impact GRSG populations. The BLM would issue sales 

contracts for salable minerals where disposal is deemed to be in the public 

interest, while providing for reclamation of mined lands and preventing 

unnecessary or undue impact on nonmineral resources

For locatable minerals, mitigation measures to prevent unnecessary or undue 

degradation would continue to apply to the proposed Plan of Operations. The 

BLM may consider conducting valid existing right determinations of mining 

claims where activities threaten resource values, such as wildlife habitat. These 

policies are unlikely to impact GRSG due to the lack of mining in the LFO; as 

discussed in Section 3.10, no known locatable mineral development potential 

has been identified within GRSG habitat in the current RMPs.

COT Report Threat—Infrastructure

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative A, ROWs are considered on a case-by-case basis outside of 

exclusion and avoidance areas, with policy being to collocate when possible. 

There are no ROW exclusion areas within the planning area, but there are two 

avoidance areas, Acid Shale Pine Forest ACEC and Judith River Canyon (9,708 

acres total, 2,674 acres of which are in GRSG habitat, as shown in Section

4.14, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern). The collocation approach 

provides limited protection for GRSG habitat from ROW construction, which is 

a cause of fragmentation. Table 4-1 shows ROW avoidance and exclusion 

areas under each alternative.

Infrastructure can result in a variety of direct and indirect impacts, including

habitat loss, habitat degradation at multiple scales (e.g., invasive species at the 

microsite habitat scale and increased habitat fragmentation at the seasonal 

habitat scale and population level), increased likelihood of predation because of 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-20 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 4-1

ROW Exclusion and Avoidance Areas in GRSG Habitat (PHMA and GHMA)

Resource Use Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

ROW avoidance

area

(acres)

2,674 112,341 0 233,219 345,560

ROW exclusion

area

(acres)

0 233,219 345,560 0 233,2191

1

PHMA would be exclusion for wind and solar energy only.

Note: Exclusion and avoidance areas are in PHMA and GHMA for Alternatives B-D and Proposed Plan 

Amendment, and in PH and GH for Alternative A (since no PHMA or GHMA is presently designated).

increased predator abundance, increased likelihood of disturbance because of 

increased human presence, and functional habitat loss as a result of avoidance of 

habitat use. GRSG population declines have resulted from avoidance of 

infrastructure and reduced productivity and/or reduced survival in the vicinity of 

infrastructure (Naugle et al. 2011).

COT Report Threats—Grazing and Range Management 

Impacts from Range Management

As shown in Table 4-2, 570,112 acres in the planning area are open for 

livestock grazing, with 103,806 acres of available AUMs. There are 6,781 acres 

closed to livestock grazing. Current livestock grazing was a significant causal 

factor for not achieving land health standards in 78 (54 allotments within GRSG 

habitat) of the 526 allotments within the planning area.

Table 4-2

Acres and AUMs Available for Grazing in the Planning Area

Resource Use Alternative 

A

Alternative B Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

Available AUMs 103,806 103,806 34,398 103,806 103,806

AUMs in GRSG 

habitat (PHMA

and GHMA)

69,408 69,408 0 69,408 69,408

Acres open to 

grazing

570,112 570,112 232,947 570,112 570,112

Acres open to 

grazing in 

PHMA and 

GHMA

337,165 337,165 0 337,165 337,165

Note: PHMA and GHMA are for Alternatives B, C, D, and Proposed Plan Amendment, and PH and GH are for 

Alternative A (since no PHMA or GHMA is presently designated).
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-21

In accordance with BLM grazing regulations 43 CFR, Part 4180, policy and 

guidance, the LFO has changed livestock grazing management on the 105,437 

acres of PH and GH (see Table 3-46) that were not meeting land health 

standards due to current livestock grazing. The actions taken should allow 

GRSG habitat to improve by reducing the negative impacts.

At this time the LFO cannot quantify through monitoring that the management 

changes implemented on these lands have resulted in the acres achieving land 

health standards; however, management changes were implemented. If future 

land health evaluations and determinations indicate that lands are still not 

achieving standards, further action in accordance with grazing regulations 

(regulatory mechanisms) and BLM policy and guidance would be required.

Under Alternative A, livestock grazing would continue to be managed through 

existing grazing plans. When grazing regimens are implemented, methods and 

guidelines from the existing RMPs would be followed to maintain ecological 

conditions and enhance wildlife habitat and vegetation production. Monitoring 

would be used to maintain the effectiveness of grazing management practices,

and integrated ranch planning may be used to plan allotments as single units. 

Land health assessments and other management evaluations aim to meet

rangeland health standards, which would provide for the health of rangeland 

vegetation that supports GRSG and other wildlife. Range improvements would 

be designed to meet both wildlife and range objectives and fences would be built 

or modified to permit passage of wildlife and to minimize GRSG fence collision 

risks.

The acreage in PH found to not be meeting standards would continue to be 

managed to achieve the standards, which would improve its usefulness as GRSG 

habitat. Restricting livestock from riparian areas would enhance riparian habitat 

for wildlife, including GRSG.

Fences could also increase opportunities for raptor perching and predation on 

GRSG. Impacts would be expected to increase in areas where perching is 

occurring in proximity to seasonal habitats where GRSG are concentrating. 

Concentrations of predators may also result in habitat fragmentation due to 

avoidance strategies by GRSG to avoid areas of high predator use (Dinkins et al. 

2012).

COT Report Threat—Recreation

Impacts from Recreation

Alternative A includes no specific recreation plan related to GRSG or their 

habitat. Although most recreation is benign, hunting, camping, and bird watching

may disturb individual GRSG.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-22 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Recreation is an important use of BLM roads. As shown in Table 3-36 in 

Section 3.12, Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management, there 

are currently 773 miles of roads on BLM-administered land in PH and GH. 

Under Alternative A, BLM-administered lands would continue to permit limited 

yearlong use for motorized vehicles. Recreation on wildlife habitat may disturb 

GRSG, may reduce nest success, and may contribute to habitat fragmentation. 

Under Alternative A, road and trail development is minimized in crucial big 

game and upland bird habitat. Roads may be closed to vehicles where substantial 

resource impacts occur, including harm to wildlife or habitat. These policies may 

limit disturbance of GRSG habitat during the nesting season.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects on GRSG in the Planning Area 

under Alternative A 

As discussed in Chapter 3, the Yellowstone Watershed GRSG population 

contains five GRSG priority habitat areas within the Billings, Miles City, and 

Lewistown BLM field offices. PH within the LFO is made up of Yellow Water 

Triangle, War Horse, Crooked Creek, and Winifred. Table 3-6 shows lek size 

data for these survey areas.

The Winifred survey area contains more agricultural land (11 percent) than any 

other PH area in the LFO. Any further loss of habitat, regardless of ownership, 

would likely decrease lek size and population numbers. No further loss of 

sagebrush habitat on BLM-administered land is expected in this area. The two 

large leks in the Winifred survey area have declined in size over the monitoring 

period and are presently just over the 25 GRSG threshold separating large from 

medium-size leks.

The number of large leks in Crooked Creek (one), War Horse (six), and Yellow 

Water Triangle (two) are expected to be maintained, assuming no changes to 

private lands or West Nile virus outbreaks. Habitats with more extensive 

agricultural production are more impacted (higher GRSG population declines) 

during West Nile virus outbreaks (Taylor et al. 2010).

The NRCS in both Fergus and Petroleum Counties is working with producers 

on private and public lands as part of the SGI to improve GRSG habitat. This

would continue under all alternatives, as would fence marking on high collision 

risk fences within 1.25 miles of leks.

The total number of leks and large leks has declined over the course of data 

collection (see Diagrams 3-1 and 3-2 in Section 3.4), with 2012/2013 

representing the lowest counts since surveys began in the 1950s. GRSG 

population declines are likely driven by habitat loss from conversion to cropland 

on private lands.

GRSG habitat on state and private lands would remain in the long term. The 

BLM has taken corrective actions for grazing management on allotments not 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-23

meeting rangeland health standards due to livestock management (40 percent of 

PH). Additional measures currently occurring that benefit GRSG include:

 Fence marking in conjunction with NRCS

 Deferring all oil and gas leases in PH or GH because of existing 

protest resolution (see Section 1.3, Proposed Action)

 Wildfire suppression

 Grazing management under NRCS’ SGI

 Conifer removal in GRSG habitat

Under Alternative A, these measures could stabilize GRSG numbers in the short

term and maintain numbers in the long term. This would be especially true in 

the War Horse and Yellow Water Triangle survey areas, where a greater 

amount of BLM-administrated lands occur.

Grazing would be managed to meet rangeland health standards, which include 

GRSG habitat as part of the biodiversity standard. Continued grazing would 

reduce the amount of fine fuels and fires over the next decade. This would likely 

be similar to what has occurred over the previous decade (less than 2,000 acres 

burned in BLM PH). 

Continued grazing would also require permittees to continue to treat noxious 

weeds on BLM allotments. Land use patterns, weather, and West Nile virus

would continue to play important roles in recruitment and survival rates for 

both chicks and adults. Recreation effects would continue to be minimal and 

benign, as described above.

4.3.5 Alternative B

COT Report Threats—Sagebrush Elimination, Agriculture Conversion 

Impacts from Land Tenure Decisions

No lands in PHMA would be available for disposal under Alternative B. As 

discussed above, current disposal, exchange, and acquisition criteria would 

include retaining lands with threatened or endangered species, high quality 

riparian habitat, or plant and animal populations or natural communities of high 

interest. Thus, Alternative B would not change the likelihood of habitat 

conversion to agriculture or other uses. Because of the unlikely conversion of 

land under this alternative, sagebrush habitat would not be removed from BLM 

administration, resulting in no loss of PHMA on BLM-administered lands.

Impacts from ACECs

No additional ACECs would be designated under Alternative B, and impacts on 

GRSG are the same as those described under Alternative A.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-24 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

COT Report Threat—Fire

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fire and fuels management actions proposed under Alternative B would

specifically protect mature sagebrush acreage and GRSG from wildfire and 

prescribed burning. As under Alternative A, the trend of nearly 2,000 acres 

burned annually between 2000 and 2012 would be expected to continue over 

the next 10 years.

The approach to prescribed fire would be as described under Alternative A. 

Fuels treatments would be designed and implemented with an emphasis on 

promoting sagebrush. Sagebrush canopy would not be reduced below 15 

percent unless fuels management objectives required it. Seasonal restrictions 

would be applied to fuels management. Rest periods also would be required and 

invasive species would be controlled with native seeds wherever possible. Fire 

suppression would be prioritized in PHMA and GHMA, potentially leading to 

fine fuel buildup. Grazing livestock would be an option to reduce fine fuel load. 

The impacts under Alternative B would likely be the same as those under 

Alternative A.

COT Report Threats—Vegetation Management (Conifers and 

Weeds/Annual Grasses)

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Current management programs (Alternative A) were already designed to 

reduce weeds and conifer spread, which benefit GRSG habitat. Habitat 

restoration and vegetation management actions under Alternative B would 

additionally improve GRSG habitat and prioritize restoration to benefit PHMA

compared to Alternative A. As a result, the restoration and management of 

vegetation actions would focus on GRSG habitat more than Alternative A. It 

would do this by requiring the use of native seeds, designing post-restoration 

management to ensure the long-term persistence of restoration, considering 

changes in climate, and monitoring and controlling invasive species.

COT Report Threats—Energy

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Geophysical exploration would be allowed within PHMA but only for obtaining 

information on fluid mineral resources in areas outside of PHMA. Impacts on

GRSG and their habitat could continue as a result of existing fluid mineral leases 

(44,500 acres in PHMA and GHMA); however, no new wells are likely to be 

drilled on BLM-administered land in the next decade. 

In the event of new permits to drill, additional RDFs and conservation measures 

would be applied to existing leases as COAs. In comparison to Alternative A, 

these additional measures would result in potential beneficial impacts related to 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-25

drilling. Under current forecasts, no drilling is anticipated, so there would be no 

change in impacts on GRSG.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Alternative B would find all surface mining of coal to be unsuitable in PHMA. In 

LFO there are no coal potential or existing lease areas. PHMA would be closed 

to nonenergy leasable minerals and salable minerals. For locatable minerals, 

areas in PHMA would be proposed for withdrawal from mineral entry based on 

risk to GRSG habitat. The BLM may consider conducting valid existing right 

determinations of mining claims where activities threaten resource values. 

Currently there is no coal potential and limited locatable mineral mining in the 

planning area; therefore, these actions would have little to no impact on GRSG 

populations or habitat, relative to Alternative A.

COT Report Threat—Infrastructure

Impacts from Lands and Realty

PHMA would be managed as ROW exclusion areas (233,219 acres), with limited 

exceptions, and GHMA would be managed as ROW avoidance areas (112,341 

acres; Table 4-1). Potential removal, burial, or modification of power lines 

could also decrease the likelihood of predator presence in these areas. ROW 

exclusion areas would protect GRSG habitat and reduce habitat fragmentation 

on BLM-administered lands, as described above under Nature and Type of Effects.

However, impacts on GRSG would still continue to occur on non-BLMadministered lands in the LFO. As shown in Table 4-6 in Section 4.5, 

Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands), more sagebrush 

habitat is on land not administered by the BLM (863,565 acres) compared to 

256,052 acres on BLM-administered land. This suggests that ROW exclusion 

and avoidance areas may impact more GRSG habitat if development is 

potentially pushed onto private land.

COT Report Threats—Grazing and Range Management 

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative B, the amount of PHMA and GHMA open for livestock 

grazing and available AUMs is the same as under Alternative A (Table 4-2). 

Noxious weed control would be the same as under Alternative A. Impacts on 

GRSG habitat from grazing, as described under Nature and Types of Effects,

would continue under Alternative B. However, AMPs, integrated ranch planning, 

and land health assessments in PHMA would be used to incorporate GRSG 

habitat objectives into grazing permit renewals. These policies would likely 

increase the protection and quality of GRSG habitat on grazing lands, compared 

to current policy (Alternative A). They could increase GRSG populations

compared to Alternative A.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-26 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

COT Report Threat—Recreation

Impacts from Recreation

Under Alternative B, SRPs would be issued in habitat areas only where the 

effects of recreation were neutral or beneficial to GRSG habitat. The BLM 

would continue to limit OHVs to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails until 

travel management planning is complete. Route construction in PHMA would be 

limited to realignments or built to minimum standards necessary. During the 

breeding season, recreation permits would not be issued in the vicinity of leks

to promote nesting success. 

These policies would protect GRSG by limiting disturbance of GRSG habitat 

from activities associated with OHVs. However, impacts from dispersed 

recreation, such as hiking or camping, would likely continue to disturb individual

GRSG in areas where they occur.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects on GRSG in the Planning Area 

under Alternative B

Grazing and noxious weed control under Alternative B would be similar to 

Alternative A. Direct effects from ROW exclusion areas within PHMA would be 

reduced on BLM-administered lands; however, this could result in much greater 

infrastructure impacts on adjacent private lands, especially in the War Horse, 

eastern Crooked Creek, and Yellow Water Triangle areas. This would be due 

to the checkerboard nature and variety of ownerships within PHMA (974,775

acres) and GHMA (902,694 acres). See Section 4.4, Lands and Realty, for more 

information on land ownership patterns in ROW avoidance and exclusion areas.

Moving ROW impacts to private lands could prove especially detrimental for 

GRSG since no RDFs would be required by the BLM there. The limited BLMadministered land in Winifred would likely have negligible potential indirect 

impacts on private lands as a result of ROW exclusion areas. Over the long

term, ROW exclusion areas on BLM-administered land would likely decrease 

the number of large and medium leks in the planning area, especially War Horse

and Yellow Water Triangle due to the potential effect of pushing development 

onto adjacent private lands with less management oversight. Because more 

sagebrush habitat is on land not administered by the BLM, development may 

impact more leks if pushed onto private land.

The human population in PHMA in Fergus and Petroleum Counties is sparse, so 

impacts from the ROW exclusion areas would be limited. Functioning habitat 

would increase as a result of vegetation treatments prioritized in PHMA, 

especially mechanized treatments targeting conifer encroachment. Designating 

routes as part of travel management would improve GRSG habitat long term 

once the plan is implemented. Short-term GRSG numbers would be expected 

to improve until negative impacts associated with long-term ROW exclusion 

areas are realized.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-27

4.3.6 Alternative C

COT Report Threats—Sagebrush Elimination, Agriculture Conversion

Impacts from Land Tenure Decisions

No lands in PHMA or GHMA would be available for disposal under Alternative 

C. As discussed above, current disposal, exchange, and acquisition criteria 

already include retaining lands with threatened or endangered species, high 

quality riparian habitat, or plant and animal populations and natural communities 

of high interest.

Private land may be acquired to enhance GRSG conservation value of existing 

lands. Although it is uncertain how much private land could be acquired to 

enhance GRSG habitat under Alternative C, this policy could increase the BLM 

acreage of sagebrush compared to Alternatives A, B and D, but impacts are 

likely to be minimal.

Impacts from Range Management

An indirect impact from excluding livestock grazing from BLM-administered 

lands is the potential conversion of adjacent private grazing lands to agriculture 

or other land uses. This is especially a concern in areas with a mosaic of 

ownership boundaries, which would decrease available habitat for GRSG that 

inhabit rangeland outside of BLM-administered lands.

Impacts from ACECs

ACECs to protect GRSG would be designated as sagebrush reserves in PHMA, 

consisting of contiguous blocks of at least 4,000-acre blocks of BLMadministered land, covering 96,246 acres. No additional protections would 

occur for GRSG with an ACEC designation since all conservation measures 

would be applied to both PHMA and GHMA under Alternative C. In addition, 

the ACEC designation could attract increased hunting for GRSG.

COT Report Threat—Fire

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

The approach for fire suppression and emergency stabilization projects is as 

described under Alternative B. Additional policies would be included to ensure 

the availability of native seed. Relative to Alternatives A and B, fire suppression 

in sagebrush areas would be less effective since fine fuels would increase 

without livestock grazing (Strand and Launchbaugh 2013).

COT Report Threats—Vegetation Management (Conifers and 

Weeds/Annual Grasses)

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts from habitat restoration and vegetation management would be largely 

similar to those described for Alternative B. However, they would be applied to 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-28 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

a larger area (PHMA and GHMA) and would thus provide more restoration and 

habitat enhancement for GRSG. Removing livestock grazing on BLMadministered land would eliminate Weed Control Cooperative Range 

Improvement Agreements with BLM permittees and lessees. Noxious weed

control thus would be done by BLM personnel. This could reduce noxious weed 

control efforts and increase weed patch size and distribution.

COT Report Threats—Energy

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Geophysical exploration within PHMA would be permitted to obtain 

information for adjacent areas, with timing restrictions to protect GRSG. As 

described under Alternative B, additional RDFs and conservation measures 

would be applied as COAs to existing leases. Alternative C would also include 

seasonal restrictions to activities that could disrupt GRSG and provide 

additional mitigation measures in both PHMA and GHMA. Existing leases could 

continue to impact GRSG and their habitat; however, no new wells are 

anticipated to be drilled in LFO in the next decade. Thus, beneficial effects from 

this alternative on fluid minerals would be negligible, compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative B.

COT Report Threat—Infrastructure

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative C, PHMA and GHMA would be managed as ROW exclusion 

areas (345,560 acres; see Table 4-1). Establishing ROW exclusion areas would 

reduce fragmentation on BLM-administered land and would protect GRSG 

habitat, as described above under Nature and Type of Effects. However, given the 

checkerboard pattern of landownership in the LFO, ROW impacts could be 

pushed onto adjacent private lands, potentially over a much larger area. 

As shown in Table 4-6 in Section 4.5 below, more sagebrush habitat is on 

land not administered by the BLM (863,565 acres) compared to 256,052 acres 

of BLM-administered land. This suggests that ROW exclusion and avoidance 

areas may impact more GRSG habitat if potentially pushed onto private land.

Given the absence of land use controls and management, actions proposed 

under this alternative could increase habitat fragmentation on lands not 

administered by the BLM. See Section 4.4 for more information on

landownership patterns in ROW avoidance and exclusion areas.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-29

COT Report Threats—Grazing and Range Management

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative C, 337,165 acres would be closed to livestock grazing within 

PHMA and GHMA. This proposed management would eliminate 69,408 AUMs 

of available forage, leaving 34,398 AUMs of available forage in the planning area 

outside GRSG habitat (see Table 4-2). 

Removing permitted grazing uses in habitat areas would reduce the impacts on 

GRSG, such as loss of herbaceous nesting cover, described under Nature and 

Type of Effects. However, grazing may reduce fuel buildup, so removing it could 

increase the occurrence of large wildfires, especially given the potential impact 

on weed control (see above under Vegetation Management). Much of the level 

shrub grassland in Montana that is preferred grazing land is privately owned and 

increasingly valuable for residential development (MCFWS 2005).

An indirect impact from excluding livestock grazing from BLM-administered 

lands is the potential conversion of adjacent private grazing lands to agriculture 

or other land uses. This is especially a concern in areas with a mosaic of 

ownership boundaries, which would decrease available habitat for GRSG that 

inhabit rangeland outside of BLM-administered lands. In the long term, removing 

grazing permits on federal land could cause ranches to be converted to 

residential or agricultural use, leading to a loss of GRSG habitat on adjacent 

private lands. Temperature increases resulting from climate change may also 

increase crop yields, encouraging lands not previously used for agriculture to be 

converted for that purpose (NRC 2010).

In addition, no-grazing areas on BLM-administered land would require 

approximately 3,400 additional miles of fencing to separate these areas from 

adjacent grazing lands. This would increase the adverse effects of fencing on 

GRSG, such as raptor predation and potential collision, as well as habitat 

fragmentation. Construction of 3,400 miles of additional fencing could result in 

as many as 2,300 additional fence collisions (Stevens et al. 2012), some of which 

could be fatal for GRSG.

COT Report Threat—Recreation

Impacts from Recreation

Alternative C includes no specific recreation management related to GRSG or 

their habitat. Impacts are the same as under Alternative A.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects on GRSG in the Planning Area 

under Alternative C

There would be no livestock grazing or noxious weed control by permittees 

under Alternative C. Removing grazing from BLM-administrated lands would 

increase residual vegetation and increase concealment for GRSG. Most notably, 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-30 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

these increases would be felt in the War Horse and Yellow Water Triangle

survey areas, where most BLM-administered lands occur. 

In the short term, GRSG populations may increase as a result of removing 

grazing. Direct effects from ROW exclusion areas within PHMA would be 

reduced on BLM-administrated lands. However, this could result in much 

greater infrastructure impacts on adjacent private lands, especially in the War 

Horse, eastern Crooked Creek, and Yellow Water Triangle survey areas. Over 

the long term, absence of grazing would increase fine fuels, making fire 

suppression within sagebrush habitats less effective. Despite suppression, 

wildfires would become more prevalent and would increase conversion of

Wyoming big sagebrush habitats to grasslands. This would be especially true in 

the War Horse and Yellow Water Triangle areas.

Grazing would continue on private and state lands in all survey areas and would 

require BLM-administrated lands be fenced to exclude livestock. The additional 

fencing would increase GRSG collisions. Smaller ranches that are not viable 

without BLM grazing permits would be more likely to be converted to 

agriculture or to be subdivided.

Direct and indirect effects from ROW exclusion areas are similar to Alternative 

B but would happen over a greater area, encompassing both PHMA and GHMA. 

Direct effects from ROW exclusion areas would be reduced on BLMadministered lands; however, this could result in much greater infrastructure 

impacts on adjacent private lands, especially in the War Horse, eastern Crooked 

Creek, and Yellow Water Triangle survey areas. This could prove especially 

detrimental for GRSG since no RDFs could be stipulated by the BLM on private 

lands. 

The sparse BLM ownership in Winifred could likely have negligible potential 

indirect impacts on private lands as a result of ROW exclusion areas. Over the 

long term, ROW exclusion on BLM-administered land would likely decrease the 

number of large and medium leks in the planning area, especially War Horse and 

Yellow Water Triangle. The human population in PHMA in Fergus and 

Petroleum Counties is sparse, so impacts from the ROW exclusion areas would 

be limited.

GRSG habitat would increase as a result of vegetation treatments prioritized in 

PHMA, especially mechanized treatments targeting conifer encroachment.

The GRSG ACEC established under this alternative would provide no additional 

protections and could attract additional hunting pressure. Short- and long-term 

GRSG numbers could decline and no large leks would be expected to persist

long-term in the LFO portion of the Yellowstone Watershed Population.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-31

4.3.7 Alternative D

COT Report Threats—Sagebrush Elimination, Agriculture Conversion

Impacts from Land Tenure Decisions

No lands in PHMA would be available for disposal under Alternative D. Impacts 

from land tenure decisions are the same as under Alternative B.

Impacts from ACECs

No additional ACECs would be designated under Alternative D, and impacts on 

GRSG are the same as that described under Alternative A.

COT Report Threat—Fire

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fuels treatment would be designed and implemented with seasonal restrictions 

and avoidance of winter range, as described under Alternative C. As described 

under Alternative B, livestock grazing would be considered as a means of fuel 

reduction and fire suppression would be prioritized in GRSG habitat. Fire 

suppression in sagebrush areas would protect mature sagebrush and GRSG

from the disturbance associated with wildfire. Post-burn restoration programs

would help regrowth, compared to Alternatives A, B, and C.

COT Report Threats—Vegetation Management (Sagebrush Elimination, 

Conifer Invasion, Invasive Species)

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts from habitat restoration and vegetation management under Alternative 

D are similar to Alternative B. However, this alternative includes consideration 

of other threatened, endangered, or sensitive species, in addition to GRSG. This

may reduce protection for GRSG habitat in very limited instances.

COT Report Threats—Energy

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Operational constraints would be applied to existing leases, with some 

exceptions to minimize disturbance associated with mineral extraction, as 

described under Nature and Type of Effects. As under Alternatives B and C, RDFs 

and conservation measures would be COAs for the permit to drill of existing 

leases. No new drilling permits are anticipated in the next decade in LFO, so 

impacts from fluid minerals are unlikely to affect GRSG populations.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Similar to Alternative A, the planning area would be available for coal

exploration licensing. However, an environmental review would be conducted 

to assess impacts and to develop mitigation measures before exploration. 

Currently there is low coal potential in the planning area; therefore, these 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-32 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

actions are not expected to impact GRSG populations unless future coal 

resources are discovered.

Locatable minerals and salable minerals would be managed as described under 

Alternative A. Prospecting for nonenergy leasable minerals would be permitted 

after appropriate environmental review. These policies would likely have 

minimal impact on GRSG, given the low level of mining in the planning area.

COT Report Threat—Infrastructure

Impacts from Lands and Realty

PHMA would be managed as ROW avoidance areas (233,219 acres); no ROW 

exclusion areas would be established (see Table 4-1). The policies described 

under Alternative D would consider ROW authorizations on a case-by-case 

basis. They would circumvent impacts of outright ROW exclusion areas where 

there is mixed public/private landownership of sagebrush habitat. Additionally, 

these policies would protect GRSG habitat from loss and fragmentation by 

avoiding ROW construction, while retaining the management flexibility to locate 

ROWs in less sensitive areas in order to preserve connectivity of PHMA.

COT Report Threat—Grazing and Range Management

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative D, there would be no change to the acreage open for grazing 

or available AUMs described under Alternative A (Table 4-2). The policies 

proposed under Alternative D would be similar to those described under 

Alternative B. Noxious weed control would be the same as under Alternative B;

as a result, impacts on GRSG habitat would be beneficial compared to 

Alternative A.

COT Report Threat—Recreation

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative B.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects on GRSG in the Planning Area 

under Alternative D

Grazing and noxious weed control under Alternative D would be similar to 

Alternatives A and B. Fire and fuels management would be the similar to 

Alternative B, but rest periods following disturbance would be based on 

vegetation response and desired conditions, not length of time following

disturbance. GRSG habitat would increase as a result of vegetation treatments 

prioritized where they are most beneficial for GRSG, regardless of PHMA or 

GHMA designation. Treatments targeting species other than GRSG would be 

allowed, and depending on the habitat targeted, would most likely have no 

impacts. Additional site-specific NEPA studies would determine impacts for 

GRSG as well as other listed BLM sensitive species and migratory birds.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-33

Similar to Alternative B, designating routes as part of travel management

planning would improve GRSG habitat long term once the plan is implemented.

In ROW avoidance areas within PHMA, the BLM would consider ROW 

requests on a case-by-case basis. This would influence the most appropriate 

placement and design for future infrastructure needs, especially in the War 

Horse, eastern Crooked Creek, and Yellow Water Triangle areas.

Short-term and long-term GRSG numbers would improve and the number of 

large leks would be maintained or would increase. This alternative provides the 

best possibility for LFO contributions to population viability for the GRSG 

Yellowstone Watershed Population, compared to Alternatives A, B and C.

4.3.8 Proposed Plan Amendment

COT Report Threats—Sagebrush Elimination, Agriculture Conversion

Impacts from Land Tenure Decisions

No lands in PHMA would be available for disposal under the Proposed Plan

Amendment. Impacts from land tenure decisions are the same as under 

Alternatives B and D.

Impacts from ACECs

No additional ACECs would be designated under the Proposed Plan

Amendment, and impacts on GRSG are the same as described under Alternative 

A.

COT Report Threat—Fire

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts from fire and fuels management would be similar to Alternative D. In 

addition, fuels management projects in PHMA would be designed to incorporate 

greater flexibility to maximize the acreage protected. Prescribed fires would 

only be used in GRSG habitat if the four criteria are met in the Burn Plan,

minimizing potential disturbance of GRSG and its habitat. These proposed 

modifications to fire and fuel management would result in an increase in the 

protection of sagebrush ecosystems compared to Alternative A and a reduction 

in the likelihood of adverse impacts from fire and fuels management described 

under Nature and Type of Effects.

COT Report Threats—Vegetation Management (Sagebrush Elimination, 

Conifer Invasion, Invasive Species)

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts from habitat restoration and vegetation management under the 

Proposed Plan Amendment are similar to Alternatives B and D. However, this 

alternative includes consideration of other threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species in addition to GRSG. This may reduce protection for GRSG habitat in 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-34 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

very limited instances. Adherence to GRSG habitat objectives (Objective SS1.4) in vegetation management would ensure that projects improve nesting and 

wintering habitat for GRSG and provide a net conservation gain to the species.

COT Report Threats—Energy

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Operational constraints would be applied to existing leases, with some 

exceptions to minimize disturbance associated with mineral extraction, as 

described under Nature and Type of Effects. As under Alternatives B, C, and D, 

RDFs and conservation measures would be COAs for the permit to drill. No 

new drilling permits are anticipated in the next decade in LFO, so impacts from 

fluid minerals are unlikely to affect GRSG populations.

Like Alternative D, BLM would apply restrictions on geophysical exploration and 

development to protect leks and nesting habitat; however, exploration 

operations would be allowed to use existing roads and trails, as well as 

helicopter-portable methods, which could disturb GRSG if they are located in 

these areas. Timing restrictions would reduce disturbance during the restricted 

periods. Conservation measures would incorporate surface disturbance 

reduction, West Nile virus prevention, and guidance for mitigation, as under 

Alternative D. Mitigation under the Proposed Plan Amendment would be 

required to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts, resulting in a net 

conservation gain to GRSG. In addition, adaptive management and lek buffers 

would be applied on a project-specific basis to further reduce impacts and 

protect PHMA from human disturbances. Such management would reduce 

disturbance to GRSG populations and habitats associated with fluid mineral

development relative to Alternative A. However, if the resources are drilled 

from adjacent private lands/minerals, disturbance could still occur and the 

stipulations would not be as effective in protecting GRSG.

In addition, BLM would implement a density and disturbance caps in PHMA. If 

the caps are exceeded, no further discrete human disturbances would be 

permitted by BLM until the disturbance has been reduced to less than the caps. 

As discussed in Section 2.6.2, the cap applies to PHMA and BSUs, subject to 

applicable laws and regulations and valid existing rights. The density and 

disturbance caps could apply to fluid minerals activities and would prevent 

further disturbance of GRSG habitat and populations until the overall 

disturbance has been reduced to less than the cap.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Impacts under the Proposed Plan Amendment would be similar as those 

described for Alternative D. However, similar to fluid minerals, potential 

beneficial impacts on GRSG and habitat from applying mitigation, lek buffers, 

density and disturbance caps, and RDFs would be the same as described above 

for fluid minerals and as described under Nature and Type of Effects.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-35

Within SFAs (53,440 acres; PHMA), locatable minerals would be recommended 

for withdrawal from mineral entry. Nonenergy leasable mineral exploration 

would be closed in PHMA but permitted in GHMA after appropriate 

environmental review. PHMA would also be closed to saleable mineral disposal. 

These policies would likely have minimal impact on GRSG, given the low level of 

mining in the planning area.

Similar to fluid minerals, potential beneficial impacts on GRSG and habitat from 

applying mitigation, lek buffers, and density and disturbance caps would be the 

same as described above for fluid minerals and as described under Nature and 

Type of Effects.

COT Report Threat—Infrastructure

Impacts from Lands and Realty

PHMA and GHMA would be managed as major ROW avoidance areas (345,560

acres); PHMA would also be managed as minor ROW avoidance area and wind 

and solar exclusion area (233,219 acres) (see Table 4-1). ROW avoidance 

areas for non-wind and solar projects would allow for management flexibility 

and avoid displacing ROWs onto private land where impacts could not be 

managed and mitigated. New ROWs would be co-located within existing ROWs 

if possible. These measures would improve management and would result in 

beneficial impacts from ROW development as described under Nature and Type 

of Effects, compared to Alternative A.

For renewable energy (wind and solar), the Proposed Plan Amendment would 

establish an ROW exclusion area in PHMA. This exclusion area would avoid 

impacts from renewable energy, such as disturbance, increased predation, and 

habitat fragmentation, compared to the no action alternative (Alternative A).

Potential beneficial impacts on GRSG and habitat from applying mitigation, lek 

buffers, and density and disturbance caps would be the same as described above 

for fluid minerals.

COT Report Threat—Grazing and Range Management

Impacts from Range Management

Under the Proposed Plan Amendment, there would be no change to the 

acreage open for grazing or available AUMs described under Alternative A

(Table 4-2). As with the other alternatives, under the Proposed Plan 

Amendment, livestock grazing uses could be removed from public lands when a 

permittee or lessee voluntarily relinquishes a permit. This could provide 

opportunities to achieve GRSG habitat objectives on the relinquished public 

lands. Noxious weed control would be the same as under Alternative B; as a 

result, impacts on GRSG habitat would be beneficial compared to Alternative A.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-36 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

In SFAs (53,440 acres; PHMA), grazing permits would be prioritized for review 

in GRSG habitat. Adherence to GRSG habitat objectives (Objective SS-1.4) in 

vegetation management would ensure that projects improve nesting and 

wintering habitat for GRSG and provide a net conservation gain to the species.

COT Report Threat—Recreation

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts from recreation management would be similar to those described 

under Alternative D. The Proposed Plan Amendment would provide additional 

incidental protection to vegetation by limiting construction of new recreation 

facilities unless they are beneficial (net conservation gain) or required for visitor 

health and safety or resource protection in PHMA. Applying lek buffers, density 

and disturbance caps, and mitigation strategies would also reduce disturbances, 

described under Nature and Type of Effects, on GRSG and loss of habitat from 

constructing recreation facilities.

Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects on GRSG in the Planning Area 

under the Proposed Plan Amendment

Overall impacts would be similar to Alternative D. Adherence to GRSG habitat 

objectives (Objective SS-1.4) would provide additional opportunities to 

improve GRSG habitat. Mitigation under the Proposed Plan Amendment would 

be required to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts, resulting in a net 

conservation gain to GRSG. In addition, lek buffers would be applied on a 

project-specific basis to further reduce impacts and protect PHMA from human 

disturbances.

In addition, BLM would implement density and disturbance caps in PHMA. If the 

cap is exceeded, no further discrete human disturbances would be permitted by 

BLM until the disturbance has been reduced to less than the cap. As discussed in 

Section 2.6.2, the cap applies to PHMA and BSUs and is subject to applicable 

laws and regulations and valid existing rights. The density and disturbance caps

would prevent further disturbance of GRSG habitat and populations until the 

overall disturbance has been reduced to less than the cap.

Short-term and long-term GRSG numbers would improve, and the number of 

large leks would be maintained or would increase. This alternative provides the 

best opportunity for LFO contributions to population viability for the GRSG 

Yellowstone Watershed Population, compared to Alternatives A, B C, and D.

Adaptive management soft triggers would require immediate monitoring and 

surveillance to determine causal factors and may require curtailment of activities 

in the short or long term, as allowed by law. The project-level adaptive 

management strategies would identify appropriate responses where the 

project’s activities are identified as the causal factor. An appropriate response 

strategy would be implemented to address causal factors.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-37

The Proposed Plan Amendment includes a “hard-wired” plan-level response; 

upon reaching the trigger, a more restrictive alternative, or an appropriate 

component of a more restrictive alternative analyzed in the EIS, would be 

implemented without further action by the BLM. Specific “hard-wired” changes 

in management are identified in Table 2-2. In addition to the specific changes 

identified in Table 2-2, the BLM would review available and pertinent data to 

determine corrective strategies. Implementing management responses, or 

formal directives if needed, would stop a severe deviation from GRSG 

conservation objectives and could maintain GRSG distribution and abundance 

throughout its range.

4.3.9 Impacts Summary

Table 4-3 provides a summary comparison of how each alternative alleviates 

COT report threats to GRSG listed as “Present and Widespread” and “Present 

but Localized” for the LFO. The major threats to GRSG habitats in populations 

occurring across WAFWA MZ I are agriculture conversion, weeds and annual 

grasses, energy development (primarily oil and gas development), and supporting 

infrastructure and grazing (USFWS 2013, p. 17). The major threats to GRSG 

habitats in populations occurring across WAFWA MZ IV are the isolation and

small size of the population, agriculture conversion, weeds and annual grasses,

and grazing (USFWS 2013, p. 23).
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-38 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan

Amendment

Oil and Gas Development*1

Unleased Fluid Minerals

Areas closed to fluid 

mineral leasing (acres)

1,949

Acres closed to fluid 

mineral leasing (one

ACEC, not in PH or 

GH)

1,949

Acres closed to fluid 

mineral leasing (one

ACEC, not in PHMA

or GHMA)

1,949

Acres closed to fluid 

mineral leasing (one

ACEC, not in 

PHMA or GHMA)

1,949

Acres closed to 

fluid mineral leasing 

(one ACEC, not in 

PHMA or GHMA)

1,949

Acres closed to 

fluid mineral leasing 

(one ACEC, not in 

PHMA or GHMA)

Areas open within the 

planning area to be 

nominated for fluid mineral

leasing (acres)2

1,113,841 1,113,841 1,113,841 1,113,841 1,113,841

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from Oil and Gas 

Development

Alternatives B, C, D, and the Proposed Plan Amendment would apply RDFs (Appendix C for Alternatives B and 

C and Appendix D for Alternative D and the Proposed Plan Amendment) as COAs where appropriate and 

necessary to drilling permits for currently leased federal minerals. No new leases, or reissuing of expired leases, 

would be issued in PHMA and GHMA under any alternative, based on an existing RMP protest resolution, which 

requires deferring nominated lease parcels if a special stipulation is required to protect important wildlife values.

The Proposed Plan Amendment would provide additional protections to GRSG and habitat by implementing 

density and disturbance caps, adaptive management, lek buffers, and regional mitigation, which would further 

support the COT report objectives.

 

1Asterisk indicates resources/resource uses identified as threats to the LFO populations of GRSG in the COT report.

2Common to all alternatives, acres are open to nomination for leasing; however, due to an existing protest resolution, any nominated lands that would require 

a special leasing stipulation to protect important wildlife values would be deferred from leasing.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-39

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan

Amendment

Infrastructure */Anthropogenic

ROW avoidance areas in 

PH and GH, or PHMA and 

GHMA (acres)

30,403

Various ROW

avoidance areas 

designated, none 

specified to protect 

PH and GH

112,341

112,341 acres in 

GHMA, no PHMA

ROW avoidance 

areas because it 

would be ROW 

exclusion area

0

No new ROW

avoidance areas 

because all PHMA

and GHMA would 

be ROW exclusion 

area

240,464

233,219 acres of 

PHMA and 7,245 

acres of GHMA

345,560

233,219 acres of 

PHMA and 112,341

acres of GHMA

ROW exclusion areas

(acres), in accordance with

BLM LUP Handbook, no 

exceptions permitted

0 233,219

All in PHMA

345,560

233,219 in PHMA

and 112,341 in 

GHMA

0 233,2193

PHMA would be a 

ROW exclusion

area for wind and 

solar

Travel management OHV use is limited to existing roads and trails on all BLM-administered lands within the LFO, including PHMA and 

GHMA. CTTM planning process for route evaluation and designation is currently underway and would be 

completed in PHMA within 5 years of the ROD. The BLM would minimize or prevent road and trail development 

on crucial big game and upland bird habitat areas. Temporary closures for other resources would be considered 

in PHMA and GHMA under the Proposed Plan Amendment. BLM regulations (43 CFR, Parts 8341.2 and 8364.1) 

already allow for area, road, primitive road, or trail closures where OHVs are causing, or would cause 

considerable adverse effects on wildlife and its habitat.

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from 

Infrastructure

Overall, Alternative A would have the least protections for GRSG and GRSG habitat from development of 

infrastructure. Alternative B would have more restrictions on route construction and upgrades, as well as ROWs,

than Alternatives A and D, but fewer than Alternative C (some actions under Alternative D are the same as 

under Alternative B; see Table 2-4). The Proposed Plan Amendment would protect the largest amount of GRSG 

habitat from infrastructure impacts.

 

3

PHMA would be exclusion for wind and solar energy.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-40 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan

Amendment

Alternatives B and C exclude PHMA from new ROWs. The Proposed Plan Amendment excludes wind and solar. 

This responds directly to the need identified in the COT report (USFWS 2013) to stop population decline and 

habitat loss by eliminating activities known to negatively impact GRSG and their habitats. Beneficial impacts are 

from the reduction in the threat of habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation on BLM-administered lands.

Potential adverse indirect effects in GRSG habitat could increase if these activities were excluded from BLMadministered lands because they would still occur on private land without BLM RDFs. Ownership patterns in LFO 

(highly fragmented, with public land comprising approximately 17% of the planning area) could substantially 

increase the length of infrastructure required to enclose BLM ROW exclusion areas. Alternative D and the 

Proposed Plan Amendment would designate PHMA and GHMA as ROW avoidance areas because most PHMA

and GHMA within the planning area are on private lands. The potential to concentrate infrastructure 

development where appropriate, and to use RDFs, would increase direct beneficial effects from infrastructure on 

GRSG on BLM-administered lands; however, it could substantially reduce potential indirect adverse effects on a 

much greater area of adjacent land not administered by the BLM. The benefits of maintaining or improving habitat 

on most of the PHMA would exceed the costs on BLM-administered lands and would be more likely to

perpetuate a viable GRSG population. Reducing impacts on more of the existing habitat within the planning area is 

a reason for the ROW avoidance areas rather than ROW exclusion areas in PHMA and GHMA under Alternative

D and the Proposed Plan Amendment. All alternatives and the Proposed Plan Amendment would require 

collocating new ROWs with existing ROWs in GHMA. Alternative D and the Proposed Plan Amendment would 

require this of new ROWs in PHMA also because new ROWs are not excluded in PHMA.

The action alternatives are in agreement with the following conservation objectives/options in the COT report 

for infrastructure:

1. Avoid developing infrastructure within PACs (objective).

2. Avoid constructing these features in GRSG habitat, both within and outside of PACs (option).

3. Remove transmission lines and roads that are duplicative or are not functional (option).

4. Construct transmission line towers to severely reduce or eliminate nesting and perching by avian 

predators, most notably ravens, thereby reducing human subsidies to those species (option).

The Proposed Plan Amendment would provide additional protections to GRSG and habitat by implementing 

density and disturbance caps, adaptive management, lek buffers, and regional mitigation, which would further 

support the COT report objectives.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-41

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan

Amendment

Recreation

Recreational uses in GRSG habitat include dispersed (e.g., hiking and camping) and group activities. Recreation is a limited threat in the LFO 

populations. OHV use is the most potentially damaging recreational use of GRSG habitat, but OHVs are limited to existing roads and trails on 

BLM-administered lands within the LFO. BLM regulations allow for area, road, primitive road, or trail closures where OHVs are causing, or 

would cause considerable adverse effects on wildlife and its habitat. Alternatives B and D would restrict issuance of SRPs for group recreation 

to activities neutral or beneficial to GRSG habitat. The Proposed Plan Amendment would also reduce potential disturbances by not constructing 

recreation facilities in PHMA unless there would be a conservation gain to GRSG. All alternatives would respond to the COT objective that 

recreation activities should maintain healthy native sagebrush communities based on local ecological conditions and with consideration of 

drought conditions.

Agriculture Conversion, Urbanization, and Sagebrush Elimination*

Areas identified for disposal Land tenure 

adjustments in the 

Judith Resource Area 

planning area (MZ I) 

would be subject to 

disposal/acquisition 

criteria. Within MZ I, 

retain important 

wildlife habitat (one 

of the three main 

criteria for land 

tenure adjustments 

outlined in the Judith 

Resource Area 

RMP). Land tenure 

adjustments in the 

Headwaters planning 

area (MZ IV) would 

be subject to 

disposal/acquisition 

criteria. 

Retain public 

ownership of PHMA.

Consider exceptions

where there is mixed 

ownership, and land 

exchanges would

allow for additional 

or more contiguous 

federal ownership 

patterns within 

PHMA.

Same as Alternative 

B, without 

exceptions for 

disposal to 

consolidate 

ownership that 

would benefit GRSG

(applies to PHMA

and GHMA).

PHMA would be 

retained in public 

ownership, except 

when opportunities 

for land exchange 

would provide a 

greater benefit to 

GRSG habitat.

PHMA would be 

retained in public 

ownership, except 

when opportunities 

for land exchange 

would provide a 

greater benefit to 

GRSG habitat.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-42 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan

Amendment

Areas identified for 

acquisition

No parcels identified 

in existing plans for 

acquisition. If parcels 

are acquired, land 

exchanges, sales, or 

other methods of 

acquisition may be 

used.

Seek to acquire state 

and private lands 

with intact subsurface 

mineral estate by 

donation, purchase,

or exchange in order 

to best conserve, 

enhance, or restore 

GRSG habitat.

Strive to acquire 

important private 

lands in ACECs.

Acquisition would 

be prioritized over 

easements. 

When offered, 

PHMA would be a 

priority in 

consideration of 

land acquisitions 

(refer to Appendix 

H). Consider GRSG 

for all land tenure 

actions.

When offered, 

PHMA would be a 

priority in 

consideration of 

land acquisitions 

(refer to Appendix 

H). Consider GRSG 

for all land tenure 

actions.

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from 

Agriculture/

Urbanization

Although agriculture and urbanization have been identified as threats within the LFO planning area, including both 

the Yellowstone Watershed (agricultural conversion) and Belt Mountain (urbanization) populations, the BLM has 

no direct management authority over those types of activities on private lands. Under Alternatives B and D and 

the Proposed Plan Amendment, the BLM would take advantage of opportunities to consolidate GRSG habitat 

through land exchange if the action would benefit GRSG. Alternative C would allow for no disposal of PHMA or 

GHMA, regardless of benefits to GRSG. The LFO may have limited indirect abilities to influence these threats 

through maintaining appropriate authorized uses (grazing, ROWs, recreation, energy development) of BLMadministered lands that allow for the maintenance of habitat objectives. One example is to maintain appropriate 

levels of livestock grazing, which could discourage the conversion of GRSG habitat on private land to nonnative 

pasture or cropland.

As a result of removing grazing from PHMA and GHMA in Alternative C, there is the potential for increased 

conflicts between grazing and other land uses on adjacent non-federal lands. For example, under this alternative, if 

permittees and lessees were to lose forage currently provided on BLM-administered lands, ranchers may try to 

increase forage production on their private and other leased lands, potentially accelerating loss of GRSG habitat 

on those lands.

Regarding the following conservation objectives/options identified in the COT report specific to infrastructure:

 Limit urban and exurban development in GRSG habitat and maintain intact native sagebrush plant 

communities (objective).

 Acquire and manage GRSG habitat to maintain intact ecosystems (option).
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-43

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan

Amendment

Alternative D and the Proposed Plan Amendment meet the objectives best because of their flexibility. Alternative 

B meets the objectives but its focus on ROW exclusion areas could lead to greater impacts on non-BLMadministered lands. Alternative C is in agreement with the first objective, but the consequences of its limitations 

on grazing, including increased fencing and reduced weed control, would not maintain intact GRSG habitat.

Conifer Encroachment

Alternatives A-D and the Proposed Plan Amendment would address conifer encroachment using vegetation management approaches to habitat 

restoration. Two conifer removal projects are currently underway in the Belt Mountains and Crooked Creek areas. Alternatives A-D and the 

Proposed Plan Amendment would prioritize restoration, including conifer removal, which is a limited threat in LFO. All alternatives would meet 

the COT report objective to remove pine and juniper from areas of sagebrush most likely to support GRSG at a rate at least equal to the rate 

of incursion.

Grazing, including Range Management Structures*

Areas closed to livestock 

grazing (acres)

6,781 6,781 337,165

BLM-administered 

surface lands within 

PHMA and GHMA

would be closed to 

livestock grazing.

6,781 6,781

Areas available for livestock 

grazing (acres)

570,112

BLM-administered

surface lands.

570,112

BLM-administered 

surface lands.

232,947

BLM-administered 

lands outside of 

PHMA and GHMA.

570,112

BLM-administered

surface lands.

570,112

BLM-administered

surface lands.

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from Grazing

GRSG habitat considerations within livestock grazing allotments would be similar across Alternatives B, C, D, and 

the Proposed Plan Amendment. Range improvement restrictions are the same under Alternatives B and D and 

the Proposed Plan Amendment. Under Alternative C (no grazing), the need for increased fencing on private land 

in order to prevent livestock trespass would result in indirect impacts on GRSG, including increased 

fragmentation, increased potential for wildfire from fine fuel buildup, increased collision with fences, and increased 

raptor predation. 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. This is 

especially a concern in areas with a mosaic of ownership boundaries, which would decrease available habitat for
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-44 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan

Amendment

GRSG that inhabit rangeland outside of BLM-administered lands. In the long term, removing grazing permits on 

federal land could cause ranches to be converted to residential or agricultural use, leading to a loss of GRSG 

habitat on adjacent private lands. Additionally, under Alternative C the BLM would lose the current or potential 

treatment of existing or new infestations of noxious weeds because these weeds are currently treated through

agreements with permittees to spray, under the terms and conditions of grazing permits or leases.

Under Alternative A, grazing would be managed to achieve the standards of rangeland health, which would 

address GRSG habitat requirements under most scenarios. However, the potential for project infrastructure up 

to 0.25 mile of leks under Alternative A could cause fragmentation, raptor perches, and inappropriate fence 

locations and designs. Alternatives B and D would also manage grazing to achieve the standards of rangeland 

health. Under the Proposed Plan Amendment, grazing permits in SFAs would be prioritized for review to benefit 

GRSG habitat. These alternatives also put specific focus on GRSG habitat requirements in PHMA to minimize

adverse impacts from livestock and project infrastructure. (An example would be implementing a rest-rotation 

grazing system to increase residual grass heights, but additional fencing would be required to implement the 

rotation. Proper sighting and marking the fences reduces, but does not eliminate, impacts on GRSG. The 

assumption is that GRSG would benefit more from taller grasses in a rest-rotation grazing system than they would 

from being harmed by additional fencing.) Because Alternative C closes PHMA and GHMA to grazing, fine fuels 

could increase and weed control would be reduced. In addition, potential actions taken on private land to 

compensate for loss of public grazing might affect GRSG habitat and could be substantial (for example, hundreds 

of miles of new fencing could be constructed to hold livestock on private lands).

Alternatives B, C, and D and the Proposed Plan Amendment would respond to the COT report objectives of 

meeting ecological conditions to maintain or restore healthy sagebrush shrub and native perennial grass and forb 

communities, and to conserve the essential habitat components for GRSG, including nesting cover and shrub 

cover.

Alternatives B and D and the Proposed Plan Amendment would also respond to the COT objective of minimizing 

impacts on GRSG from fences and sagebrush conversion to agriculture. However, Alternative C (no grazing) 

would require additional fencing to restrict no-grazing areas in GRSG habitat and thus would not meet this 

objective. As a result of removal of grazing from PHMA and GHMA in Alternative C, there is the potential for 

increased conflicts between grazing and other land uses on adjacent non-federal lands. For example, under this 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-45

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan

Amendment

alternative, if permittees and lessees were to lose forage currently provided on BLM-administered lands, ranchers 

may try to increase forage production on their private or other leased lands, potentially accelerating loss of GRSG 

habitat on those lands.

Invasive Species*

Weed control Analysis of the impacts from weeds includes impacts from lands and realty, fluid minerals, wildfire suppression,

fuels management and fire rehabilitation. For all alternatives, integrated vegetation management would be used to 

control, suppress, and eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive species, in accordance with BLM Handbook H-1740-

2.

Structural range 

improvements and 

livestock management tools

Potential for invasive species to become established or to increase following construction would be considered in 

the project planning process and monitored and treated post-construction.

RDFs for GRSG habitat No RDFs specifically for GRSG under Alternative A. Various RDFs under Alternatives B, C, and D and the 

Proposed Plan Amendment described in Appendices C and D would be applied at the time an authorized use is 

granted.

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from Invasive 

Species

Due to climate conditions, annual grasses do not currently threaten the planning area, unlike the current situation 

in the Great Basin. Under all alternatives and the Proposed Plan Amendment, the spread of weeds would be 

managed using integrated vegetation management as resources allow. The action alternatives respond to the COT 

report objective of implementing actions to maintain and restore healthy sagebrush communities. Alternative C 

prioritizes restoration of infestations but limits treatments for addressing weeds by eliminating grazing; currently,

the BLM treats noxious weeds through agreements with grazing permittees. Eliminating grazing in Alternative C 

would also increase fine fuels, which would increase the probability of wildfire and associated weeds.

Disease

Alternatives to reduce impacts from West Nile virus on GRSG are considered under Water Development below. See RDFs in Appendix C for 

Alternatives B and C, and in Appendix D for Alternative D and the Proposed Plan Amendment, for a description of RDFs to reduce the threat 

of West Nile virus.

Coal Mining

There is no coal potential in the planning area.

Weather

There is no resource program in an RMP for addressing this threat to GRSG and its habitat.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-46 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan

Amendment

Predation

See RDFs in Appendix C for Alternatives B and C, and in Appendix D for Alternative D and the Proposed Plan Amendment, for a 

description of features designed to reduce the threat of predation.

Wildfire/Fuels Treatment

Areas suitable for 

prescribed fire use and 

fuels treatments.

Intensive 

suppression would

be

applied to areas with 

high resource values, 

structures,

improvements, oil 

and gas 

developments, 

commercial forest 

values, sagebrush 

and juniper areas, 

fire-sensitive woody 

riparian areas (soil 

subgroups 6 and 17), 

and cultural values 

that require 

aggressive 

suppression.

Controlled burning 

in conifer and 

sagebrush types 

would be done on an 

individual basis to 

improve wildlife 

habitat. Prescribed 

In GHMA, prioritize 

suppression where 

wildfires threaten

PHMA and follow 

RDFs (Appendix 

C). In PHMA, design 

and implement fuels 

treatments with an 

emphasis on 

protecting existing 

sagebrush 

ecosystems.

Apply appropriate 

seasonal restrictions 

for implementing 

fuels management 

treatments according 

to the type of 

seasonal habitats 

present in PHMA.

Allow no treatments 

in known winter 

range unless the 

treatments are 

designed to 

strategically reduce 

In PHMA and 

GHMA, follow 

RDFs (Appendix 

C).

In PHMA and 

GHMA, design and 

implement fuels 

treatments with an 

emphasis on 

protecting existing 

sagebrush 

ecosystems.

Apply appropriate 

seasonal restrictions 

for implementing 

fuels management 

treatments 

according to the 

type of seasonal 

habitats present.

Allow no fuels 

treatments in 

known winter 

range, unless the 

treatments are 

designed to 

In GHMA, prioritize 

suppression where 

wildfires threaten

PHMA and follow 

RDFs (Appendix 

D). In PHMA and 

GHMA, design and 

implement fuels 

treatments with an 

emphasis on 

protecting existing 

sagebrush 

ecosystems. Sites 

should not be 

burned unless a) 

biological and 

physical limitations 

of the site and 

impact on GRSG 

are identified and 

determined to be 

neutral or beneficial 

to PHMA; b) 

management 

objectives for the 

site, including those 

for wildlife, are 

Same as Alternative 

D; in addition, 

prescribed fire 

would be allowed as 

a vegetation or fuels 

treatment (e.g., to 

create fuel breaks)

in such cases, the 

burn plan would 

clearly indicate how 

COT objectives 

would be addressed 

and met, and why 

alternative 

techniques are not 

applicable. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-47

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan

Amendment

burning would be 

administered on an 

individual basis in 

grassland, sagebrush, 

and conifer types to 

improve wildlife 

habitat and 

vegetation 

production. Burning 

would be done on a 

limited basis to 

improve wildlife and 

livestock forage in 

dense pine-juniper 

stands throughout 

the Missouri Breaks 

and to improve 

vegetation 

productivity on 

other upland sites, 

including sagebrush.

wildfire risk around 

or in the winter 

range and would 

maintain winter range 

habitat quality.

strategically reduce 

wildfire risk around 

or in the winter 

range and would

maintain winter 

range habitat 

quality.

clearly defined; c) 

potential for weed 

invasion and 

successional trends 

are well 

understood; and d) 

capability exists to 

manage the postburn site properly.

Apply appropriate 

seasonal restrictions 

for implementing 

fuels management 

treatments 

according to the 

type of seasonal 

habitats present in 

PHMA. Allow no 

fuels treatments in 

known GRSG

winter range unless 

the treatments are 

designed to 

strategically reduce 

wildfire risk around 

or in the winter 

range and would 

maintain winter 

range habitat 

quality.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-48 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan

Amendment

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from Wildfire 

and Fuels Treatment

Alternative A manages wildfire effectively, but Alternatives B, C, and D and the Proposed Plan Amendment would 

provide additional protection to sagebrush habitat during fire management. Under all alternatives, except 

Alternative C, and the Proposed Plan Amendment, anticipated threats from wildfire remain constant (estimated 

2,000 acres burned over a decade). Alternative C would have slightly increased threats from wildfire relative to 

the other alternatives due to the increase in fine fuel loading resulting from reduced grazing. All alternatives and 

the Proposed Plan Amendment would respond to the COT report objective of retaining and restoring healthy 

native sagebrush plant communities by limiting prescribed fire and prioritizing wildlife suppression in GRSG habitat 

areas.

Water Development

Identify number and type of 

range water developments

(location of developments 

not verified at this time).

 Nonhabitat -

2,919 dams/pits

 PH or PHMA -

2,420 dams/pits

 PH or PHMA -

3,699 other

 GH or GHMA -

838 dams/pits

 GH or GHMA -

3,816 other

RDFs would be applied to new water developments or the reconstruction of existing 

water developments (pits/reservoirs/dams/holding ponds).

Common to all alternatives, the Montana/Dakotas BLM requires the installation of wildlife escape ramps in all water developments on public 

lands (excluding pits and reservoirs), per Montana/Dakotas IM No. MT-2007-077. Under the action alternatives, the risk of West Nile virus 

would be reduced by requiring RDFs on new water developments in GRSG habitat.

Solid Mineral Development

Locatable minerals Analyze proposed 

action in Plan of 

Operations and 

apply mitigating 

measures needed to 

prevent unnecessary 

or undue 

degradation. Before 

In PHMA, 

recommend

withdrawal from 

mineral entry based 

on risk to the GRSG 

and its habitat from 

conflicting locatable 

mineral potential and 

Same as Alternative 

B, except applies to 

both PHMA and 

GHMA (639,927 

acres).

RDFs (Appendix 

C) would apply to 

locatables to the 

Analyze proposed 

action in Plan of 

Operations and 

apply mitigating 

measures needed to 

prevent 

unnecessary or 

undue degradation. 

Same as Alternative 

D; in addition,

acreage in SFAs 

recommended for 

withdrawal
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-49

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan

Amendment

the BLM approves a 

Plan of Operations

on existing mining 

claims in areas 

withdrawn, it would 

conduct validity 

examinations. If the 

claims did not 

contain a discovery, 

within the meaning 

of the mining laws, 

the claims would be 

declared null and 

void and the Plan of 

Operations would 

be denied. The BLM 

would consider 

purchasing valid 

claims where 

activities threaten 

the resource values 

protected by the 

withdrawal. Analyze 

proposed action in 

Plan of Operations

and apply mitigating 

measures needed to 

prevent unnecessary

or undue 

degradation.

development 

(284,975 acres).

Make any existing 

mining claims within 

the withdrawal area 

subject to validity 

exams or buyout. 

Require Plan of 

Operations before

any proposed 

surface-disturbing 

activities. Consider 

seasonal restrictions 

if deemed effective. 

RDFs (Appendix C) 

would apply to 

locatables to the 

extent consistent 

with applicable law.

extent consistent 

with applicable law.

Locatable minerals

exploration and 

development under 

the mining laws are 

not authorized 

under the discretion 

of the field manager 

but are reviewed 

(Notice and Plan of 

Operations) and 

approved (Plan of 

Operations) to 

prevent 

unnecessary or 

undue degradation. 

Proposed actions 

under Plan of 

Operations and 

Notices would be 

analyzed on a caseby-case basis in 

coordinating with

MTDEQ. RDFs

(Appendix D) 

would apply to 

locatables to the 

extent consistent 

with applicable law.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-50 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan

Amendment

Nonenergy leasable 

minerals

Prospecting permits 

would be issued 

after appropriate 

environmental 

review to assess 

impacts and develop 

mitigating measures.

Close PHMA to 

nonenergy leasable 

mineral leasing. This 

includes not 

permitting any new 

leases to expand an 

existing mine 

(233,219 acres).

For existing 

nonenergy leasable 

mineral leases in 

PHMA, in addition to 

the solid minerals 

RDFs (Appendix 

C), follow the same 

RDFs applied to fluid 

minerals (Appendix 

C) when wells are 

used for solution 

mining.

Close PHMA and 

GHMA to 

nonenergy leasable 

mineral leasing. This 

includes not 

permitting any new 

leases to expand an 

existing mine 

(345,560 acres).

In PHMA, 

prospecting permits 

may be issued after 

appropriate 

environmental 

review to assess 

impacts and to 

develop RDFs set 

forth in Appendix 

D.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Salable minerals 2,437 acres within 

GH and 101 acres 

within PH are closed 

to salable minerals 

disposal.

The BLM would

issue sales contracts 

for salable minerals 

where disposal is 

Close PHMA to 

salable minerals 

disposal (284,975

acres). In PHMA, 

restore salable 

mineral pits no 

longer in use to meet 

GRSG habitat 

objectives. 100 acres 

of BLM-administered

Close PHMA and 

GHMA to salable 

minerals disposal

(639,927 acres). In 

PHMA and GHMA, 

restore salable 

mineral pits no 

longer in use to 

meet GRSG habitat 

objectives. 300 

2,437 acres within 

GHMA and 101 

acres within PHMA

are closed to salable 

minerals disposal. In 

PHMA, the BLM 

would issue permits 

for salable minerals 

where disposal is 

deemed to be in the 

Same as Alternative 

B.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-51

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan

Amendment

deemed to be in the 

public interest, while 

providing for 

reclamation of mined 

lands and preventing 

unnecessary or 

undue impact on 

nonmineral 

resources. Salable 

minerals permits are 

considered on a 

case-by-case basis 

and are issued at the 

discretion of the 

area manager 

(639,927 acres open

for sale of minerals).

Surface occupancy 

within MZ IV 

generally would be 

prohibited within 

public road 

corridors, ROWs,

floodplains, and key 

wildlife areas.

lands within PHMA

are currently salable 

mineral disposal sites.

acres of BLMadministered lands 

within PHMA and 

GHMA are 

currently salable 

mineral disposal 

sites.

public interest, 

while providing for 

reclamation of 

mined lands and 

preventing 

unnecessary or 

undue degradation 

(Appendix D). 

Salable minerals 

material permits are 

considered on a 

case-by-case basis 

and are issued at 

the discretion of the 

field manager 

(639,927 acres open 

for sale of minerals).

Surface occupancy 

within MZ IV, 

generally would be 

prohibited within 

public road 

corridors, ROWs,

floodplains, and key 

wildlife areas. In 

PHMA, restore 

salable mineral pits 

no longer in use to 

meet GRSG habitat 

objectives.
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-52 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan

Amendment

Summary of Impacts on

GRSG from Solid 

Mineral Development

All the action alternatives respond to the COT report objective to maintain GRSG populations with no net loss 

of GRSG habitat in areas affected by mining. Alternatives B and C and the Proposed Plan Amendment would be 

more protective of GRSG and habitat than Alternatives A and D, though Alternative D has reclamation actions in 

common with Alternative B. Effective mitigation for existing mining claims and salable mineral sites is similar 

across Alternatives B, C, and D and the Proposed Plan Amendment. Alternative D and the Proposed Plan

Amendment provide a greater number of RDFs to be considered as necessary and appropriate to mitigate 

impacts. The Proposed Plan Amendment would provide additional protections to GRSG and habitat by 

implementing density and disturbance caps, adaptive management, lek buffers, and regional mitigation, which 

would further support the COT report objectives.

Climate Change

There is no specific resource program in this RMPA for addressing this threat to GRSG and its habitat. However, actions under several 

resources listed below do address climate change and drought impacts on GRSG habitat. Furthermore, BLM grazing regulations 43 CFR, Part

4110.3-2, Decreasing Permitted Use, states: (a) Permitted use may be suspended in whole or in part on a temporary basis due to drought, fire, 

or other natural causes, or to facilitate installation, maintenance, or modification of range improvements.

Implementing management 

actions after land health 

evaluations

Efforts to manage 

public rangeland 

under drought 

conditions would be 

directed first to 

allotments with 

resource concerns 

such as “I” category 

allotments. Specific 

allotments in the 

“M” and “C” 

categories could

also be considered 

high priority when 

resource values or 

conditions so 

require.

During droughts, 

prioritize evaluating 

effects of the drought 

in PHMA relative to 

their needs for food 

and cover. Since 

there is a lag in 

vegetation recovery 

following drought, 

ensure that postdrought management 

allows for vegetation 

recovery that meets 

GRSG needs in 

PHMA.

During droughts, 

prioritize evaluating 

effects of the 

drought in PHMA

and GHMA relative 

to their needs for 

food and cover. 

Since there is a lag 

in vegetation 

recovery following 

drought, ensure that 

post-drought 

management allows 

for vegetation

recovery that meets 

GRSG needs in 

PHMA.

During droughts, 

prioritize evaluating 

effects of the 

drought in PHMA, 

relative to their 

needs for food and 

cover. Drought 

management would 

continue to be in

accordance with the

Montana/Dakotas 

drought policy 

(Appendix I). 

Since there is a lag 

in vegetation 

recovery following 

drought, postSame as Alternative 

D
4. Environmental Consequences (Greater Sage-Grouse)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-53

Table 4-3

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan

Amendment

drought 

management would 

be implemented to 

allow for vegetation 

recovery that meets 

GRSG needs in 

PHMA.

ES&R and habitat 

restoration and vegetation 

management

In PHMA, consider 

potential changes in 

climate when 

proposing 

restoration seeding 

of native plants. 

Consider collecting

from the warmer 

component of the 

species’ current 

range when selecting 

native seed.

In PHMA and 

GHMA, consider 

potential changes in 

climate when 

proposing 

restoration seeding 

of native plants. 

Consider collecting 

from the warmer 

component of the 

species’ current 

range when 

selecting native 

seed.

In PHMA, consider 

potential changes in 

climate when 

proposing 

restoration seeding 

of native plants. 

Consider collecting

from the warmer 

component of the 

species’ current

range when 

selecting native 

seed. Develop an 

appropriate seed 

mix for the location, 

based on current 

climatic data as well 

as soils/ecological 

site descriptions.

Same as Alternative 

D

Contaminants

There are no management actions in this RMPA for addressing this threat to GRSG and its habitat. RDFs, when applicable and appropriate, 

would be applied to use authorizations (Appendix C for actions under Alternatives B and C and Appendix D for actions under Alternative D

and the Proposed Plan Amendment) to prevent the potential threat of contaminants.
4. Environmental Consequences (Lands and Realty)

4-54 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

4.4 LANDS AND REALTY

4.4.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Table 4-4 provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the 

effects on lands and realty under each alternative.

Table 4-4

Comparison of Lands and Realty Indicators by Alternative

Indicator

Alternative

A B C D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

Acres of surface ownership 

in the planning area

No change No change No change No change No change

Acres of land tenure 

adjustments (i.e., lands 

identified for disposal, 

withdrawal, or acquisition)

N/A 233,219 for 

mineral 

withdrawal

345,560 for 

mineral 

withdrawal

0 53,440 for 

mineral 

withdrawal

Number, acres/miles, and 

types of surface-disturbing 

ROWs and leases, including 

communication sites

909 acres Short-term 

increase, 

long-term 

decrease if 

buried or 

removed

Short-term 

increase, 

long-term 

decrease if 

buried or 

removed

Short-term 

increase, 

long-term 

decrease if 

buried or 

removed

Short-term 

increase, longterm decrease 

if buried or 

removed

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

 Existing ROWs, designated utility corridors, and communication 

sites would be managed to protect valid existing rights.

 On renewal, assignment, or amendment of existing ROWs, 

additional stipulations could be included in the land use 

authorization.

 ROW holders may continue their authorized use as long as they are 

in compliance with the terms and conditions of their grant.

 The BLM would continue to process land use authorizations and 

land tenure adjustments as workforce and workload allow.

 The demand for all types of ROWs (including communication sites, 

utilities, and renewable energy projects) would gradually increase 

over time.

 Maintaining and upgrading utilities, communication sites, and other 

ROWs is preferred (as provided within the terms and conditions of 

the ROW) before the construction of new facilities in the decision 
4. Environmental Consequences (Lands and Realty)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-55

area, but only if the upgrading can be accommodated in the existing 

ROW.

 Demand for small distribution facilities to extend and upgrade 

services, such as communication sites and utilities, would increase as 

rural development occurs on the dispersed private parcels within 

the planning area.

 Demand for both regional and interstate transmission lines would 

increase as population and urban areas grow.

 Demand for new ROWs is expected to increase as demand for new 

communication technology, such as fiber optic cable, grows.

 Retention areas include all decision area lands (the BLMadministered lands within the planning area), with the exception of 

lands identified, or under consideration for disposal.

 In accordance with the Omnibus Act, the BLM would continue to 

manage all previously withdrawn BLM-administered lands as 

withdrawn from entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public 

land laws. Withdrawals would be reviewed, as needed, and 

recommended for extensions, modifications, revocations, or 

terminations. All existing withdrawals initiated by other agencies, 

such as the US Bureau of Reclamation or the Department of Energy, 

would be continued unless the initiating agency or BLM requests 

that the withdrawal be revoked.

4.4.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Resources and resource uses affect the lands and realty program by prescribing 

stipulations and mitigation to protect resources within ROW areas. A ROW 

exclusion area is one that is not available for new ROW location under any 

conditions. A ROW avoidance area may be available for ROW location but may 

require special stipulations. ROW applications could be submitted in ROW 

avoidance areas; however, a project proposed in these areas may be subject to 

additional requirements, such as resource surveys and reports, construction and 

reclamation engineering, long-term monitoring, special design features, special 

siting requirements, timing limitations, rerouting, and off-site mitigation. Such 

requirements could restrict project location or they could delay availability of 

energy supply (by delaying or restricting pipelines, transmission lines or 

renewable energy projects) or they could delay or restrict communications 

service availability. As a result of special surveys and reports, alternative routes 

may need to be identified and selected to protect sensitive resources, such as 

GRSG habitat. Designating ROW exclusion and avoidance areas and applying 

special stipulations would result in increased application processing time and 

costs due to the potential need to relocate facilities or due to greater design, 

mitigation, and siting requirements.
4. Environmental Consequences (Lands and Realty)

4-56 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Collocating transmission and mineral development infrastructure in existing 

ROWs, and existing disturbed areas, reduces land use conflicts and additional 

land disturbance. Collocation policies also clarify the preferred locations for 

utilities and simplify processing on BLM-administered lands. However, 

collocating can limit options for mineral development and selection of morepreferable locations for ROWs.

Travel management actions can involve closing areas or specific routes to 

motorized or mechanized travel, thereby creating areas that are impractical for 

some types of land uses, such as transmission lines or communication sites.

Land tenure adjustments are intended to maintain or improve the efficiency of 

BLM management, including management of GRSG habitat. Land disposal can 

result in a more contiguous decision area, thus increasing BLM-administered 

lands management efficiency. However, while consolidation may be beneficial for 

certain resources and uses, it may not necessarily reduce effects on GRSG

habitat.

The following resources or resource uses would have negligible or no impact on 

land use authorizations and land tenure and are, therefore, not discussed in 

detail: range management, fluid and solid minerals, mineral split estate, fire and 

fuels management, and habitat restoration/vegetation management.

4.4.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under all alternatives, the BLM would continue to process a pending land 

exchange within PHMA. The exchange would transfer 240-acres of private land 

to BLM ownership in exchange for disposing 240 acres of BLM-administered

land to private ownership. The lands to be transferred into public ownership 

contain a lek site. The exchange would benefit GRSG under all alternatives; 

however, each alternative would result in greater or lesser levels of protection 

depending on the specific management actions proposed.

Impacts from Recreation

Within the decision area, there is one SRMA and 11 ERMAs. BLM management 

goals and objectives are to preserve a desired setting and recreation experience 

for users within these areas. Land uses in the SRMAs and ERMAs should not 

conflict with recreation uses. In all alternatives, the BLM would continue to 

evaluate land use authorizations on a case-by-case basis in the special recreation 

areas so as to avoid conflicting uses.

4.4.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative A, travel would continue to be allowed on 595 miles of

existing roads and trails in the decision area. Existing transportation routes 
4. Environmental Consequences (Lands and Realty)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-57

would continue to provide motorized access to ROW infrastructure and 

communication sites for construction and maintenance. Planning area habitat 

would remain closed to cross-country vehicle use. Per BLM regulations, 

temporary area, road, or trail closures for other resources would be considered 

where OHVs are causing, or would cause, considerable adverse effects on 

wildlife and its habitat. Those closures could affect the convenience of access for 

ROW holders to existing ROW infrastructure, as described above under Nature 

and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative A, 215 total miles of existing ROWs in the decision area, 

including 162 miles in PH and 53 miles in GH, would continue to provide 

opportunities for collocation of new infrastructure. A total of 2,601 acres 

associated with the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC and Judith River Canyon 

would continue to be managed as ROW avoidance areas. All lands within the 

decision area would continue to be open for ROW development (subject to 

NEPA analysis).

BLM-administered lands would continue to be available for ROWs on a case-bycase basis, in accordance with Title V of FLPMA and 43 CFR, Part 2800. All 

ROW applications would be reviewed using the criteria of following existing 

corridors wherever practical and avoiding the proliferation of separate ROWs.

Wind facilities would be authorized through the ROW authorization process. 

See Section 4.21, Renewable Energy, for impacts on wind energy development.

Under Alternative A, the BLM would continue to manage 593,995 surface acres. 

There would continue to be six withdrawals in the decision area amounting to 

2,538 acres (101 acres in PH and 2,437 acres in GH). Land tenure and 

adjustments would be subject to the disposal and acquisition criteria in the 

existing RMPs.

Impacts from ACECs

Under Alternative A, the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC would continue to be a 

ROW avoidance area, continuing to affect ROW authorization application 

processing times and design standards for proposed ROWs within the 2,463-

acre ACEC boundary.

4.4.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

BLM would evaluate the need for permanent or seasonal road closures under 

Alternative B. Should the BLM determine during a future site-specific evaluation 

that there is a need to close certain routes, those closures could affect the 

convenience of access for ROW holders to existing ROW infrastructure, as 

described above under Nature and Type of Effects.
4. Environmental Consequences (Lands and Realty)

4-58 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Under Alternative B, the BLM would only allow new roads where access to 

valid existing rights is necessary and does not currently exist. This would limit 

new ROW authorizations and new road construction as compared to 

Alternative A. Limitations on new road construction could make certain areas 

impractical for new ROW authorizations, particularly in areas not readily 

accessible via existing roadways.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative B, 233,219 acres of the decision area associated with PHMA

(39 percent of BLM-administered land within the planning area) would be 

designated as ROW exclusion area for new ROW authorizations. GHMA in the 

decision area (112,341 acres) would be designated ROW avoidance area. 

However, 843 total acres of unitized lease areas (301 acres of PHMA and 542 

acres of GHMA) would be exempt from ROW limitations related to oil and gas 

development.

As noted above in Nature and Types of Effects, limitations on new ROWs and 

aboveground linear features, such as transmission lines and pipelines, could 

restrict the availability of energy or service availability and reliability for 

communication systems. ROW exclusion and avoidance areas could extend 

processing time for renewals of existing ROW authorizations. The designations

could make siting new linear or block ROWs more difficult than under 

Alternative A.

Additionally, under Alternative B, the BLM would take advantage of 

opportunities to remove, bury, or modify 42 miles of existing power lines within 

PHMA. As noted above in Nature and Types of Effects, limitations on new ROWs

and above-ground linear features, such as transmission lines and pipelines, could 

restrict the availability of energy or service availability and reliability for 

communication systems.

The BLM would retain public ownership in PHMA except where land exchanges 

would result in more contiguous federal ownership patterns or where disposal 

accompanied by a habitat mitigation agreement or conservation easement would 

result in more effective management of GRSG habitat. If the BLM were to 

proceed with land tenure adjustments, those actions would enhance BLM 

management of GRSG habitat but could affect existing authorizations and leases,

as described in Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from ACECs

Under Alternative B, the Acid Shale-Pine Forest would become a ROW

exclusion area. Impacts on the lands and realty program from limitations on new 

ROW authorizations would be the same within and outside the ACEC and 

consistent with the Nature and Types of Effects.
4. Environmental Consequences (Lands and Realty)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-59

4.4.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts on the lands and realty program under Alternative C would be the 

same as those described above under Alternative B, with the exception that 

Alternative C would prohibit new road construction within four miles of active 

leks. Because of the density of active lek sites, new road construction on BLMadministered land in the planning area would be limited to 21 percent of the 

decision area (13,340 acres in PHMA and 57,785 acres in GHMA), which is a 

reduction in areas available for new road construction and ROWs as compared 

to Alternative A. This reduction would increase those effects described in 

Nature and Type of Effects, including delays in application processing time and 

costs, increase siting limitations, and delay delivery of energy supplies as 

compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative C, PHMA and GHMA (345,560 acres) would be designated as 

ROW exclusion area for new ROW authorizations. However, 843 acres would 

be located inside a unitized area. Lands within the unitized area would be 

exempt from the ROW exclusion area provisions related to oil and gas 

development. Impacts on ROW authorizations are the same as under 

Alternative B and are consistent with effects described in Nature and Types of 

Effects.

The BLM would retain public ownership in PHMA with no exceptions and seek 

to acquire private lands when offered in ACECs. Impacts from land withdrawals

would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts from ACECs

Under Alternative C, the BLM would designate 96,246 acres of GRSG habitat as 

a new ACEC with management tailored to protect the GRSG habitat. BLM 

management of lands and realty would be the same outside the ACEC boundary 

as it would be inside. PHMA and GHMA would be managed as a ROW

exclusion area. Designation of ROW exclusion and avoidance areas could affect 

the number and type of ROW authorizations depending on the location and 

nature of any proposed ROW.

4.4.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative D, the BLM would complete a travel and transportation 

management plan, designating certain roads, primitive roads and trails as open, 

closed or limited to OHV use. Per BLM regulations, temporary area, road, or 

trail closures for other resources would be considered where OHVs are 

causing, or would cause, considerable adverse effects on wildlife and its habitat. 

The BLM would also consider permanently closing certain existing user-created 

roads and trails where off-road vehicle use would cause adverse effects on 
4. Environmental Consequences (Lands and Realty)

4-60 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

habitat. The BLM would close any new user-created routes. Those closures 

could affect the convenience of access for ROW holders to existing ROW 

infrastructure, as described above under Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative D, PHMA (233,219 acres) would be managed as ROW

avoidance area for new ROW authorizations. PHMA and GHMA would be 

designated as wind energy ROW avoidance (345,560 acres). New ROW 

development would continue to be allowed in GHMA, within existing ROWs, 

and within the 843 acres of unitized lease areas, including 301 acres of unitized 

acres in PHMA. The designation of PHMA as ROW avoidance could limit the 

placement of new above ground infrastructure, resulting in an increase of effects 

on the lands and realty actions as compared to Alternative A. The extent of the 

effects would be based on the location and type of any proposed new ROW.

Impacts from land tenure adjustments would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as those described above under Alternatives A and 

B.

4.4.8 Proposed Plan Amendment

Impacts from GRSG Management

The Proposed Plan Amendment would incorporate additional GRSG 

management, including adaptive management, density and disturbance caps,

regional mitigation, and lek buffers that could limit future authorizations in 

certain areas. If an adaptive management hard trigger was met, the size of new 

transmission lines in corridors would be kept the same as existing structures, or 

not larger than 100 kV. As noted above in Nature and Types of Effects, limitations 

on new ROWs and aboveground linear features, such as transmission lines and 

pipelines, could restrict the availability of energy or service availability and 

reliability for communication systems.

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts would be the same as Alternative D.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under the Proposed Plan Amendment, the BLM would manage 345,560 acres 

(PHMA and GHMA) as ROW avoidance area for new major ROW 

authorizations, while GHMA would be open to new minor ROWs (112,341 

acres). The BLM would also manage PHMA as avoidance for permits and leases. 

PHMA (233,219 acres) would be designated as wind and solar energy ROW 

exclusion, while GHMA would be avoidance for wind and solar (see additional 

analysis for wind and solar energy in Section 4.21). The designation of GRSG 

habitat as ROW avoidance for major ROWs could limit the placement of new 

above ground infrastructure (e.g., transmission lines), resulting in additional 
4. Environmental Consequences (Lands and Realty)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-61

costs and processing times for lands and realty actions as compared to 

Alternative A. Management of PHMA as avoidance and GHMA as open for 

minor ROWs could concentrate new ROW development in GHMA and nonhabitat areas. RDFs could further discourage development in GRSG habitat if 

more inexpensive opportunities exist outside GRSG habitat. Limitations on 

permits and leases could limit authorizations (e.g., communication site leases) 

typically approved via those mechanisms. The extent of the effects would be 

based on the location and type of any proposed new ROW.

Under the Proposed Plan Amendment, the BLM could only approve land tenure 

adjustments that result in a net conservation gain for GRSG. Accordingly, the 

BLM would have limited opportunities for land tenure actions that increase land 

management efficiency through a more consolidated land ownership pattern.

Mineral withdrawal of 53,440 acres, mostly in SFAs, would reduce land use 

authorizations in those areas associated with any mineral development activity.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as those described above under Alternatives A and 

B.

4.5 VEGETATION (INCLUDING NOXIOUS WEEDS; RIPARIAN AND WETLANDS)

4.5.1 Methods and Assumptions

Impacts were determined by assessing which actions, if any, would change the 

upland vegetation, riparian and wetland vegetation, and weed indicators 

described below. Some impacts are direct, while others are indirect and affect 

vegetation through a change in another resource. Direct impacts on vegetation 

include disrupting, damaging, or removing vegetation, thereby reducing area, 

amount, or condition of native vegetation. Included among these are actions 

that reduce total numbers of plant species and actions that reduce or cause the 

loss of diversity, vigor, or structure of vegetation, or that degrade its function as 

habitat for GRSG or other wildlife.

Indirect impacts are those that may occur later in time, such as decreased plant 

vigor or health from dust or reduced water quality. Other indirect impacts 

include loss of habitat suitable for vegetation colonization due to surface 

disturbance; introduction of weeds that compete with desirable, native 

vegetation; conditions that enhance the spread of weeds; and general loss of 

potential habitat due to surface occupancy or soil compaction.

Indicators

Table 4-5 provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the 

effects on vegetation under each alternative.
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-62 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 4-5

Comparison of Vegetation Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

Acres meeting 

Rangeland Health 

standards

Increase Increase Stable/

possible 

decrease

Increase Possible 

increase

Acres of sagebrush 

(PHMA/GHMA1)

345,660 Possible 

increase

Increase Possible 

increase

Possible 

increase

Extent of 

fragmentation

Increasing Stable or 

decreasing

Decreasing Stable or 

decreasing

Stable or 

decreasing

Percentage of 

riparian areas in PFC

Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase

Acres of 

riparian/wetland

vegetation

6,937 Stable or 

increasing

Stable or 

increasing

Stable or 

increasing

Stable or 

increasing

Change in spread of 

noxious weeds

Stable Stable Stable or 

increasing

Stable Stable

1

PH and GH for Alternative A (no PHMA or GHMA is presently designated).

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

 All plant communities would be managed toward achieving a mix of 

species composition, cover, and age classes across the landscape, 

except in site-specific situations where introduced grass plantings 

(crested wheatgrass) are used to defer livestock use of native 

pasture.

 The degree of impact attributed to any one disturbance or series of 

disturbances would be influenced by several factors, including 

location in GRSG habitat; the type, time, and degree of disturbance; 

existing vegetation; precipitation; and mitigating actions applied to 

the disturbance.

 Noxious and invasive weeds would continue to be introduced and 

spread as a result of ongoing vehicle traffic in and out of the 

planning area, recreational activities, wildland fire, wildlife and 

livestock grazing and movements, and surface-disturbing activities.

 Activities that would disturb soils could cause erosion, loss of 

topsoil, and soil compaction, which could affect the ability of 

vegetation to regenerate. Further, surface-disturbing activities could 

increase dust, which could cover existing vegetation and impair 

plant photosynthesis and respiration. Resulting impacts could 

include lowered plant vigor and growth rate, altered or disrupted 

pollination, and increased susceptibility to disease.
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-63

 Ecological health and ecosystem functioning depend on a number of 

factors, including vegetative cover, species diversity, nutrient cycling 

and availability, water infiltration and availability, and percent cover 

of weeds.

 Climatic fluctuation would continue to influence the health and 

productivity of plant communities on an annual basis.

 Short-term effects would occur over a timeframe of two years or 

less and long-term effects would occur beyond two years. 

 Removal of livestock grazing from BLM-administered land would 

eliminate the opportunity to initiate weed control cooperative 

range improvement agreements for noxious weed control on 

affected lands.

4.5.2 Nature and Type of Effects

GRSG rely on sagebrush ecosystems for all aspects of their life cycle. Typically, a 

range of sagebrush community composition within the landscape (including 

variations in sub-species composition, co-dominant vegetation, shrub cover, 

herbaceous cover, stand age) are needed to meet seasonal, and inter-seasonal, 

requirements for food, cover, nesting, and wintering habitats. The landscape 

required for GRSG may range from up to 40 square miles. Thus, conserving and 

managing GRSG is as much about the ecology, management and conservation of 

large, intact sagebrush ecosystems as it is about the dynamics and behaviors of 

the populations themselves (Manier et al. 2013).

Historically, sagebrush-dominated vegetation was one of the most widespread 

habitats in the country, but its expanse has been fragmented, lost, or altered by 

invasive plants and anthropogenic disturbance (NTT 2011, p. 4). Protection of

GRSG habitat would involve restrictions and limitations on activities that 

contribute to the spread of invasive species, fire, and other surface disturbance, 

and management of vegetation to promote healthy sagebrush and understory 

vegetation to support GRSG.

Vegetation Management and Habitat Protection

In addition to landscapes with large, intact patches of sagebrush (i.e., those with 

limited habitat fragmentation), GRSG require high-quality habitat conditions. 

These are a diversity of herbaceous species, vegetative and reproductive health 

of native grasses, and an abundance of sagebrush, making management for high 

condition important in seasonally important habitats (Connelly et al. 2004).

Given the limited distribution of suitable sagebrush habitats and the cost of 

habitat restoration, management plans that protect intact sagebrush acreage and 

restore impacted areas strategically to improve habitat connectivity have the 

best chance of increasing the amount and quality of sagebrush cover (Manier et 

al. 2013). Sagebrush-promoting vegetation treatments would protect native 

vegetation and overall ecosystem productivity, while reducing the distribution of 

invasive weeds and woody conifer species.
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-64 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Invasive plants can alter plant community structure and composition, 

productivity, nutrient cycling, and hydrology, and may competitively exclude 

native plant populations. Invasive plant spread may result in habitat loss and 

fragmentation, and may also increase the risk of wildfire. The spread of invasive 

plants such as cheatgrass has increased the frequency and intensity of fires in 

some areas (Balch et al. 2012), though the LFO currently has cheatgrass 

dominant in isolated patches only, due to climatic conditions. An assortment of 

nonnative annuals and perennials and native conifers are currently invading 

sagebrush ecosystems, notably juniper species. 

Expansion of conifer woodlands present a threat to GRSG because they do not 

provide suitable habitat, and mature trees displace shrubs, grasses and forbs 

through direct competition for resources; conifer expansion is also associated 

with increased bare ground and erosion potential. Mature trees may offer perch 

sites for raptors and increase predation threats (Petersen et al. 2009; Bradley 

2010). Current treatments and active vegetation management typically focus on 

vegetation composition and structure for fuels management, habitat 

management and/or productivity manipulation for improving the habitat and 

forage conditions for ungulates and other grazers. Vegetation management 

techniques increase productivity by stabilizing soil surfaces or by removing 

invasive plants (Knick et al. 2011). Vegetation treatments would cause shortterm disturbance to vegetation from removal but would result in long-term 

improvements to habitat quality.

Treatments designed to prevent encroachment of shrubs, nonnative species or 

woody vegetation would alter the condition of native vegetation communities by 

changing the density, composition, and frequency of species within plant 

communities. The intent of these management programs is to improve 

rangeland condition and enhance sagebrush ecosystems.

Vegetation manipulations in the riparian zone, such as weed treatments, native 

plantings, and erosion control in the channel, improve the condition of the 

riparian vegetation community, individual riparian species, and hydrologic 

functionality to attain PFC. Habitat connectivity for GRSG could be increased 

through vegetation manipulation designed to restore vegetation, or transition of 

an area to better match the surrounding vegetation.

Direct protection of sagebrush habitat to support GRSG would limit or modify 

uses in this habitat type. Use restrictions would reduce damage to native 

vegetation communities and individual native plant species in areas that are 

important for regional vegetation diversity and quality. Likewise, use restrictions 

would minimize loss of connectivity and would be more likely to retain existing 

age class distribution within these specific areas. Use restrictions could also 

minimize the spread of invasive species by limiting human activities that cause 

soil disturbance or seed introductions.
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-65

Wildland Fire

While wildfires likely played an important role historically in creating a mosaic of 

herbaceous-dominated areas (recently disturbed), and mature sagebrush (lessfrequently disturbed), current land-use patterns have restricted the system’s 

ability to support natural wildfire regimes. Slow rates of re-growth and recovery 

of vegetation after disturbances (driven by low water availability and other 

constraints) have contributed to the accumulating displacement and degradation 

of the sagebrush ecosystem (Beck et al. 2009). Thus, preservation of sagebrush 

against wildfire and limiting use of prescribed burning is important to preserving 

GRSG habitat.

Big sagebrush does not re-sprout after a fire, but is replenished by winddispersed seed from adjacent unburned stands or seeds in the soil. Depending 

on the species and the size of a burn, sagebrush can reestablish within five years 

of a burn, but a return to a full pre-burn community cover can take 13 to 100 

years (Connelly et al. 2004). Fire suppression may be used to maintain habitat 

for GRSG (NTT 2011). When management reduces wildland fire frequency by 

controlling natural ignitions, the indirect impact is that vegetation ages across 

the landscape and early successional vegetation communities are diminished. 

Fire suppression may preserve condition of some vegetation communities, as 

well as habitat connectivity. This is particularly important in areas where fire 

frequency has increased as a result of weed invasion, or where landscapes are 

highly fragmented. Fire suppression can also lead to increased fuel loads, which 

can lead to more damaging or larger-scale fires in the long term. Fire also 

increases opportunities for invasive species, such as cheatgrass, to expand (Balch 

et al. 2012), so fire suppression can indirectly limit this expansion.

Controlled burning may be prescribed to treat fuel buildup and can assist in the 

recovery of sagebrush habitat in some vegetation types. Re-seeding with native 

plants and long-term monitoring to ensure the production of GRSG cover and 

forage plants, would assist vegetation recovery (NTT 2011).

Lands and Realty

Construction of utility ROWs often involves vegetation removal, which would 

disturb native vegetation communities and individual native plant species, alter

age class distribution, reduce connectivity, and encourage the spread of invasive 

species. ROWs may extend for many miles, fragmenting habitat and increasing 

the potential for weeds to be spread (NTT 2011). ROW corridors would be 

managed to concentrate placement of large linear facilities and other ROW 

development in less-sensitive areas and to minimize the loss of connectivity and 

total acreage of vegetation that would be disturbed.

The holder of a ROW is responsible for weed control on disturbed areas within 

the limits of the ROW. The holder is responsible for invasive weed control for 

the life of the ROW plus three years. The holder is responsible for consultation 
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-66 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

with the authorized officer or local authorities for acceptable weed control 

methods.

ROW exclusion areas would prohibit all development of ROWs in PHMA, with 

the exceptions provided, while ROW avoidance areas would consider on a 

case-by-case basis whether an ROW should be allowed. This flexibility may be 

advantageous where federal and private land-ownership areas are mixed, while

ROW exclusion areas could result in more widespread development on private 

lands.

Mineral Resources

Many sagebrush ecosystems overlay major oil and gas reserves, and various solid 

mineral deposits, which has created a long history of mining and exploration, 

particularly on eastern portions of the range, which include the planning area. 

Energy development requires construction of roads, well pads, wells, and other 

infrastructure, and associated noise, traffic, and lights, that alter, degrade, or

entirely displace native ecosystems and disturb wildlife (Patricelli et al. 2012; 

Manier et al. 2013). Surface disturbance associated with solid mineral 

development is similar as described above and often removes vegetation, 

reduces the condition of native vegetation communities and the connectivity of 

habitat, and encourages the spread of invasive species (NTT 2011).

Despite lease nomination deferrals of public lands to oil and gas leasing within 

PHMA and GHMA, many valid leases remain across GRSG ranges, including the 

LFO (Manier et al. 2013). Local governments and commercial operations are in 

regular need of mineral materials for road construction and maintenance needs. 

Prices for other minerals affect demand, which could result in increased interest 

in prospecting for solid mineral resources. If mineral development is shifted 

away from sagebrush habitat to other areas to protect GRSG, impacts on 

vegetation in GRSG habitat would be reduced.

Recreation

Recreational use of GRSG habitat can be benign, but excessive use may cause 

degradation of sagebrush vegetation. Potential impacts from recreational use 

include trampling, soil compaction, erosion, spread of invasive plants, and 

generation of fugitive dust (NTT 2011; Bradley 2010). Recreational use can also 

increase the potential for wildfire caused by humans or influenced by spread of 

invasive annual grasses (Knick et al. 2011). Most impacts occur in easily 

accessible areas from OHV use. Restrictions on recreational use of GRSG 

habitat would limit damage to the vegetation communities that comprise this 

habitat, by directly reducing disturbance to vegetation from trampling, OHVs, 

dust, and spread of invasive species. Such restrictions could involve seasonal 

area closures or limitations on the number of users or types of uses permitted.

Travel and Transportation

Road construction divides and fragments GRSG habitat, and causes erosion and 

nutrient leaching. The use of roads and trails creates soil compaction, and allows 
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-67

the spread of human disturbance, including wildfire and invasive plant species 

(Knick and Connelly 2011; Wisdom et al. 2011). Invasive species can outcompete sagebrush and other vegetation essential for GRSG survival. Invasive

species also increase wildfire frequencies, further contributing to loss of habitat 

(Balch et al. 2012).

For protection of GRSG, some roads, primitive roads and trails may be 

seasonally or permanently closed, OHVs would be restricted to designated 

routes, and new route construction avoided in PHMA to the maximum extent 

possible (NTT 2011).

Livestock Grazing

Livestock grazing is the most widespread land use across the sagebrush biome 

(Connelly et al. 2004). Livestock grazing can affect soils, vegetation health, 

species composition, water, and nutrient availability by consuming vegetation, 

redistributing nutrients and seeds, trampling soils and vegetation, and disrupting 

microbial systems (Connelly et al. 2004; NTT 2011). Livestock grazing is a 

“diffuse” form of biotic disturbance that exerts repeated pressure over many 

years on a system; thus, effects of grazing are not likely to be detected as 

disruptions, but as differences in the processes and functioning of the sagebrush 

system. Grazing effects are not distributed evenly because historic practices, 

management plans and agreements, and animal behavior all lead to differential 

use of the range (Knick 2011). Livestock often use riparian and wetland areas 

for water and shade, and may trample riparian vegetation, which could reduce 

riparian community condition and contribute to erosion.

Livestock grazing may have both beneficial and detrimental aspects, depending 

on site-specific management (Connelly et al. 2004). At unsustainable levels, 

grazing can lead to loss of vegetative cover, decreased plant litter, increased soil 

erosion, and reduced habitat quality for wildlife, including GRSG (Knick 2011;

Connelly et al. 2004).

Properly managed grazing can be used as a tool to reduce fuel load, to protect 

intact sagebrush habitat, and to increase habitat extent and continuity (Adams et 

al. 2004). Grazing can also have beneficial effects on vegetation, by reducing 

litter removing annual grasses, facilitating growth of native species and increasing 

vegetation community diversity. Land health evaluations are used to assess 

rangeland condition and help to identify where changes in grazing management

would be beneficial. In areas meeting Rangeland Health Standards, grazing 

practices co-exist with healthy vegetation communities providing wildlife habitat.

Grazing systems that provide for closer management of allotments in GRSG

habitat and aim to protect sagebrush and riparian ecosystems would protect 

vegetation, by allowing more plant growth and reducing trampling and 

introduction of exotic species. Reducing or removing grazing in habitat areas 

would also reduce these effects but could have unintended consequences of 

increasing fuel building or degrading vegetation quality over the long term.
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-68 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

4.5.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

There are no known coal resources located in the planning area; therefore, 

associated management actions related to coal would not impact vegetation 

under any of the alternatives.

4.5.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative A, BLM-administered lands would continue to permit limited 

yearlong use for motorized wheeled vehicles, restricted to existing roads and 

trails. Continuation of this policy would allow for invasive plants introduction, 

wildfire, soil compaction, fragmentation, and other effects discussed under

Nature and Type of Effects. Per BLM regulations, temporary area, road, or trail 

closures for other resources would be considered where OHVs are causing, or 

would cause, considerable adverse effects on wildlife and its habitat. These 

temporary closures could reduce disturbance or loss of vegetation.

Impacts from Recreation

Alternative A includes no specific recreation management related to GRSG or 

their habitat and thus current impacts from recreation on vegetation as 

described under Nature and Type of Effects would continue. Potential impacts 

include vegetation trampling, soil compaction, erosion, invasive plant spread, and 

fugitive dust generation.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative A, ROWs would be considered on a case-by-case basis 

outside of ROW exclusion and avoidance areas, and ROWs would be 

collocated when possible, which would reduce surface disturbance and 

vegetation removal. There are no ROW exclusion areas within the planning 

area; however, there are two ROW avoidance areas, Acid Shale Pine Forest 

ACEC and Judith River Canyon. Vegetation disturbance and removal would be 

reduced in avoidance areas, as described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Table 4-6 shows ReGAP habitat types within ROW avoidance and exclusion 

areas, including lands not administered by the BLM. The table shows that more 

sagebrush habitat is located on land not administered by the BLM (863,565 acres 

compared to 256,052 acres), suggesting that development restrictions on BLMadministered land could push ROW construction onto private lands and may 

not result in any benefit to sagebrush habitat.

Land tenure adjustments would be subject to current disposal and acquisition 

criteria, which include retaining important wildlife habitat and nesting habitat for 

game animals. Retention would reduce the likelihood of habitat conversion to 

agriculture, urbanization, or other uses that would remove vegetation in these 

areas. Currently, there are no areas identified for withdrawal in the planning 

area.
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-69

Table 4-6

ReGAP Habitat Type including Non-BLM Acreage in PHMA and GHMA within Right-of-way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas by 

Alternative (Acres)

Habitat Type Non-BLM1 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative 

C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

GHMA PHMA Avoidance2 Undesignated3 Avoidance4 Exclusion5 Exclusion6 Avoidance7 Undesignated3 Avoidance Exclusion8

Cultivated cropland 90,147 70,077 8 3,916 1,623 2,301 3,924 2,301 1,623 3,924 2,301

Developed, Low 

Intensity

1,673 1,858 0 143 29 114 144 114 29 143 114

Developed, Medium 

Intensity

18 3 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 0

Developed, Open 

Space

9,318 2,906 0 242 69 173 242 173 69 242 173

InterMountain Basins 

Big Sagebrush Steppe

286,096 523,109 2,942 211,354 44,698 169,598 214,297 169,598 44,698 214,296 169,598

InterMountain Basins 

Greasewood Flat

7,336 6,513 253 3,839 1,747 2,345 4,093 2,345 1,747 4,092 2,345

InterMountain Basins 

Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe

54,272 0 0 135 135 0 135 0 135 135 0

Introduced Upland 

Vegetation Perennial 

Grassland and 

Forbland

79,759 119,309 6 6,558 1,757 4,807 6,564 4,807 1,757 6,564 4,807

Middle Rocky 

Mountain Montane 

Douglas fir Forest 

and Woodland

8,473 0 0 31 31 0 31 0 31 31 0

North American 

Arid West Emergent 

Marsh

257 1,155 0 204 4 200 204 200 4 204 200

Northern Rocky 

Mountain Dry Mesic 

Montane Mixed 

Conifer Forest

-0 0 0 26 26 0 26 0 26 26 0

Northern Rocky 

Mountain Foothill 

Conifer Wooded 

Steppe

21,326 10,619 1,324 11,514 9,423 3,415 12,839 3,415 9,423 12,838 3,415
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-70 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 4-6

ReGAP Habitat Type including Non-BLM Acreage in PHMA and GHMA within Right-of-way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas by 

Alternative (Acres)

Habitat Type Non-BLM1 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative 

C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

GHMA PHMA Avoidance2 Undesignated3 Avoidance4 Exclusion5 Exclusion6 Avoidance7 Undesignated3 Avoidance Exclusion8

Northern Rocky 

Mountain Lower 

Montane, Foothill 

and Valley Grassland

41,098 0 0 219 120 99 219 99 120 219 99

Northern Rocky 

Mountain Montane 

Foothill Deciduous 

Shrubland

818 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 0

Northern Rocky 

Mountain Ponderosa 

Pine Woodland and 

Savanna

1,908 13,885 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 0

Northwestern Great 

Plains Black Hills 

Ponderosa Pine 

Woodland and 

Savanna

32,673 118 2,482 18,429 14,360 6,551 20,912 6,551 14,360 20,911 6,551

Northwestern Great 

Plains Floodplain

2,318 76 34 177 195 16 211 16 195 211 16

Northwestern Great 

Plains Mixed-grass 

Prairie

105,251 150,819 298 38,918 8,377 30,839 39,216 30,839 8,377 39,216 30,839

Northwestern Great 

Plains Riparian

28,361 42,259 15 8,097 1,811 6,301 8,112 6,301 1,811 8,112 6,301

Northwestern Great 

Plains Shrubland

5,255 409 78 1,526 1,529 75 1,603 75 1,529 1,604 75

Open Water Fresh 1,610 1,166 28 307 132 203 335 203 132 335 203

Pasture/Hay 25,694 739 2 10 8 4 12 4 8 12 4

Rocky Mountain 

Alpine Montane Wet 

Meadow

1,152 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0

Rocky Mountain 

Cliff, Canyon and 

Massive Bedrock

35 0 0 104 99 5 103 5 99 104 5
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-71

Table 4-6

ReGAP Habitat Type including Non-BLM Acreage in PHMA and GHMA within Right-of-way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas by 

Alternative (Acres)

Habitat Type Non-BLM1 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative 

C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

GHMA PHMA Avoidance2 Undesignated3 Avoidance4 Exclusion5 Exclusion6 Avoidance7 Undesignated3 Avoidance Exclusion8

Rocky Mountain 

Lodge pole Pine 

Forest

1,058 0 0 4 4 0 4 0 4 4 0

Rocky Mountain 

Lower Montane 

Riparian Woodland 

and Shrubland

6,125 0 0 4 4 0 4 0 4 4 0

Rocky Mountain 

Subalpine Dry Mesic 

Spruce-Fir Forest 

and Woodland

62 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0

Rocky Mountain 

Subalpine Montane 

Mesic Meadow

25,156 0 0 21 21 0 21 0 21 21 0

Western Great 

Plains Badland

32,142 4,986 2,412 22,808 22,427 2,793 25,220 2,793 22,427 25,220 2,793

Western Great 

Plains Cliff and 

Outcrop

208 17 3 110 72 41 112 41 72 113 41

Western Great 

Plains Closed 

Depression Wetland

109 105 0 21 3 18 21 18 3 21 18

Western Great 

Plains Open 

Freshwater 

Depression Wetland

68 54 0 43 0 43 43 43 (0) 43 43

Western Great 

Plains Saline 

Depression Wetland

203 2,920 0 392 17 375 392 375 17 392 375

Western Great 

Plains Sand Prairie

26,780 19,605 5 5,535 2,992 2,548 5,539 2,548 2,992 5,540 2,548

Western Great 

Plains Wooded 

Draw and Ravine

2,812 2,028 30 931 606 355 961 355 606 961 355
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-72 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 4-6

ReGAP Habitat Type including Non-BLM Acreage in PHMA and GHMA within Right-of-way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas by 

Alternative (Acres)

Habitat Type Non-BLM1 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative 

C Alternative D Proposed Plan Amendment

GHMA PHMA Avoidance2 Undesignated3 Avoidance4 Exclusion5 Exclusion6 Avoidance7 Undesignated3 Avoidance Exclusion8

Wyoming Basins 

Dwarf Sagebrush 

Shrubland and 

Steppe

88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Grand Total 902,694 974,775 9,920 335,626 112,329 233,217 345,547 233,217 112,329 345,546 233,219

1Non-BLM acreage includes state lands, privately owned land, and other lands not managed.

2Alternative A avoidance acreage is existing protective habitat within BLM-administered lands.

3Neither is BLM-administered land outside of the ROW avoidance and exclusion areas that is not protective of GRSG habitat.

4Alternative B avoidance acreage is equal to BLM GHMA.

5Alternative B exclusion acreage is equal to BLM PHMA.

6Alternative C exclusion acreage is equal to BLM GHMA + BLM PHMA.

7Alternative D avoidance acreage is equal to BLM PHMA.

8The Proposed Plan Amendment would establish wind and solar ROW exclusion area and high voltage (>100kV) and large pipeline (>24”) ROW avoidance areas in PHMA and 

GHMA. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-73

Impacts from Range Management

As shown in Table 2-3, 570,112 acres in the planning area are open for 

livestock grazing, with 103,806 available AUMs. Livestock grazing would remain 

closed on 6,781 acres.

Livestock grazing would continue to be managed through existing grazing plans, 

with methods and guidelines from the existing RMPs followed. Continuation of 

these policies could indirectly preserve existing sagebrush habitat through 

consideration of vegetation potential, and adjustments to livestock use when 

necessary. This is in accordance with BLM grazing regulations 43 CFR, Part

4180, Fundamentals of Rangeland Health, which require appropriate action be 

implemented when current livestock grazing management is a significant factor 

in failing to achieve standards. Appropriate action would result in the significant 

progress toward fulfilling the standards and significant progress toward 

conforming to the guidelines. As discussed above under Nature and Type of 

Effects, grazing practices may have negative, neutral, or positive effects on 

vegetation; land health assessments and other management evaluations would be

intended to identify areas of concern to maintain or improve rangeland health, 

which would improve vegetation condition.

Noxious weed control would be the responsibility of the affected permittee or 

lessee under weed control cooperative range improvement agreements. Each 

year, they would provide the BLM with records and maps of treatment areas.

Riparian habitats would be managed to achieve PFC and the desired plant 

community. Livestock management would be compatible with achieving these 

conditions. Together, these management actions would help to enhance riparian 

vegetation health and reduce impacts caused by livestock, such as trampling and 

overuse of riparian areas.

Range improvements would be designed to meet both wildlife habitat objectives 

and land health standards (Appendix F). Development of range improvements 

on erodible soils would be avoided in springs. These approaches would help 

protect sagebrush ecosystems by supporting rangeland health and reducing the 

likelihood of surface disturbance in sensitive areas.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative A, fluid mineral development could occur on currently leased 

lands. Development in these areas would continue to cause impacts on 

vegetation as described under impacts described under Nature and Type of 

Effects, including removal or degradation of vegetation and potential spread of 

invasive species.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

No lands would be closed to solid mineral leasing, closed to mineral material 

sale, or recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry under 
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-74 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Alternative A (Table 4-7). However, mitigation measures to prevent 

unnecessary degradation would be applied, which would reduce impacts on

vegetation from surface disturbance, including those described under Nature and 

Type of Effects.

Table 4-7

Withdrawal from Locatable Mineral Entry in Decision Area

Resource Use Alternative 

A

Alternative B Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

Acres proposed

for withdrawal

from locatable 

mineral entry

0 233,219 345,560 0 53,440

Note: Acres for withdrawal in PHMA/GHMA for Alternatives B, C, and D; no PHMA or GHMA is designated under

Alternative A.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fire and fuels management under Alternative A would not specifically protect 

sagebrush vegetation, although prescribed burning may be used in support of 

resource management objectives, such as restoring grassland or shrubland, 

reducing conifer encroachment, or increasing age-class variety. As a result, 

vegetation condition and desired species composition would be improved in 

certain areas. Further, chemical weed treatments applied following prescribed 

burns would limit the expansion of weeds or invasive species in the burned area

and facilitate revegetation of native species. 

Intensive wildfire suppression in high-value areas, such as sagebrush, firesensitive woody riparian areas, and commercial forests, would protect mature 

vegetation in these areas, but could also increase fuel load. Impacts from fire, 

including those described under Nature and Type of Effects, would continue 

under Alternative A.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative A, BLM would continue to incorporate habitat restoration 

and vegetation objectives in management actions, which would improve 

vegetation conditions and increase the extent of native vegetation in areas 

where they are applied. In particular, BLM would manage for the benefit of 

vegetation that provides wildlife forage, forbs, and big and silver sage. Use of 

native species would be used when possible, but not required, allowing for some 

introduced species in areas where they are necessary for site stabilization. 

Impacts from ACECs

BLM would continue to manage 2,463 acres as the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC

to protect its unique pine forest and shale landscape.
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-75

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

Amendment

Adoption of a Monitoring Framework (see Section 2.7.2) to oversee the 

implementation and effectiveness of GRSG habitat improvement efforts could 

result in improvement of vegetation conditions.

4.5.6 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Travel and transportation management under Alternative B would likely reduce 

impacts on vegetation from travel routes and OHVs by limiting OHVs to 

existing roads, primitive roads and trails, evaluating the need to permanently or 

seasonally close routes or areas to OHVs or other authorized users in PHMA 

and restoring routes by re-seeding with appropriate seed mixes and considering 

the use of transplanted sagebrush.

Impacts from Recreation

Management proposed under Alternative B would reduce impacts on vegetation 

from recreation as described under Nature and Type of Effects by limiting 

issuance of SRPs in PHMA. Such management would restrict potentially 

damaging recreational uses of these areas associated with SRPs, although 

impacts from dispersed recreation, such as hiking, biking, or equestrian 

activities, would continue to disturb vegetation in areas where they occur.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Establishing ROW exclusion and avoidance areas would protect vegetation in 

areas where they are applied as described above under Nature and Type of 

Effects. Under Alternative B, BLM would manage PHMA as ROW exclusion 

areas (233,219 acres). GHMA would be ROW avoidance areas (112,341 acres).

ROW exclusion areas would protect vegetation from disturbance and 

fragmentation, but could also have the effect of pushing development onto 

adjacent private lands with less management oversight. Table 4-6 shows ROW 

avoidance and exclusion areas for sagebrush by ReGAP vegetation type. 

Measures under Alternative B would protect nearly 73 times more BLM 

sagebrush acreage than Alternative A in ROW avoidance or exclusion areas. In 

addition, reclamation of out-of-use ROWs would increase the extent and 

connectivity of vegetation communities.

Retention of BLM-administered lands in PHMA with limited exceptions would 

reduce the likelihood of vegetation removal or fragmentation associated with 

agricultural or urban development that could occur on state or private lands.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative B, there would be 337,165 acres open for grazing and 69,408 

available AUMs, as shown in Table 4-8. BLM would implement a number of 

management actions in PHMA to incorporate GRSG habitat objectives and 
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-76 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 4-8

AUMs and Acres Available for Grazing in Decision Area

Resource Use Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Proposed 

Plan 

Amendment

Available AUMs N/A 69,408 0 69,408 69,408

Acres open to 

grazing in planning 

area

N/A 337,165 0 337,165 337,165

management considerations into livestock grazing management. Appropriate 

action would result in the possible increase in the number of acres meeting 

Rangeland Health Standards. Together, these efforts would reduce, but would 

not eliminate, impacts from grazing on vegetation communities described under

Nature and Type of Effects. In addition, such management would promote the 

health of GRSG habitats, including sagebrush steppe, riparian areas, and wet 

meadows. Impacts from noxious weed control are the same as under 

Alternative A.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Additional restrictions on fluid mineral development proposed under 

Alternative B would reduce the impacts on vegetation compared to Alternative 

A. Exploration within PHMA would be permitted to obtain information for 

adjacent areas. RDFs and conservation measures would be applied as COAs to 

existing leases within PHMA in order to protect GRSG habitat from loss of 

sagebrush acreage and fragmentation of habitat. These restrictions on fluid 

mineral development would protect more acres of vegetation from associated 

activities compared to Alternative A, and would reduce the impacts from fluid 

mineral exploration and development described under Nature and Type of 

Effects.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Alternative B would reduce impacts on vegetation associated with solid mineral 

exploration and extraction activities compared with Alternative A (see Table

4-7). All PHMA would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry and 

closed to nonenergy leasable mineral leasing and to salable mineral disposal. 

RDFs would be applied to existing leases and locatable mineral claims to the 

extent consistent with applicable law. These policies would decrease the 

number of acres of vegetation potentially impacted by solid mineral 

development compared to Alternative A, and a reduction in the likelihood of 

impacts from solid mineral exploration and extraction described under Nature 

and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fire and fuel management policies proposed under Alternative B would be 

designed to protect sagebrush ecosystems by maintaining sagebrush cover, 
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-77

applying seasonal restrictions, protecting winter range, and requiring use of 

native seeds. Post-fuels treatments and ES&R management would be designed to 

ensure long-term persistence of seeded areas and native plants. These proposed 

modifications to fire and fuel management would result in an increase in the 

protection of sagebrush vegetation compared to Alternative A, and a reduction 

in the likelihood of impacts from fire and fuels management described under 

Nature and Type of Effects.

Prioritizing fire suppression in PHMA and GHMA would protect mature 

vegetation from the destructive effects of wildfire but could result in increased 

fuel load and spread of noxious weeds, which lead to larger and more severe 

wildfires in the long term.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Habitat restoration and vegetation management actions under Alternative B 

would aim to improve vegetation conditions and prioritize restoration efforts to 

benefit sagebrush vegetation. As a result, the restoration and vegetation 

management actions would enhance vegetation extent and condition relative to 

Alternative A by requiring the use of native seeds, designing post-restoration 

management to ensure the long-term persistence of the restoration efforts, 

considering changes in climate, and monitoring and controlling invasive species.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts on vegetation in the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC would be similar to 

Alternative A. Additional RDFs and conservation measures in PHMA would 

further reduce impacts on vegetation, as described under the Nature and Type of 

Effects.

4.5.7 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts from travel and transportation management would be similar to 

Alternative B, although impacts on vegetation (as described under the Nature 

and Type of Effects) would be further reduced since protections would apply to 

both PHMA and GHMA, and the BLM would apply additional mitigation 

requirements. Prohibiting road construction within four miles of a lek would 

reduce the amount of land available for future road construction and would help 

prevent fragmentation of vegetative communities.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts are the same as under Alternative A.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Similar to Alternative B, the measures proposed under Alternative C would 

reduce the impacts of ROWs on vegetation. PHMA and GHMA would be ROW 

exclusion areas (345,560 acres). ROW exclusion areas would protect vegetation 

on BLM-administered land, as described above under Nature and Type of Effects, 
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-78 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

but could have the unintended consequence of pushing development onto 

adjacent private lands. Table 4-6 shows vegetation type in ROW avoidance and 

exclusion areas by ReGAP vegetation type. Measures under Alternative C would 

protect both PHMA and GHMA sagebrush acreage (214,297 acres) as ROW 

exclusion areas, and since more GRSG habitat is located on land not 

administered by the BLM, ROW exclusion areas on BLM-administered land 

could push ROW construction onto adjacent private lands with less 

management oversight. This may result in fewer protections for vegetation and 

increased removal and fragmentation of sagebrush.

As under Alternative B, public ownership would be maintained in PHMA, but 

without the exceptions provided under that alternative. Private lands, when 

offered, may be acquired in ACECs to enhance the GRSG conservation value of 

existing lands. Although it is uncertain how much private land would be acquired 

to enhance GRSG habitat under Alternative C, this policy would increase the 

acreage where vegetation condition would be improved compared Alternative 

A, as no such measures have been provided under Alternative A.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative C, grazing would be removed on allotments within PHMA

and GHMA, resulting in 232,947 acres and 34,398 AUMs available in the 

decision area (as shown in Table 4-8). Removal of permitted grazing uses 

would reduce the impacts on GRSG and their habitat, such as loss of 

herbaceous cover, discussed under Nature and Type of Effects. However, grazing 

can be used to reduce fuel load and maintain vegetation health and diversity. 

Thus, removing grazing may diminish rangeland health and wildlife habitat quality 

in the long term. Action may result in the number of acres meeting Rangeland 

Health Standards being stable of potentially decreasing. Removing livestock 

grazing from BLM-administered land would also eliminate the opportunity to 

initiate weed control cooperative range improvement agreements for noxious 

weed control on affected lands. All noxious weed control efforts would be done 

by BLM personnel, which may increase weed distribution and patch sizes. Other 

impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative B.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Fluid minerals management under Alternative C would be similar to that 

described for Alternative B, but would include several more restrictive RDFs 

and conservation measures that would be applied to existing leases as COAs, 

thereby enhancing vegetation protection. In addition, actions would be applied 

to both PHMA and GHMA, which would increase the area of vegetation that 

would be protected. These measures would reduce habitat degradation and 

fragmentation associated with mineral extraction, including those impacts 

described under Nature and Type of Effects.
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-79

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Impacts from solid minerals management would be the same as Alternative B, 

but would be applied to a larger area (PHMA and GHMA), and would thus 

provide greater protection for vegetation over the long term.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts from fire and fuels management would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B, but would be applied to a larger area (PHMA and GHMA), and 

would thus provide greater protection for vegetation over the long term.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts from habitat restoration and vegetation management would be similar 

to those described for Alternative B, but would be applied to a larger area 

(PHMA and GHMA), and would thus provide greater protection for vegetation 

over the long term.

Impacts from ACECs

ACECs to protect GRSG would be designated as sagebrush reserves on 96,246 

acres. Vegetation within areas designated as ACECs would be protected from 

surface disturbance by increased management focus and restrictions on surfacedisturbing activities in these areas.

4.5.8 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Measures proposed under Alternative D would reduce impacts on GRSG

habitat compared to Alternative A. Many management actions would be similar 

to Alternative B, with increased management flexibility incorporated to improve 

management and target those areas that need most protection. Overall, 

management under Alternative D would reduce impacts on vegetation from 

activities associated with travel and transportation in the planning area, including 

those described under Nature and Type of Effects, compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Lands and realty management proposed under Alternative D would provide

increased protection of vegetation compared to Alternative A. PHMA would be 

ROW avoidance areas (233,219 acres) and ROWs would be allowed in GHMA

with appropriate mitigation measures (112,341 acres). Table 4-6 shows acres 

of land in ROW avoidance and exclusion areas by ReGAP vegetation type. 

Measures under Alternative D would protect the same amount of PHMA as 

Alternative B (169,598 acres) but in ROW avoidance areas, rather than ROW 

exclusion areas. These measures would protect vegetation, while providing 

more management flexibility to site ROWs in less sensitive locations. Mitigation 
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-80 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

measures applied in GHMA would reduce, but would not eliminate, impacts 

associated with ROW development described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from land tenure decisions would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative D, the acreage open for grazing or available AUMs would be 

the same as Alternative B as shown in Table 4-8. Management under 

Alternative D would be similar to that described for Alternative B, with 

increased collaboration with stakeholders, guidance for prioritization of efforts, 

and increased tools available to improve flexibility in management. Appropriate 

action would result in the possible increase in the number of acres meeting 

Rangeland Health Standards. As such, impacts would likely be similar to 

Alternative B, though increased management flexibility may improve 

management and target those areas that need most protection. Impacts from 

noxious weed control are the same as under Alternative B.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative D, impacts would be reduced in comparison to Alternative A 

by applying RDFs and conservation measures as COAs to existing leases. The 

conservation measures would be designed to reduce surface disturbances 

associated with mineral extraction and would provide guidance for mitigation. 

Such management would reduce disturbance to vegetation associated with fluid 

mineral development described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Impacts under Alternative D would be similar to those described for Alternative 

B. However, proposed actions for locatable mineral development would be 

analyzed on a case-by-case basis in cooperation with the State of Montana and 

reviewed to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of GRSG habitat. These 

actions and the application of RDFs (Appendix D) to the extent consistent 

with applicable law would reduce, but not completely eliminate, impacts from 

locatable mineral development on vegetation as described under Nature and 

Type of Effects.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts from fire and fuels management would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B. In addition, fuels management projects in PHMA would be 

designed to incorporate greater flexibility to maximize the acreage protected

and ES&R treatments would be monitored. These proposed modifications to 

fire and fuel management would result in an increase in the protection of 

sagebrush vegetation compared to Alternative A, and a reduction in the 

likelihood of impacts from fire and fuels management described under Nature 

and Type of Effects.
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-81

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts from habitat restoration and vegetation management under Alternative 

D would be similar to those described for Alternative B. However, this 

alternative includes consideration of other threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species, which may change the proportions of vegetation communities that 

would be protected in certain instances.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative B.

4.5.9 Proposed Plan Amendment

Impacts from GRSG Management

The Proposed Plan Amendment would incorporate additional GRSG 

management, including adaptive management, a regional mitigation strategy, 

density and disturbance caps, and lek buffers. If an adaptive management hard 

trigger response was met, PHMA would be the top priority for regional 

mitigation, habitat restoration, and fuels reduction treatments. These actions

could offer incidental protection for vegetation by maintaining or restoring 

habitat and by limiting habitat disturbance in certain areas.

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative D.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative B. The Proposed 

Plan Amendment would provide additional incidental protection to vegetation 

by limiting construction of new recreation facilities.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Impacts from ROW management would be similar to those described under 

Alternative D. However, under the Proposed Plan Amendment, both PHMA and 

GHMA would be ROW avoidance areas for high-voltage transmission lines and 

large pipelines (366,045 acres) with limited exceptions, while PHMA would also 

be minor ROW avoidance areas for minor ROWs. In addition, PHMA would be 

ROW exclusion areas, and GHMA would be ROW avoidance areas for wind 

and solar energy. RDFs would be applied to further reduce impacts. These 

measures could offer an increased level of protection from disturbance and 

habitat loss compared to Alternative A.

Land tenure adjustments would have impacts similar to Alternative C. Under 

the Proposed Plan Amendment, public ownership would be maintained in both 

PHMA and GHMA, except where land exchange would provide a net 

conservation gain to GRSG or if there would be no direct or indirect adverse 

impact on conservation of the GRSG. SFAs would be recommended for 

withdrawal from the General Mining Act of 1872. Since GRSG rely on 
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-82 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

undisturbed vegetation, these measures would provide increased incidental 

protection to vegetation in the planning area.

Impacts from Range Management

Impacts from range management would be similar to those described for 

Alternative D. In addition, under the Proposed Plan Amendment, the BLM 

would prioritize the review and processing of grazing permits/leases in PHMA, 

particularly in areas not meeting Land Health Standards. RDFs would be 

implemented to reduce impacts when developing or modifying water 

developments in GRSG habitat. Together, these measures would help to 

improve and protect habitat quality throughout the planning area and therefore 

would have a beneficial incidental impact on vegetation.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Impacts from fluid minerals management would be similar to those described for 

Alternative D. However, additional restrictions on geophysical exploration 

within PHMA would be proposed. Therefore, these measures would have a 

beneficial incidental impact on vegetation in the planning area. 

Impacts from Solid Minerals

The BLM would determine coal suitability on a case-by-case basis as leases or 

lease modifications are submitted. Currently, there is no coal potential in the 

planning area. Therefore, no impacts on vegetation are expected from coal

management.

The Proposed Plan Amendment would provide additional protections in the 

planning area by recommending 53,440 acres of SFAs for withdrawal from 

locatable mineral entry. Additionally, 281,487 acres of PHMA would be closed 

to nonenergy solid mineral leasing and to new mineral material disposals. RDFs

(Appendix D) would be applied to mineral material disposals and nonenergy 

solid mineral leasing within GHMA. RDFs (Appendix D) would be applied to 

locatable mineral development to the extent consistent with applicable law

outside SFA. These actions would beneficially impact vegetation in the planning 

area.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts from fire and fuels management would be similar to those described for 

Alternative D. In addition, Burn Plans would be required to meet the required 

criteria under the Proposed Plan Amendment if prescribed fire is used in GRSG 

habitat. This would provide additional incidental protections to vegetation by 

reducing risks to GRSG habitat from use of prescribed fire.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts from habitat restoration and vegetation management under the 

Proposed Plan Amendment would be similar to those described for Alternative 

D. However, the Proposed Plan Amendment includes consideration of desired 

vegetation conditions within SFAs and PHMA, and proposes conifer treatment 
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-83

where it encroaches into sagebrush habitat. Though these treatments may 

change the proportions of vegetation communities that would be protected in 

certain instances (e.g., conifer habitats are negatively impacted near GRSG leks), 

overall management would represent a beneficial impact on vegetation.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative B.

4.6 WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGY

4.6.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Table 4-9 provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the 

effects on wildland fire management and ecology under each alternative.

Table 4-9

Comparison of Wildland Fire Management and Ecology Indicators by Alternative

Indicator

Alternative

A B C D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

Change in percent departure 

from Historic Reference 

Conditions (FRCC) across 

the planning area

No change Minor 

increased 

percent 

departure

Minor 

increased 

percent 

departure

Minor 

increased 

percent 

departure

Minor 

increased 

percent 

departure

A substantial change in the 

likelihood or severity of 

wildland fire (based on level 

of restrictions on uses that 

may introduce sources of 

ignition)

Fires more 

likely to 

occur, due 

to few 

restrictions

Fires less 

likely to 

occur, due to 

restrictions 

that reduce 

risk of fire

Fires are more 

likely as a result 

of increased 

fine fuels from 

removing 

grazing

Fires are less 

likely due to 

restrictions 

that reduce 

risk of fire

Fires are less 

likely due to 

restrictions 

that reduce 

risk of fire

Management actions that 

substantially inhibit a 

response to wildland fire or 

appropriate treatments to 

prevent wildland fire

No change No change Increase No change No change

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

 Fire is an important functional, natural disturbance in many of the 

ecological systems found in the planning area.

 A direct relationship exists between fuel loading and potential fire 

intensity and severity.

 Demand for fuels treatments would likely increase over the life of 

this plan.
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

4-84 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

4.6.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Impacts on wildland fire management result from changes in fire frequency and 

intensity, and the ability to employ fire-suppression methods, all of which would 

affect management of fire and related costs within the planning area. As 

discussed in Section 3.7 the majority of lands in the decision area have 

moderate to high level of departure from historic conditions and related fire 

risk. Actions which change condition class from highly altered ecosystems to 

one closer to historical conditions could reduce the risk of losing key 

ecosystems as well as decrease fire risk and management costs in the long term.

Many different resource uses may introduce additional ignition sources into the 

planning area, which increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence and the 

need for fire-suppression activities. Fire intensity can be affected by activities 

that decrease fuel loading, such as vegetation treatments and harvesting of 

timber products, and activities that alter the composition and structure of 

vegetation communities. High-intensity fires generally result in a greater loss of 

vegetation cover, changes to soil chemistry, damage to root structures, and a 

greater ability for nonnative species to become established (Verma and 

Jayakumar 2012).

Transportation and travel management can impact fire frequency by changing 

the level of risk of human caused ignitions. The risk of ignition is increased 

where travel is less restrictive, particularly where motorized vehicles travel 

cross-country. All forms of travel encourage the spread of invasive weeds (CEC 

2012), particularly cheat grass, which can shift fire regimes and increase fire 

behavior potential. Conversely, if management restricts access, wildfire risk may 

be decreased. In addition, transportation management may impact fire 

suppression efforts; when routes are closed and rehabilitated, they become 

unavailable for response to wildfires, limiting access opportunities.

Similarly, the level and type of recreation permitted can impact fire risk. 

Increased recreational use may increase the probability of unintentional fire 

starts from human caused ignitions and the need for fire suppression. 

Recreation management may reduce this risk by providing targeted activities and 

outcomes.

Surface disturbance caused by development would generally contribute to the 

modification of the composition and structure of vegetation communities 

(including increases in noxious weed proliferation) in the vicinity of developed 

areas, which could then be more likely to fuel high-intensity fires. This could 

cause an increase in program costs because of the increased potential for fire.

Lands and realty actions may indirectly result in development and associated fire 

risk. For example, issuance of land use authorizations can result in indirect 

impacts by increasing the risk of human-caused ignition should construction of 

transmission lines, renewable energy projects, or other development occur.
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-85

Likewise, the development of energy and minerals resources could increase the 

risk of wildfires by introducing new ignition sources (Shlisky et al. 2007). 

Associated facilities, infrastructure and transmission lines can increase fire and 

fuels program costs while decreasing fire management flexibility with regards to 

suppression options. Energy development also poses hazards to firefighters, 

including unknown toxins, facility protection, evacuation of industry personnel, 

and dangerous overhead power lines. Fire programs could incur additional costs 

to train firefighting personnel for emergency situations associated with energy 

development. 

Limitations on mineral development would have an indirect effect of decreased 

fire but only when additional leasing would otherwise be likely to occur. This 

would be due to less development, fewer vehicles, and less construction 

equipment, all of which would decrease the chance of human ignition. In areas 

with limited potential for development, changes to mineral management are 

likely to have negligible impacts on fire management.

The potential for invasive species establishment or increase may follow 

construction and could impact fire management actions through increased risk 

of fire and need for fire management.

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.

Vegetation and weed treatments that decrease standing vegetation could 

decrease the intensity of wildland fires and allow fires to be more easily 

controlled. For example, efforts to reduce incursion of nonnative annual grasses 

(primarily cheatgrass), and proliferation of other noxious and invasive weeds, 

would promote healthy plant communities and an associated lower risk of highintensity wildfire (USGS 2006). Used appropriately, prescribed fire would be 

compatible with noxious weed control; however, the presence of noxious 

weeds and the potential of weeds to spread after a prescribed fire would need 

to be monitored on a site-specific basis. Conversely, management actions that 

retain shrub and cover may result in increased fuel loading and increase the 

likelihood and intensity of wildland fire.

Management actions that are intended to improve, create, or re-establish 

healthy ecological conditions in various vegetation types benefit the fire and 

fuels program in the long term by promoting the most efficient use of fire and 

fuels fire management program resources. Conversely, prioritizing fire 

suppression can limit management options and increase costs for fire 

management programs.
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

4-86 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Special designations, such as ACECs, and the management of sensitive resources 

can restrict fuels treatments on a site-specific basis. For example, in areas where 

preservation of particular species or habitats is emphasized, management 

options and fuels treatments may be limited.

Impacts from mineral split estate are covered under the discussions of impacts 

from fluid and solid minerals. As such, there is no further discussion of mineral 

split estate in this section.

4.6.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

As all alternatives would limit motorized and mechanized travel to existing 

routes, fire risk would be minimized due to lack of off-road motorized travel. In 

addition, site-specific travel management would be implemented with 

designation of roads as well as seasonal and permanent closures, where 

appropriate. Due to these management actions, impacts across all alternatives 

would have similarities, although the areas prioritized for travel designation 

planning would vary by alternative. Administrative access would be maintained 

for fire suppression and fire management activity except in the case of road 

closure and rehabilitation; therefore, the impacts on access would be minimal.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

There is currently no coal development in the planning area, but any coal 

development within the planning area would require a plan amendment EIS. Due 

to this, impacts on fire management from coal would be negligible across all 

alternatives.

4.6.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

As described under Impacts Common to all Alternatives, travel would be limited to 

existing routes and site specific travel management plans would be completed

slightly decreasing the likelihood of human caused ignition due to site-specific 

restrictions on access. Per BLM regulations, temporary area, road, or trail 

closures for other resources would be considered where OHVs are causing, or 

would cause, considerable adverse effects on wildlife and its habitat. This could 

also reduce the risk of fire. Overall, fire risk from human-caused ignitions would 

be minimized due to lack of off-road motorized travel.

Impacts from Recreation

Under Alternative A, there are no recreation management actions that would 

result in impacts on fire management.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Alternative A places the fewest restrictions on ROW development; restrictions

would be imposed on a case-by-case basis. Under this alternative, two areas in 
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-87

the decision area (30,193 acres) continue to be managed as ROW avoidance 

areas, with no land managed as a ROW exclusion area. As discussed under

Nature and Type of Effects, fire risk could be increased as a result of development 

from ROW authorizations; therefore, this alternative would have a high 

potential for impacts from lands and realty on fire management.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative A, grazing of all classes of livestock would be open on 

570,112 acres of BLM-administered land in the decision area. Additionally, 

Alternative A would allocate up to 103,806 AUMs in the decision area. Allowing 

grazing throughout the majority of the planning area may decrease the risk of 

wildfire due to the reduction in fuel load caused by livestock grazing. Land 

treatments for livestock forage would be conducted as needed to effectively 

manage livestock, treatments could reduce fuels and the risk of wildland fire as 

described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative A, fluid mineral could be developed on currently leased lands. 

Alternative A places the fewest restrictions on fluid minerals. Due to this, the 

chance of human ignition under this alternative would be the highest and could 

indirectly effect fire management through increased fire risk as discussed under 

Nature and Types of Impacts.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Alternative A has the greatest number of acres open to mineral development

for salable minerals, nonenergy leasables, and new locatable mineral

development. This increases the risk of human-ignited fire. Alternative A could 

impact fire management through increased human-caused ignition where 

development occurred. There is currently no coal development in the planning 

area. Under Alternative A, the planning area would continue to be available for 

coal exploration licenses; however, any coal development within the planning 

area would require a plan amendment EIS, so impacts would be minimal.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Alternative A would place few restrictions on fire and fuels management, and 

therefore would have the fewest impacts on fire management. Alternative A 

would allow for the continued use of prescribed burning in support of resource 

management objectives and would allow for the continued use of mechanical 

and chemical treatments. Intensive fire suppression would be applied to protect 

public safety and property an areas with high resource value.

Due to the flexibility in management of prescribed and wildland fires, fire 

suppression costs are likely to be the lower under Alternative A as compared to 

all action alternatives.
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

4-88 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative A, surface disturbing activities greater than a 1/4 acre would 

require rehabilitation and re-vegetation using primarily native plants. The use of 

native plants under this alternative could contribute to healthy plant 

communities and an associated lower risk of high-intensity wildfire. Vegetation 

could be managed to alter fuel loads and management activities could be 

conducted as appropriate to meet resource needs under this alternative. 

Impacts on fire management would therefore be lower under Alternative A than 

under all action alternatives.

Impacts from ACECs

Under this alternative no new ACECs would be designated to protect GRSG

habitat; therefore, there would be no new restrictions on fire management from 

ACECs. This flexibility in GRSG habitat could allow fire and fuels management 

to function at greater efficiency and lower costs.

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

Amendment

Under all Alternatives B-D and the Proposed Plan Amendment, the BLM would 

implement a defined monitoring strategy tracking and documenting the 

implementation of land use plan decisions as defined in Section 2.7.2 and 

Appendix B. Should changes be detected in sagebrush availability, additional 

changes may be required to fire management actions, which could change the 

time, cost, or effectiveness for management.

4.6.6 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

As described under Impacts Common to all Alternatives, travel would be limited to 

existing routes. Under Alternative B, route construction would be limited in 

PHMA, and the use of existing roads would be emphasized. Additional 

restrictions would be placed on upgrades, route construction, and realignment. 

This would further limit the risk of human-caused ignition in PHMA by reducing 

exposure to machinery, vehicles, and personnel. However, closing roads could 

have some impacts on the ability to respond to fire due to reduced access. Like 

Alternative A, temporary closures could reduce the risk of fire from vehicle use.

Impacts from Recreation

Alternative B would only allow SRPs in PHMA that have neutral or beneficial 

effects on PHMA. SRPs that have neutral or beneficial effects on PHMA would 

likely not include recreation involving motorized vehicles. As such, this 

management action would likely decrease the risk of human-caused ignitions and 

the subsequent strain on fire management.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Alternative B would manage 233,219 acres as ROW exclusion areas and 

112,341 acres as ROW avoidance areas (102,633 acres more than under 
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-89

Alternative A). Managing PHMA as an exclusion area for new ROW 

authorizations would reduce the potential for development and the associated 

fire risk and suppression costs on BLM-administered lands. However, there 

could be increased development on private lands with associated fire risks.

Impacts from Range Management

Alternative B allows for the same number of AUMs as Alternative A; however, 

management actions may impact fire management.

Under Alternative B, retirement of permitted grazing uses could lead to 

increased fuels in those site-specific locations, as discussed under Nature and 

Type of Effects. In addition, only forage treatments which would also enhance 

GRSG habitat would be permitted, with additional potential for increase in fuels. 

However, management focused on achieving ecological site potential would 

likely reduce invasive species and increase habitat health, and could decrease the 

risk of fire and consequently reduce the need to respond to human-fueled 

ignitions in the area in the long term.

Assessment of land health and changes to grazing systems to achieve land health 

standards would be prioritized in PHMA; therefore, the impacts of range 

management actions in Alternative B would be focused on these areas.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative B, fluid mineral development could occur on currently leased 

lands. RDFs and conservation measures would be applied to existing leases as 

COAs in PHMA. These measures would limit surface occupancy on federal 

leases as well as impose seasonal limits on exploratory drilling. These measures 

would place restrictions on development in PHMA with a related decrease in 

fire risk in this portion of the planning area.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative B, surface mining of coal would be prohibited in PHMA and 

new mining leases would also be prohibited, unless all surface disturbances were 

placed outside of PHMA. PHMA would be closed to salable mineral disposal as 

well as nonenergy leasable and the area would be proposed for withdrawal from 

new locatable mineral development. These actions would reduce the impact 

from solid minerals on fire management within PHMA because development 

that could increase the risk of human-caused ignition would not occur in PHMA.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Under Alternative B, fuel treatments would be allowed on a limited basis with 

an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems in PHMA. 

Management options for fuels treatments in PHMA would be limited in this 

alternative. In addition, suppression of wildland fire to protect GRSG habitat 

would be emphasized along with public safety and property. Restrictions placed 

on fire and fuels management under this alternative, such as seasonal closures, 

no treatments in known winter range, and restrictions on the use of fire to 
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

4-90 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

treat sagebrush in low precipitation zones, could impact the ability to efficiently 

manage fuels and could increase costs of vegetation management and fire 

suppression.

Under this alternative the use of livestock to reduce fuel loads would be 

evaluated. This could provide one option to decrease the risk of wildfire and 

consequently reduce strain on fire management, particularly in PHMA.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative B, many of the management actions focus on the use of 

native plants in order to create landscapes that most benefit the GRSG. The 

emphasis of native plants under this alternative could contribute to healthy plant 

communities and an associated lower risk of high-intensity wildfire. However, 

habitat parameters could also limit the options for fuels treatment and could 

therefore increase costs of treatment compared to Alternative A.

Specifically, fire and fuels management may be impacted by the requirement to 

use native seeds whenever possible for restoration. Since the introduction and 

establishment of exotic plants species can contribute to a departure from 

historic fire regimes, a focus on native plants can create a habitat that is less 

susceptible to wildfires; therefore, places less burden on fire management

programs (Hann and Bunnell 2001).

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A.

4.6.7 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Travel management actions would be similar to that described in Alternative B,

but would be applied to both PHMA and GHMA. Risk of human-caused ignition 

would slightly decrease for both PHMA and GHMA, as compared to Alternative 

A. Due to limitations on new roads in most PHMA, access for fire management

may be reduced, resulting in increased time or cost for suppression compared 

to Alternative A.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Alternative C would manage 345,560 acres as ROW exclusion area, which is 

more than under any other alternative. Under this alternative, zero acres would 

be managed as ROW avoidance area. The restrictions placed on ROWs under 

this alternative would likely restrict the amount of construction and motorized 

travel to and from construction sites that would occur on GRSG habitat. Due to 

the restrictions on ROW development in PHMA and GHMA under this 
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-91

alternative, potential fire risks from lands and realty actions would be the least 

of any alternative.

Impacts from Range Management

Due to the reduced number of AUMs in PHMA and GHMA (0 AUMs permitted, 

100 percent less than Alternative A) and the large number of areas closed to 

livestock grazing under this alternative (337,165 acres), the fuel load in PHMA

an GHMA would be higher and the risk of fire would be greater under this 

alternative than the others. In addition, grazing management actions to improve 

forage for livestock may indirectly reduce fuels on BLM-administered lands as 

well as adjacent private lands where grazing occurs. Leases/permittees can also 

act as important partners in fire suppression activities.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative C, fluid minerals could be developed on currently leased 

lands. Restrictions on fluid minerals would be similar to that described under 

Alternative B but would be applied to PHMA and GHMA. Seasonal restrictions 

would be further expanded, further decreasing the potential for human-related 

fire ignition from development.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Management actions under Alternative C would be similar to those described 

under Alternative B, except would extend to both PHMA and GHMA. This 

would result in a further reduced risk of human-caused ignition, which would 

result in an even lower risk of impacting fire management.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Under Alternative C, impacts would be similar to those applied under 

Alternative B, but would be applied to both PHMA and GHMA. The restrictions 

placed on fire management would be more stringent under this alternative, 

which would result in greatest impacts on the fire and fuels management 

program. Increases in restrictions on fire management could result in increased 

program costs. Costs of suppression are likely to be highest under Alternative C 

due to the emphasis of suppression within both PHMA and GHMA.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts under Alternative C would be similar to those under Alternative B,

except that management actions under Alternative C would apply to both 

GHMA and PHMA; therefore, the potential for long-term benefits to ecosystem 

health could be slightly increased, but the costs for treatments also would 

increase.

Impacts from ACECs

Under Alternative C, an ACEC covering 96,246 acres would be designated to 

protect GRSG habitat. There could be reduced flexibility for hazardous fuels 

treatments on the 96,246 acres managed as an ACEC. The reduction in 
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

4-92 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

flexibility could result in higher program costs and could reduce the programs 

ability to efficiently suppress fires within the ACEC.

4.6.8 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternatives B and C.

However, under Alternative D, new routes could be built if criteria are met. 

This would reduce the risk of human-caused ignitions because travel would be

on designated routes rather than potentially as cross-country travel.

Additionally, construction of new roads may increase access for fire 

management, resulting in decreased time or cost for suppression.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative B.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative D, 256,167 acres would be managed as ROW avoidance area,

which is 225,974 acres more than under Alternative A. ROWs would be 

allowed in GHMA with measures to minimize surface-disturbing and disruptive 

activities. Similar to Alternative A, no land would be managed as ROW 

exclusion areas, and no land would be identified for withdrawal. Development 

could still occur, resulting in the potential for human-related ignitions. Having 

only avoidance areas would allow for infrastructure in areas with the least 

impact on coordination with adjacent private lands.

Impacts from Range Management

Impacts under Alternative D would be similar to those under Alternative B, but 

with additional measures taking into account local conditions and resources and 

working with state and federal agencies. As a result, impacts on fire management

would be similar to those described under Alternative B, but they may be more 

suited to site-specific conditions, resulting in improved ecological conditions and 

decreased fire risk. Costs and time for fire management activities may also be 

reduced.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Conservation measures specific to GRSG management would be applied to 

existing leases as COAs, but with greater flexibility for site-specific 

modifications. There would be potential for fire risk from development

activities, but risk should be decreased compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative A.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Under Alternative D, impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative 

C, with restrictions on fuels treatment options in both PHMA and GHMA. In 
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-93

Alternative D, the emphasis would also be placed on tailoring management 

objectives to local site conditions and monitoring sites to ensure treatments are 

helping to meet habitat objectives; therefore, habitat may be further improved 

in the long term. Fire suppression actions and related impacts would be the 

same as described under Alternative B.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts under Alternative D would be similar to those under Alternative B, but 

would include provisions to restore habitat for other priority species in the 

project area and to consult with local landowners to coordinate management. 

As a result, actions may be undertaken in a manner consistent with local site 

conditions, improving the habitat and decreasing fire risk and costs in the long 

term.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A.

4.6.9 Proposed Plan Amendment

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts would be similar to those under Alternative D. The Proposed Plan 

Amendment restricts the construction of recreation facilities unless a net 

conservation gain would result. Restrictions on construction of new facilities

could have the potential to reduce the risk of human-caused ignitions as 

compared to Alternative A. As a result, development and related risk of ignition 

would be reduced in GRSG habitat but potentially shift to areas outside of 

GRSG habitat if a cap is reached.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under the Proposed Plan Amendment, 366,045 acres would be managed as ROW

avoidance and 233,219 acres would be managed as ROW exclusion for wind and 

solar energy only, compared to Alternative A, which would not manage any acres 

as ROW exclusion and manages less than 10,000 acres as ROW avoidance. 

Additionally, under the Proposed Plan Amendment 53,440 acres would be 

proposed for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry, compared with no acres 

under Alternative A. The BLM would also enact density and disturbance caps on 

development in GRSG habitat. All these actions could reduce the potential for 

human related ignitions as compared with Alternative A by decreasing the human 

presence in GRSG habitat as well as the presence of construction equipment and 

vehicles, as discussed under Nature and Type of Impacts.

Impacts from Range Management

Impacts under the Proposed Plan Amendment would be similar to those under

Alternative D. In addition, the BLM would prioritize the review and processing 
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

4-94 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

of grazing permits/leases in PHMA, particularly in areas not meeting Land Health 

Standards. These measures would help to improve and protect habitat quality in 

PHMA, likely reducing the fire risk in the long term.

As in Alternatives B, C, and D, the Proposed Plan Amendment would allow for 

review of voluntarily relinquished allotments to determine whether they should 

remain available for grazing. Conversion of voluntarily relinquished allotments to 

other land uses could lead to increased fuels in those site-specific locations, and 

potentially result in a slightly higher risk of fire in site-specific areas.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Impacts under the Proposed Plan Amendment would be similar to those under 

Alternative D. Addition of the density and disturbance caps would further 

reduce the level of development and related risk of ignition. Additional 

limitations on disturbance near GRSG known lek sites (Appendix M) would 

also further limit ignition risk in these specific areas.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under the Proposed Plan Amendment, more acres would be withdrawn and 

proposed for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry than under Alternative A.

Additionally, more acres would be closed to nonenergy solid mineral leasing

than under Alternative A (281,487 acres under the Proposed Plan Amendment

compared to 0 acres under Alternative A). This could result in a lower amount 

of risk of human-caused ignition under the Proposed Plan Amendment than 

under Alternative A due to decreased use of construction equipment, vehicles, 

and development. 

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts under the Proposed Plan Amendment would be similar to those under 

Alternative D. In addition, Burn Plans that meet the four criteria would be 

required under the Proposed Plan Amendment if prescribed fire is used in 

GRSG habitat. Prescribed fires would only be used in PHMA if the COT 

objectives are addressed and met; this could impact the ability to efficiently 

manage fuels. However, prescribed fire has historically had only a minor role in 

vegetation management; therefore, impacts on overall costs and vegetation 

management strategies would be minimal.

Implementation of the management actions in the Proposed Plan Amendment 

would vary based on site-specific conditions. The GRSG Wildfire and Invasive 

Species Habitat Assessment (as described in Appendix K) would help the 

wildland fire management program direct its efforts and resources efficiently, 

especially when combined with the variety of fuels treatment options available 

under the Proposed Plan Amendment.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts under the Proposed Plan Amendment would be similar to those under 

Alternative D but would set specific goals for sagebrush canopy cover. Retaining 
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-95

cover could increase fuel loads and the likelihood and intensity of wildland fire. 

However, removal of conifers near sagebrush habitats would be extended under 

the Proposed Plan Amendment, and this could potentially reduce the intensity

of fires by reducing fuel loads.

Under the Proposed Plan Amendment, the adaptive management strategy 

(Section 2.7.1) dictates that should specific “hard triggers” for GRSG habitat 

conditions be met, GRSG habitat needs would be reassessed to determine if 

priorities for fuels and fire management have changed. This adaptive 

management strategy may result in additional changes to fire management 

actions to increase management effectiveness.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative D.

4.7 FLUID MINERALS

4.7.1 Methods and Assumptions

Analysis of impacts on fluid minerals from this RMPA focuses on the impacts of 

RDFs and conservation measures to protect GRSG. These impacts may be 

direct or indirect. For example, a direct impact on fluid minerals would result 

from application of COAs on existing leases. An indirect impact would result 

from removal of a road, which would change the economic feasibility of 

developing a site. Additional actions or conditions that might cause direct or 

indirect impacts on fluid minerals are described under Indicators, below.

Indicators

Indicators were developed and used to analyze impacts of the management 

actions under each alternative on fluid minerals. Table 4-10 illustrates how the 

indicators vary under each alternative.

Table 4-10

Comparison of Fluid Minerals Indicators by Alternative

Indicator

Alternative

A B C D

Proposed Plan

Amendment

Application of COAs on fluid 

mineral development activities 

on leased parcels for the 

protection of GRSG

No 

change

Increase Increase Increase Increase

Restrictions on geophysical 

exploration in GRSG habitat

No 

change

Increase Increase Increase Increase
4. Environmental Consequences (Fluid Minerals)

4-96 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

 Oil and gas operations on existing federal leases, regardless of 

surface ownership, would be subject to COAs by the BLM 

Authorized Officer. The BLM can deny surface occupancy on 

portions of leases with COAs to avoid or minimize resource 

conflicts if this action does not eliminate reasonable opportunities 

to develop the lease.

 Valid existing leases would be managed under the stipulations in 

effect when the leases were issued.

 Management actions and conservation measures also apply to fluid

mineral leasing on lands overlying federal fluid mineral estate. This

includes federal mineral estate underlying BLM-administered lands, 

private lands, and state lands.

 New information may lead to changes in delineated GRSG habitat. 

New habitat areas, or areas that are no longer habitat, may be 

identified. This adjustment would typically result in small changes to 

areas requiring the stipulations or management actions stated in this 

plan. Modifications to GRSG habitat would be updated in the 

existing data inventory through plan maintenance.

 If an area has been leased, it could be developed; however, not all 

leases would be developed within the life of this RMPA.

 As the demand for energy increases, so would the demand for

extracting energy resources.

 As discussed in Section 3.8 the primary oil and gas fields within the 

planning area are largely played out. The level of oil and gas activity 

in the planning area is likely to remain relatively stable for the life of 

the Judith Resource Area (BLM 1994) and Headwaters (BLM 1984) 

RMPs with the possible exception of the Heath Shale play. Activity 

in the vicinity of the Heath Shale play could dramatically increase if 

this play proved to be economic.

4.7.2 Nature and Type of Effects

The following analysis describes the nature and type of impacts that could affect 

fluid minerals in the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS

planning area. Details on how the occurrence of each impact would vary by 

alternative are described under the various subheadings.

Buying out or cancelling leases in occupied habitat would prevent future 

development of existing oil and gas leases. However, in accordance with 43 

CFR, Part 3108.3, leases may only be cancelled by the Secretary of the Interior 

when 1) the lessee has a nonproducing well and fails to comply with the 

provisions of the law, regulations, or lease; or 2) the lease was improperly 
4. Environmental Consequences (Fluid Minerals)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-97

issued. Cancellation of a lease with a producing well requires a judicial 

proceeding.

Applying COAs, which include RDFs (per Appendices C and D) and 

conservation measures outlined in Chapter 2, to existing leases would directly 

impact fluid mineral leasing. These RDFs and conservation measures would 

include standards such as noise restrictions, height limitations on structures, 

design requirements, water development standards, remote monitoring 

requirements, and reclamation standards. Application of these requirements 

through COAs would impact fluid mineral development by increasing its costs if 

it resulted in the application of additional requirements and/or use of more 

expensive technology (such as remote monitoring systems) than would 

otherwise have been used by operators. Impacts of these COAs would be 

mitigated where exceptions limit their application. This would occur where a 

COA was not applicable (e.g., a resource is not present on a given site) or 

where site-specific consideration merited slight variation.

Placing limits on geophysical exploration could reduce the availability of data on 

fluid mineral resources and could increase costs of fluid mineral development if 

the limits required use of more expensive technology. Timing limitations on 

geophysical exploration would delay development activities and could cause 

equipment shortages because all exploration would be occurring during the 

same time period.

Requiring master development plans and unitization could cause direct impacts 

on fluid minerals through increased costs of fluid mineral extraction by delaying 

the permit approval process until such additional site-specific planning efforts 

are completed. However, unitization typically has been initiated at the 

operator’s discretion.

Requiring bonds in the amount necessary to cover full reclamation upon 

completion of the project could deter fluid mineral exploration and 

development by increasing up-front costs when these costs could have 

previously occurred after economic resources had already been recovered. 

Identification of areas in which to acquire additional surface or mineral estate 

containing GRSG habitat would have no impacts on fluid minerals because it 

would not result in application of management actions to additional acres of 

surface or fluid mineral estate. If areas for acquisition were identified, acquisition 

would occur only in areas containing existing federal mineral leases, which are 

already subject to BLM management actions applicable to both the surface and 

the mineral estate through the fluid minerals program.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on fluid minerals and are therefore not discussed in detail: travel and 

transportation management, recreation, lands and realty, range management, 
4. Environmental Consequences (Fluid Minerals)

4-98 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

solid minerals, fire and fuels management, habitat restoration and vegetation 

management, and ACECs.

4.7.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Impacts from Fluid Minerals (Including Mineral Split Estate)

Under all alternatives, the BLM would continue to require a bond in accordance 

with 43 CFR, Part 3104. The amount of the bond would have to be at least the 

minimum amount described in the regulations to “ensure...reclamation of the 

lease area(s) and the restoration of any lands or surface waters adversely 

affected by lease operations after the abandonment or cessation of oil and gas 

operations on the lease(s).”

4.7.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Fluid Minerals (Including Mineral Split Estate)

Under Alternative A, existing oil and gas leases would continue to be developed 

according to their lease terms. BMPs and COAs could be applied to mitigate or 

prevent impacts on BLM-administered lands or other resources. If COAs were 

applied, impacts would be the same type as those described under Nature and 

Type of Effects.

Geophysical exploration would continue to be allowed within the decision area 

under Alternative A.

4.7.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Fluid Minerals (Including Mineral Split Estate)

Under Alternative B, RDFs and conservation measures would be applied as 

COAs to existing leases on 12,851 acres of PHMA with federal mineral estate

(31 percent of the 42,063 acres of existing leases in the decision area). These 

actions would increase impacts on fluid minerals in comparison with Alternative 

A by requiring additional standards that could increase time and costs related to 

development. In addition to limitations on surface disturbance and timing of 

exploratory drilling (and mitigation measures for when surface disturbance does 

occur), the COAs would require unitization when necessary to minimize harm 

to GRSG and may require the completion of Master Development Plans instead 

of processing individual APDs. Cost impacts of these required actions would be 

the same type as those described under Nature and Type of Effects. The BLM 

would not apply COAs that would eliminate reasonable opportunities to 

develop the lease.

Additionally, existing leases within habitat with important wildlife values, 

including PHMA or GHMA (for Alternatives B–D and Proposed Plan 

Amendment), that expire could be renominated for leasing. However, 

reissuance of those leases would be deferred according to the protest 

resolution decision.
4. Environmental Consequences (Fluid Minerals)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-99

Geophysical exploration would be allowed within the 385,693 acres of PHMA

with federal mineral estate but would be subject to timing limitations (TLs) and 

other restrictions. Impacts would increase compared with Alternative A and 

would be the same type as those described under Nature and Type of Effects, 

including delays on development activities and the potential for equipment 

shortages.

4.7.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Fluid Minerals (Including Mineral Split Estate)

Management actions under Alternative C would be similar to those under 

Alternative B, but they would apply to existing leases on 32,753 acres of PHMA

and GHMA with federal mineral estate (78 percent of the 42,063 acres of 

existing leases in the decision area). Management of geophysical exploration 

would be the same as under Alternative B but would apply to 639,927 acres of 

PHMA and GHMA. In addition to applying the restrictive management to more 

acres, Alternative C would call for COAs implementing seasonal restrictions on 

vehicle traffic and human presence associated with exploratory drilling. This 

alternative also would limit new surface disturbance on existing leases to three 

percent per section, with some exceptions where effective mitigation could 

offset the loss of GRSG. Additionally, the BLM would explore amendment, 

cancellation, and buyout of leases. Impacts of requiring RDFs and conservation 

measures are similar to Alternative B. Possible cancellation or buyout of leases 

would prevent future development of existing oil and gas leases in those areas.

4.7.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Fluid Minerals (Including Mineral Split Estate)

Under Alternative D, the BLM would apply the same RDFs to the same acreage 

as under Alternative B. However, the conservation measures applied would 

differ. No quantitative percentage limit, surface occupancy buffers, or TL would 

apply to surface disturbance; rather, surface disturbance would avoid or 

minimize disturbance to GRSG and their habitat. Off-site mitigation would be 

considered to offset habitat losses. Operation costs could increase as described 

under Nature and Types of Impacts from application of conservation measures, 

but operators would be able to extract resources throughout the year and 

would maintain flexibility in siting options for ancillary facilities on their lease. 

Unitization would occur on a case-by-case basis in the same manner as 

described under Alternative A.

In addition to RDFs and limitations on disturbance, noise limitations and 

structure height restrictions would be applied as COAs under Alternative D. 

This would require additional standards that could increase time and costs 

related to development.
4. Environmental Consequences (Fluid Minerals)

4-100 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Impacts related to geophysical exploration would be the same as those under 

Alternative B.

4.7.8 Proposed Plan Amendment

Impacts from GRSG Management

The Proposed Plan Amendment would incorporate additional GRSG 

management, including regional mitigation that could limit future oil and gas 

activates in certain areas. As noted above in Nature and Types of Effects, placing 

limits on oil and gas activities could impact fluid mineral development by 

increasing its costs if it resulted in the application of additional requirements 

and/or use of more expensive technology than would otherwise have been used 

by operators.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals (Including Mineral Split Estate)

Under the Proposed Plan Amendment, the BLM would apply the same RDFs to 

the same acreage as under Alternative D. However, the only conservation 

measures applied would be restrictions on permanent structures that create 

movement and mitigation requirements for habitat losses. These restrictions 

would apply in both PHMA and GHMA, and mitigation measures would have to 

provide a net conservation gain for the species rather than simply offsetting 

losses. Operation costs could increase as described under Nature and Types of 

Impacts from application of conservation measures, but operators would be able 

to extract resources throughout the year. Unitization would occur on a caseby-case basis in the same manner as described under Alternative A.

Application of the density and disturbance caps in PHMA and lek buffers in 

PHMA and GHMA could impact existing oil and gas activities by preventing new 

surface development. New surface development on existing leases could be 

restricted if the cap were exceeded. However, the BLM would not apply the 

density and disturbance caps in a manner that would eliminate reasonable 

opportunities to develop an existing lease. 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, the BLM would fully disclose the local and 

regional impacts of the proposed action in the associated NEPA document. 

Applying lek buffer distances when approving actions could also restrict 

development of infrastructure-related fluid mineral development.

Impacts related to geophysical exploration would be the same as those under 

Alternative B.

4.8 SOLID LEASABLE MINERALS

4.8.1 Methods and Assumptions

Solid leasable minerals in the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse 

RMPA/EIS planning area are coal and hardrock minerals underlying acquired 

lands (see Section 3.9).
4. Environmental Consequences (Solid Leasable Minerals)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-101

Analysis of impacts on solid leasable minerals from this RMPA focuses on the 

impacts of conservation measures to protect GRSG. These impacts may be 

direct or indirect. For example, a direct impact on solid leasable minerals would 

result from managing an area as unacceptable for coal leasing or closed to

nonenergy solid mineral leasing. An indirect impact would result from removal 

of a road, which would change the economic feasibility of developing a site. 

Additional actions or conditions that might cause direct or indirect impacts on 

solid leasable minerals are described under Indicators, below.

Indicators

Table 4-11 provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the 

effects on solid leasable minerals under each alternative.

Table 4-11

Comparison of Solid Leasable Minerals Indicators by Alternative

Indicator

Alternative

A B C D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

The amount of land closed to 

nonenergy solid mineral 

leasing

0 284,659 457,744 0 279,097

Application of RDFs that can 

be placed on solid minerals

No 

change

Increase Increase Increase Increase

Where information is available, consideration is given to the potential for solid 

leasable mineral resources on lands unacceptable for or closed to leasing. For 

example, an indicator of an impact on solid leasable minerals is if there were 

substantial reductions in federal leasing and development of solid mineral 

resources in high potential areas.

In areas that are acceptable or available for solid mineral leasing, factors that 

affect solid leasable mineral extraction include permitting, regulatory policy, 

public perception and concerns, travel management, transportation, proximity 

to sensitive areas, low commodity prices, taxes, and housing and other 

necessities for workers.

The amount of area that would fall under restrictions outlined in Chapter 2, 

and the impact of those restrictions on solid leasable mineral development, are 

considered below in the analysis of each alternative.

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

 There are no existing coal leases in the Lewistown Field Office 

Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS planning area and no known coal 

potential in GRSG habitat.
4. Environmental Consequences (Solid Leasable Minerals)

4-102 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

 If an area is leased, it could be developed; however, not all leases 

would be developed within the life of this RMPA.

 As demand for energy increases, so would the demand for energy 

resources.

 Management actions and conservation measures also apply to solid 

mineral leasing on lands overlying federal solid mineral estate, which 

includes federal mineral estate underlying BLM-administered lands, 

privately owned lands, and state-owned lands. There are 453,969 

acres of federal solid mineral estate within the decision area 

(345,560 acres of BLM-administered surface with federal solid 

minerals and 108,409 acres of non-BLM administered surface with 

federal solid minerals).

4.8.2 Nature and Type of Effects

As discussed in Section 3.9 there has been no coal development within the 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS planning area, and there 

is no known coal development potential within GRSG habitat. As a result, coal 

resources in the planning area are not expected to be impacted by management 

actions proposed in this RMPA and are not discussed further in this section.

Management actions that close areas to nonenergy solid mineral leasing would 

directly impact nonenergy solid leasable minerals by reducing the area available 

for leasing. If the most lucrative resources were closed to leasing, prospectors 

may have to prospect and extract resources that are not as lucrative, thus 

decreasing profit. Prospecting and extraction operations may also move to 

nearby private minerals within GRSG habitat, where the BLM could not impose 

measures to protect GRSG.

Application of RDFs would increase the cost of nonenergy solid leasable mineral

development if it resulted in increased reclamation and mitigation expense, 

siting operations in less economical locations, or delays of operations.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on solid leasable minerals and are therefore not discussed in detail: 

travel and transportation management, recreation, lands and realty, range 

management, fluid minerals, mineral split estate, fire and fuels management, 

habitat restoration and vegetation management, and ACECs.

4.8.3 Alternative A

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Approximately 2,538 acres (less than one percent) of the federal solid mineral 

estate would remain closed to solid minerals, precluding future leasing in these 

areas. The types of impacts from these closures are the same as those discussed 

under the Nature and Type of Effects, reducing the area available to leasing and 

extraction.
4. Environmental Consequences (Solid Leasable Minerals)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-103

Under Alternative A, prospecting permits would continue to be issued within 

the decision area on a case-by-case basis. Site-specific environmental review 

would continue to assess impacts and develop mitigating measures, which could 

result in increased restrictions.

4.8.4 Alternative B

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative B, all PHMA (279,097 acres, or 61 percent of the solid 

minerals decision area) would be closed to nonenergy solid mineral leasing. 

Once current prospecting permits expired, they would not be able to be 

renewed. Current prospecting permits could not lead to lease issuance. This 

would close all areas where nonenergy solid mineral prospecting has occurred 

within the planning area in the past 20 years. Impacts on the nonenergy solid

minerals program would increase compared with those under Alternative A and 

would be the same type as described under Nature and Type of Effects, reducing 

the area available to leasing and extraction.

RDFs outlined in Appendix C would apply to existing nonenergy solid mineral 

leases in PHMA. These RDFs would place limitations on road design, 

construction, and use; would restrict operations to minimize surface 

disturbance; would limit construction; would maximize reclamation efforts to 

meet GRSG habitat needs; and would place other standards and restrictions on 

solid mineral operations. Impacts would be the same type as those discussed 

under Nature and Type of Effects and could increase extraction costs

4.8.5 Alternative C

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Impacts under Alternative C are similar to those under Alternative B, except 

that more acres (453,969 acres, or 100 percent of the solid minerals decision 

area) would be closed to nonenergy solid mineral leasing. Also, more acres with 

existing leases would be subject to the mandatory application of the solid 

mineral RDFs outlined in Appendix C. Impacts would increase compared with 

those under Alternative A and would be the same type as described under 

Nature and Type of Effects. This includes fewer areas available for leasing and 

extraction and other standards and restrictions on solid mineral operations; 

these could also increase costs.

4.8.6 Alternative D

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Management of solid leasable minerals under Alternative D would be similar to 

that under Alternative A except that, under Alternative D, new prospecting 

permits would be subject to the RDFs outlined in Appendix D. These RDFs 

would place limitations on surface disturbing activities and human presence, 

require mitigation actions for habitat losses, limit siting options for facilities, and 
4. Environmental Consequences (Solid Leasable Minerals)

4-104 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

place other standards and restrictions on solid mineral operations. Impacts and 

costs would increase compared with those under Alternative A and would be 

the same type as described under Nature and Type of Effects.

4.8.7 Proposed Plan Amendment

Impacts from GRSG Management

The Proposed Plan Amendment would incorporate additional GRSG 

management, including regional mitigation that could limit future solid leasable 

mineral development in certain areas. As noted above in Nature and Types of 

Effects, placing limits on development could increase the cost of solid leasable 

mineral development if it resulted in increased reclamation and mitigation 

expense, siting operations in less economical locations, or delays of operations.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Impacts of closing PHMA to nonenergy solid mineral leasing under the Proposed 

Plan Amendment would be the same as those under Alternative B. The same 

RDFs described under Alternative D would be applied, but they would apply to 

existing leases rather than new prospecting permits. Impacts and costs would 

increase compared with those under Alternative A and would be the same type 

as described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Application of the density and disturbance caps in PHMA and lek buffers in 

PHMA and GHMA could impact nonenergy solid leasable mineral activities by 

preventing new surface development. New surface development on existing 

leases in PHMA could be restricted if the cap were exceeded. However, the 

BLM would not apply the density and disturbance caps in a manner that would 

eliminate reasonable opportunities to develop an existing lease. 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, the BLM would fully 

disclose the local and regional impacts of the proposed action in the associated 

NEPA document. In cases where development was allowed for existing leases, 

mitigation requirements would increase the cost of development. Applying lek 

buffer distances when approving actions could also restrict development of 

infrastructure related to nonenergy solid leasable mineral development.

4.9 SOLID MINERALS (LOCATABLE MINERALS)

4.9.1 Methods and Assumptions

Analysis of impacts on locatable minerals from this RMPA focuses on the 

impacts of conservation measures to protect GRSG. These impacts may be 

direct or indirect. For example, a direct impact on locatable minerals would 

result from withdrawal of an area from locatable mineral entry. An indirect 

impact would result from removal of a road, which would change the economic 

feasibility of developing a site. Additional actions or conditions that might cause 

direct or indirect impacts on locatable minerals are described under Indicators, 

below.
4. Environmental Consequences (Solid Minerals (Locatable Minerals))

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-105

Indicators

Table 4-12 provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the 

effects on locatable minerals under each alternative.

Table 4-12

Comparison of Solid Minerals (Locatables) Indicators by Alternative

Indicator

Alternative

A B C D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

The amount of land withdrawn

from locatable mineral entry

4,298 4,298 4,298 4,298 4,298

The amount of land 

recommended for withdrawal

0 281,900 457,774 0 53,440

Application of restrictions, 

such as RDFs, to the extent 

consistent with applicable 

law, and conservation 

measures, that can be placed 

on locatable mineral

development activities to 

prevent unnecessary or 

undue degradation of GRSG 

habitat

No 

change

Increase Increase Increase Increase

Where information is available, consideration is given to the potential for 

locatable mineral resources on lands recommended for withdrawal from entry. 

For example, an indicator of an impact on locatable minerals is if there were 

substantial withdrawals of locatable mineral resources in high potential areas.

In areas that are open to locatable mineral entry, factors that affect locatable

mineral extraction include permitting, regulatory policy, public perception and 

concerns, travel management, transportation, proximity to sensitive areas, low 

commodity prices, taxes, and housing and other necessities for workers.

The amount of area that would fall under restrictions outlined in Chapter 2, 

and the impact of those restrictions on locatable mineral development, are 

considered below in the analysis of each alternative.

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

 There is no known locatable mineral potential within occupied 

habitat in the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse 

RMPA/EIS planning area.

 Management actions and conservation measures also apply to 

locatable mineral development on lands overlying federal mineral 
4. Environmental Consequences (Solid Minerals (Locatable Minerals))

4-106 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

estate, which includes federal mineral estate underlying BLMadministered lands, privately owned lands, and state-owned lands. 

There are 453,969 acres of federal solid mineral estate within the 

decision area (345,560 acres of BLM-administered surface with 

federal minerals and 108,409 acres of surface with federal solid 

minerals not administered by the BLM).

4.9.2 Nature and Type of Effects

As discussed in Section 3.10 no locatable mineral development potential has 

been identified within GRSG habitat in the current RMPs (BLM 1992, Appendix 

C [as amended]). As a result, locatable minerals in the planning area are not 

expected to be impacted by management actions proposed in this RMPA.

Withdrawal or closure of an area to mining development removes the mineral 

resources in that area from being able to be accessed and extracted. This 

represents an impact on the potential discovery, development, and use of those 

resources by decreasing the availability of mineral resources. Because there is 

no known locatable mineral development potential in GRSG habitat, 

withdrawing lands is not expected to impact the locatable minerals program.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on locatable minerals and are therefore not discussed in detail: travel 

and transportation management, recreation, lands and realty, range 

management, fluid minerals, mineral split estate, fire and fuels management, 

habitat restoration and vegetation management, and ACECs.

4.9.3 Alternative A

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative A, approximately 4,298acres (less than one-percent of the

total federal solid mineral estate for locatable minerals) would remain 

withdrawn to the location of mining claims. New exploration and mining would 

be precluded in these areas, as discussed under Nature and Type of Effects.

Under Alternative A, locatable mineral development within the decision area

would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to prevent undue or unnecessary 

degradation. Site-specific environmental review would continue to assess 

impacts and develop mitigation measures.

4.9.4 Alternative B

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative B, approximately 101 acres of PHMA and 2,437 acres of

GHMA (2,538 acres total, same as Alternative A) would remain withdrawn to 

locatable mineral entry, precluding new exploration and mining. New 

exploration and mining would be precluded in these areas as discussed under 

Nature and Type of Effects. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Solid Minerals (Locatable Minerals))

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-107

To restrict locatable mineral development, the BLM must petition the Secretary

of the Interior for withdrawal actions, with subsequent valid existing rights 

reviews for existing claims. Under Alternative B, 279,097 acres of PHMA would 

be recommended for withdrawal. As discussed under Nature and Type of Effects, 

there is no known locatable mineral potential in GRSG habitat, so no effect on 

locatable minerals is anticipated.

In accordance with the FLPMA, it is the BLM’s responsibility to prevent 

“unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.” In addition to performance 

standards (described under Alternative A), BLM would apply RDFs to the extent 

consistent with applicable law (per Appendix C) and conservation measures 

outlined in Chapter 2 to any Notice or Plan of Operations on a case-by-case 

basis. As discussed under Nature and Type of Effects, there is no known locatable 

mineral potential in GRSG habitat, so no effect on locatable minerals is 

anticipated.

4.9.5 Alternative C

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative C, approximately 101 acres of PHMA and 2,437 acres of 

GHMA (2,538 acres total, same as Alternative A) would remain withdrawn to 

locatable mineral entry, precluding new exploration and mining. New 

exploration and mining would be precluded in these areas, as discussed under 

Nature and Type of Effects.

To restrict locatable mineral development, the BLM must petition the Secretary

of the Interior for withdrawal actions, with subsequent valid existing rights 

reviews for existing claims. Under Alternative C, 453,969 acres of PHMA and 

GHMA would be recommended for withdrawal. As discussed under Nature and 

Type of Effects, there is no known locatable mineral potential in GRSG habitat,

so no effect on locatable minerals is anticipated.

Similar to Alternative B, RDFs would be applied to locatables to the extent 

consistent with applicable law and conservation measures would be applied to 

any Notice or Plan of Operations; however, these measures would apply to 

more acres under Alternative C. As discussed under Nature and Type of Effects, 

there is no known locatable mineral potential in GRSG habitat, so no effect on 

locatable minerals is anticipated.

4.9.6 Alternative D

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative D, approximately 101 acres of PHMA and 2,437 acres of

GHMA (2,538 acres total, same as Alternative A) would remain withdrawn to 

the location of mining claims, precluding new exploration and mining. New 

exploration and mining would be precluded in these areas, as discussed under 

Nature and Type of Effects.
4. Environmental Consequences (Solid Minerals (Locatable Minerals))

4-108 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Similar to Alternative A, no additional lands within PHMA or GHMA would be 

recommended for withdrawal.

RDFs and conservation measures would be applied to any Notice or Plan of 

Operations in a manner similar to that described under Alternative B. However, 

additional RDFs would be applied to the extent consistent with applicable law

where possible (see Appendix D). As discussed under Nature and Type of 

Effects, there is no known locatable mineral potential in GRSG habitat, so no 

effect on locatable minerals is anticipated.

4.9.7 Proposed Plan Amendment

Impacts from GRSG Management

The Proposed Plan Amendment would incorporate additional GRSG 

management, including regional mitigation that could limit future locatable

mineral development in certain areas. 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, the BLM would fully disclose the local and 

regional impacts of the proposed action in the associated NEPA document. As 

discussed under Nature and Type of Effects, there is no known locatable mineral 

potential in GRSG habitat, so no effect on locatable minerals is anticipated.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under the Proposed Plan Amendment, approximately 101 acres of PHMA and 

2,437 acres of GHMA (2,538 acres total, same as Alternative A) would remain 

withdrawn to the location of mining claims, precluding new exploration and 

mining. New exploration and mining would be precluded in these areas as 

discussed, under Nature and Type of Effects.

To restrict locatable mineral development, the BLM must petition the Secretary

of the Interior for withdrawal actions, with subsequent valid existing rights 

reviews for existing claims. Under the Proposed Plan Amendment, 53,440 acres 

within the SFA (PHMA) would be recommended for withdrawal. As discussed 

under Nature and Type of Effects, there is no known locatable mineral potential 

in GRSG habitat, so no effect on locatable minerals is anticipated.

RDFs would be applied to the extent consistent with applicable law (see 

Appendix D) and conservation measures would be applied to any Notice or 

Plan of Operations (as described under Alternative D). As discussed under 

Nature and Type of Effects, there is no known locatable mineral potential in 

GRSG habitat, so no effect on locatable minerals is anticipated.

4.10 SOLID MINERALS (SALABLE MINERALS)

4.10.1 Methods and Assumptions

Analysis of impacts on salable minerals from this RMPA focuses on the impacts 

of conservation measures to protect GRSG. These impacts may be direct or 
4. Environmental Consequences (Solid Minerals (Saleable Minerals))

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-109

indirect. For example, a direct impact on salable minerals would result from 

closure of an area to salable mineral sales. An indirect impact would result from 

removal of a road, which would change the economic feasibility of and demand 

for developing a site. Additional actions or conditions that might cause direct or 

indirect impacts on salable minerals are described under Indicators, below.

Indicators

Table 4-13 provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the 

effects on salable minerals under each alternative.

Table 4-13

Comparison of Solid Minerals (Salable Minerals) Indicators by Alternative

Indicator

Alternative

A B C D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

Acres closed to salable 

mineral disposal

2,538 284,659 457,774 2,538 2,5381

Acres managed as ROW

avoidance areas 

30,403 132,826 0 260,949 366,045

Acres managed as ROW

exclusion areas

0 233,219 345,560 0 233,2192

Application of RDFs that can 

be placed on salable minerals

No 

change

No 

change

No 

change

Increase Increase

Restrictions on salable 

mineral pits no longer in use

No 

change

Increase Increase Increase Increase

1All acres would remain open to free use permits and expansion of existing pits except the 2,538 acres 

closed under all alternatives

2

Exclusion applies to wind and solar only

Where information is available, consideration is given to the potential for salable

minerals on lands closed to salable mineral disposal. For example, an indicator of 

an impact on salable minerals is if there were substantial closures to salable

mineral disposal in high potential areas.

In areas that are open to salable mineral disposal, factors that affect salable

mineral development include permitting, regulatory policy, public perception and 

concerns, travel management, transportation, proximity to sensitive areas, low 

commodity prices, taxes, and housing and other necessities for workers.

The amount of area that would fall under restrictions outlined in Chapter 2, 

and the impact of those restrictions on salable mineral development, are 

considered below in the analysis of each alternative.

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:
4. Environmental Consequences (Solid Minerals (Saleable Minerals))

4-110 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

 Existing salable mineral permits would not be affected by the 

closures proposed under this RMPA.

 Management actions also apply to salable mineral development on 

lands overlying federal mineral estate, which includes federal mineral 

estate underlying BLM-administered lands and land not administered 

by the BLM. There are 453,969 acres of federal mineral estate 

within the decision area (345,560 acres of BLM-administered surface 

with federal minerals and 108,409 acres of split estate).

4.10.2 Nature and Type of Effects

The predominant mining method for salable minerals is surface mining; 

therefore, any restrictions on surface-disturbing activities effectively close the 

subject areas to salable mineral mining.

Demand for salable minerals is generated primarily from road maintenance 

needs. Closure of areas to salable mineral sales would result in pits relocating 

nearby. If demand for salable minerals cannot be met by pits operated on federal 

lands, pits could move onto private lands where the BLM would lose the ability 

to implement mitigation measures.

Application of RDFs would increase the cost of salable mineral development if it 

were to increase reclamation and mitigation expense, site pits in less economical 

locations, or delay operations.

Requiring reclamation of salable mineral pits no longer in use could increase 

costs on developers.

Managing areas as ROW avoidance or exclusion could result in impacts on 

salable minerals because construction of new roads in these areas would likely 

decrease. As a result, demand for salable minerals needed for construction and 

maintenance would also decrease.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on salable minerals and are therefore not discussed in detail: travel 

and transportation management, recreation, range management, fluid minerals, 

mineral split estate, fire and fuels management, habitat restoration and 

vegetation management, and ACECs.

4.10.3 Alternative A

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative A, 9,708 acres would continue to be managed as ROW

avoidance area. All other BLM-administered surface in the decision area would 

continue to be open to ROW authorization. The types of impacts from these 

closures would be the same as those discussed under Nature and Type of Effects,

whereas construction of new roads in these areas would likely decrease thereby 
4. Environmental Consequences (Solid Minerals (Saleable Minerals))

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-111

decreasing demand for salable minerals needed for construction and 

maintenance.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Approximately 2,538 acres (less than one percent) of the federal solid mineral 

estate in the decision area would remain closed to the salable minerals disposal,

precluding future mining in these areas. The types of impacts from these 

closures would be the same as those discussed under Nature and Type of Effects,

reducing the area available for access and extraction.

4.10.4 Alternative B

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative B, 112,341 acres would be managed as ROW avoidance area

and 233,219 acres would be managed as ROW exclusion area. The types of 

impacts from these closures would be the same as those discussed under Nature 

and Type of Effects, whereas construction of new roads in these areas would 

likely decrease thereby decreasing demand for salable minerals needed for 

construction and maintenance.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative B, approximately 279,097 acres of federal mineral estate in 

PHMA (61 percent of the solid minerals decision area) would be closed to the 

salable mineral disposal. The types of impacts from these closures would be the 

same as those discussed under Nature and Type of Effects, reducing the area 

available for access and extraction. If demand for salable minerals cannot be met 

by pits operated on BLM-administered lands, pits could move onto private lands 

where the BLM would lose the ability to implement mitigation measures.

Solid mineral RDFs outlined in Appendix C would apply to existing salable 

mineral operations in PHMA. These RDFs would limit road design, construction, 

and use; would restrict operations to minimize surface disturbance; would limit 

construction; would maximize reclamation to meet GRSG habitat needs; and 

would place other standards and restrictions on salable mineral operations. 

Impacts would be the same type as those discussed under Nature and Type of 

Effects.

In PHMA, salable mineral pits no longer in use would be restored to meet 

GRSG habitat conservation objectives. As described under Nature and Type of 

Effects, restoring pits could increase costs on developers for reclamation.

4.10.5 Alternative C

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Approximately 345,560 acres in PHMA and GHMA (100 percent of BLMadministered surface in the decision area) would be managed as ROW exclusion 

areas under Alternative C. However, because all PHMA and GHMA would be 
4. Environmental Consequences (Solid Minerals (Saleable Minerals))

4-112 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

closed to salable minerals disposal under this alternative, the ROW exclusion 

areas would not impact the salable minerals program.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative C, approximately 453,969 acres of federal mineral estate in 

PHMA and GHMA (100 percent of the solid minerals decision area) would be 

closed to salable mineral disposal, the most of any alternative. The types of 

impacts from these closures would be the same as those discussed under Nature 

and Type of Effects, reducing the area available for access and extraction.

Similar to Alternative B, RDFs outlined in Appendix C would be applied to 

salable mineral operations in PHMA. Because more acres would be within 

PHMA and GHMA under Alternative C, the impacts of applying these RDFs 

would increase.

Similar to Alternative B, salable mineral pits no longer in use would be restored 

to meet GRSG habitat objectives; however, under this alternative this measure 

would apply to both PHMA and GHMA, thereby increasing the area of impact. 

The types of impacts from restoring pits no longer in use would be the same as 

those described under Alternative B; however, they may be greater because of 

larger area.

4.10.6 Alternative D

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative D, 233,219 acres in PHMA (67 percent of BLM-administered 

surface in the decision area) would be managed as an ROW avoidance area. The 

types of impacts from these closures would be the same as those discussed 

under Nature and Type of Effects, whereas construction of new roads in these 

areas would likely decrease thereby decreasing demand for salable minerals 

needed for construction and maintenance.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Management under Alternative D would be similar to that under Alternative A 

except that RDFs outlined in Appendix D would be applied to new salable

mineral operations. These RDFs would limit surface disturbance and human 

presence, require mitigation actions for habitat losses, limit siting options for 

facilities, and place other standards and restrictions on salable mineral 

operations. Impacts would increase compared with Alternative A and would be 

the same type as those described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Similar to Alternative B, salable mineral pits no longer in use would be restored 

to meet GRSG habitat objectives. The types of impacts from restoring pits no 

longer in use would be the same as those described under Nature and Type of 

Effects, restoring pits could increase costs on developers for reclamation.
4. Environmental Consequences (Solid Minerals (Saleable Minerals))

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-113

4.10.7 Proposed Plan Amendment

Impacts from GRSG Management

The Proposed Plan Amendment would incorporate additional GRSG 

management, including regional mitigation, application of the density and 

disturbance caps in PHMA, and lek buffers in PHMA and GHMA. This could 

impact mineral activities by preventing new surface development. New free use 

development or expansion of existing pits in PHMA could be restricted if the 

caps were exceeded, which could limit future salable mineral development in 

certain areas. As noted above in Nature and Types of Effects, placing limits on 

development could increase the cost of salable mineral development if it 

resulted in increased reclamation and mitigation expense, siting operations in 

less economical locations, or delays of operations.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Similar to Alternative D, under the Proposed Plan Amendment, 233,219 acres 

in PHMA (67 percent of BLM-administered surface in the decision area) would 

be managed as an ROW avoidance area (ROW exclusion for wind and solar). 

As described under Nature and Type of Effects, this management could reduce 

road and infrastructure construction and thereby decrease demand for salable 

minerals needed for construction and maintenance. However, because PHMA 

would be closed to new salable mineral disposal, salable mineral activity in 

PHMA would already be decreased. ROW avoidance areas would have less of 

an independent impact on salable minerals.

Under the Proposed Plan Amendment, 112,341 acres in GHMA (33 percent of 

BLM-administered surface in the decision area) would be managed as an ROW 

avoidance area for high-voltage transmission lines, large pipelines, and wind and 

solar energy. As described under Nature and Type of Effects, this management 

could reduce road and infrastructure construction and thereby decrease 

demand for salable minerals needed for construction and maintenance.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Management of PHMA under the Proposed Plan Amendment would be similar 

to that under Alternative B except that PHMA would be open to free use 

permits and expansion of existing active pits. Impacts would increase compared 

with Alternative A and would be the same type as those described under Nature 

and Type of Effects. However, impacts would be mitigated because some new 

pits and expansion of existing pits would be allowed. The same RDFs described 

under Alternative D would be applied to free use permits and expansion of 

existing pits in PHMA (see Appendix D). Impacts would increase compared 

with Alternative A and would be the same type as those described under Nature 

and Type of Effects.

Application of the density and disturbance caps in PHMA and lek buffers in 

PHMA and GHMA could impact salable mineral activities by preventing new 
4. Environmental Consequences (Solid Minerals (Saleable Minerals))

4-114 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

surface development. New salable mineral pits or expansion of existing pits 

could be precluded if the cap were exceeded in a BSU or a proposed project 

analysis area. In cases where development was allowed, mitigation requirements 

would increase the cost of development. Applying lek buffer distances when 

approving actions would also restrict salable mineral development.

Similar to Alternative B, salable mineral pits no longer in use would be restored 

to meet GRSG habitat objectives. The types of impacts from restoring pits no 

longer in use would be the same as those described under Nature and Type of 

Effects. Restoring pits could increase costs on developers for reclamation.

4.11 COMPREHENSIVE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT

4.11.1 Methods and Assumptions

Travel allocations and designations support resource programs and are designed 

to help achieve their objectives. Therefore, CTTM is not considered to be in 

conflict with those resource programs. Impacts on travel and transportation 

from other resource areas include altering the existing transportation system, 

for instance by removing routes (i.e., reclaiming and revegetating the ROW) or 

by limiting or closing routes to certain modes of travel (such as designating 

routes as closed to OHVs).

Where a route closure would protect wildlife habitat, the impacts of the route 

closure (i.e., improved wildlife habitat) are to the wildlife resource program, not 

travel and transportation management. As a result, impacts of travel allocations 

on other resources and resource uses are discussed in the respective resource 

sections of this chapter. Therefore, while impacts on travel and transportation 

management from other program areas do occur and are considered as part of 

travel management planning, this section does not address the impacts on travel 

and transportation management from other resources and resource uses.

Indicators

Table 4-14 provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the 

effects on travel and transportation management under each alternative.

Table 4-14

Comparison of Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Indicators by 

Alternative

Indicator

Alternative

A B C D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

Change in the types of 

transportation activities 

occurring on routes that may 

impact GRSG or habitat

No change No change No change No change No change
4. Environmental Consequences (Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-115

Table 4-14

Comparison of Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Indicators by 

Alternative

Indicator

Alternative

A B C D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

Change of designated OHV

routes (such as from limited 

to closed)

No change No change No change No change No change

Number of acres where new 

route development would be 

allowed

No change No change, 

with 

mitigation

Decrease 

274,435

acres

No change, 

with 

mitigation

No change, 

with mitigation

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

 In the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS

planning area (233,219 acres of PHMA and 112,341 acres of 

GHMA), OHV travel is, and will continue to be limited to existing 

routes until the BLM is able to complete site-specific travel 

management planning.

 The demand to increase and maintain travel routes on BLMadministered lands would continue to increase over 20 years, 

especially near communities and in areas of high-density oil and gas 

development.

 The BLM has no authority over other federal (non-BLM), state, or 

county roads on BLM-administered lands, so those routes are not 

included in the analysis.

 The travel designations would not affect ROW holders, permitted 

uses, state roads, or other valid existing rights. Travel 

closures/limitations apply only to public access. The CTTM process 

would establish ROWs as necessary for management of county 

roads.

 The incidence of resource damage would increase with the

increasing use of BLM-administered lands.

 Administrative use authorizations are granted on a case-by-case 

basis with approval from the BLM.

 Implementation of a travel management plan would include 

increased public education, signing, enforcement, and resource 

monitoring in regard to travel management.
4. Environmental Consequences (Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management)

4-116 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

4.11.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Impacts on travel and transportation management are those that restrict or 

enhance travel (e.g., managing areas as closed or limited to OHVs and seasonal 

travel limitations). Current BLM management limits OHVs to existing roads and 

trails within the planning area. New travel and transportation management 

actions in response to GRSG habitat protection strategies could limit travel 

route miles and the types of activities allowed on those routes. Seasonal travel 

restrictions to prevent disruption of GRSG breeding and brood rearing activities 

would allow travel in defined areas only at specific times of the year. 

Additionally, management actions that restrict future route construction limit 

the ability of the travel network to accommodate increased travel demands 

over time. Conflicts among route users could increase if the existing network 

becomes congested.

CTTM decisions resulting in the closure or removal of routes in GRSG habitat 

areas would affect travel and transportation management throughout the entire 

planning area. Management for all other resources and uses would have 

negligible or no impact on CTTM and are therefore not discussed in detail.

4.11.3 Alternative A

Table 4-15 provides a comparison of acres open and closed to new road 

construction by alternative. Closed acres are based on the total area covered by 

four-mile buffers placed around active lek sites.

Table 4-15

Areas Open/Closed to New Route Construction by Alternative

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

Area open to 

new construction

(acres)

345,560 345,560 71,125 345,560 345,560

Area closed to 

new construction 

(acres)

0 0 274,435 0 0

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative A, existing travel opportunities would be maintained. The 

BLM would continue to manage for a total of 695 miles of roads and trails 

throughout the decision area. Through site-specific planning, the BLM would 

designate roads and trails for motorized use. Roads and trails would be 

inventoried, mapped, and analyzed to the degree necessary to evaluate and 

designate the roads and trails as open, seasonally open, or closed. Until such 

time, motorized wheeled travel would continue to be limited yearlong to 

existing roads and trails and no areas would be entirely open to cross-country 

motorized wheeled travel or entirely closed, resulting in continued existing 
4. Environmental Consequences (Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-117

impacts, as described above in the Nature and Types of Effects, into the 

foreseeable future.

Per BLM regulations, temporary area, road, or trail closures for other resources 

would be considered where OHVs are causing, or would cause, considerable 

adverse effects on wildlife and its habitat. Those closures could affect the 

convenience of access, as described above under Nature and Type of Effects.

4.11.4 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Alternative B could result in more restrictions on existing travel and 

transportation opportunities than Alternative A. For areas within PHMA, the 

BLM would develop a travel and transportation management plan within five

years of the ROD. The new plan would be used to evaluate the existing 

transportation network and as a basis for amending certain route designations.

Access in PHMA could be diminished if the new plan closes or restricts travel 

on certain routes. Alternative B would also prohibit new route construction 

unless associated with valid existing rights and would preclude upgrading of 

existing routes in PHMA where such action would result in loss of GRSG

habitat. This would limit future enhancements to travel opportunities.

Like Alternative A, temporary area, road, or trail closures for other resources 

would be considered where OHVs are causing, or would cause, considerable 

adverse effects on wildlife and its habitat. Those closures could affect the 

convenience of access, as described above under Nature and Type of Effects.

4.11.5 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative C, the BLM would develop a travel and transportation plan 

for areas in PHMA and GHMA within five years of the ROD. The four-mile lek

buffers cover 274,435 acres (79 percent of the decision area). As a result, new 

road construction would be limited to 71,125 acres in the decision area. BLM 

management would also preclude upgrading of existing routes in PHMA and 

GHMA where such action would damage GRSG habitat. These actions would 

result in site-specific losses of opportunity for route construction and improved 

access. They would prevent the construction of new roads where they might 

otherwise be needed to improve access or functionality of the network.

Like Alternative A, temporary area, road, or trail closures for other resources 

would be considered where OHVs are causing, or would cause, considerable 

adverse effects on wildlife and its habitat. Those closures could affect the 

convenience of access, as described above under Nature and Type of Effects.
4. Environmental Consequences (Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management)

4-118 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

4.11.6 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative D, the BLM would continue to limit travel to existing roads 

and trails on 345,560 acres. The BLM would prepare a travel and transportation 

management plan to address all resource uses that would be completed within 

five years of the signing of the ROD. This plan would allow for subsequent route 

evaluation and designation of roads and trails. It would look at a range of 

alternatives for specific route designations to minimize impacts on GRSG 

habitat. During route designation and travel planning in PHMA, CTTM would 

evaluate the need for permanent or seasonal road or area closures where OHV

use is causing or would cause considerable adverse effects upon habitat. Road 

reclamation would be determined on a case-by-case basis depending on whether 

the route provides specific benefits for public access and the route minimizes 

impacts on resources.

In PHMA, during site specific travel and transportation management planning, 

the BLM would limit route construction to realignments of existing routes if 

that realignment has a minimal impact on GRSG habitat, eliminates the need to 

construct a new road, or is necessary for motorist safety. All upgrades to 

existing routes would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and would be subject 

to valid existing rights. If valid existing rights cannot be accessed via existing 

roads, then any new road construction would be built to absolute minimum 

standard necessary. When reseeding roads, primitive roads and trails in PHMA, 

appropriate seed mixtures would be used and transplanting sagebrush would be 

considered. In PHMA, restoration of roads, primitive roads and trails would be 

conducted if they are not designated in the future travel management plans. 

Alternative D would minimize impacts on travel and transportation 

management, while providing mitigation options for the protection of GRSG

habitat.

4.11.7 Proposed Plan Amendment

Impacts from GRSG Management

The Proposed Plan Amendment would incorporate an adaptive management 

approach. If travel management planning has not been completed within GRSG 

habitat, PHMA where the hard trigger was met would be the highest priority for 

future travel management planning efforts. If travel management has been 

completed within GRSG habitat in the BSU where the hard trigger was met, the

BLM would re-evaluate designated routes to determine their effects on GRSG. If 

routes are found to be causing population-level impacts, the BLM would revise 

their designation status to reduce the effect. As noted above in Nature and Types 

of Effects, this could limit travel route miles and the types of activities allowed 

on those routes.
4. Environmental Consequences (Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-119

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts would be similar to those under Alternative D, except that applying lek 

buffers and the net conservation gain mitigation requirement in all GRSG habitat 

may limit long-term opportunities for route construction and upgrades.

Similarly, the density and disturbance caps could limit the placement of routes 

over the long term.

This is not expected to significantly affect access or congestion because of the 

well-dispersed route network and use patterns. The action outlining BLM’s 

authority to implement emergency closures via the CFRs would not result in 

additional or different impacts under the Proposed Plan Amendment because 

this authority is available to the BLM at all times.

4.12 RECREATION

4.12.1 Methods and Assumptions

Impacts on recreation can be direct or indirect. Management actions that alter 

or prohibit users’ opportunities to access recreation areas or participate in 

recreation would result in a direct impact. Indirect impacts are those that 

change the physical, social, or administrative setting within which recreation 

takes place. In SRMAs and ERMAs, where management prescriptions are in 

place to achieve or maintain desired settings and activities, a change to the 

setting or availability of recreation opportunities would result in an impact.

Indicators

Table 4-16 provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the 

effects on recreation under each alternative.

Table 4-16

Comparison of Recreation Indicators by Alternative

Indicator

Alternative

A B C D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

Change in recreation 

activities and 

participation rates in 

the planning and 

PHMA, especially 

those within SRMA

and ERMA

No change Opportunity 

for increase 

due to 

restrictions on 

surface 

disturbance

Greatest 

opportunity for 

increase in 

nonmechanized 

activities and 

greatest 

opportunity for 

decrease of 

motorized 

activities due 

to restrictions 

on surface 

disturbance

Opportunity 

for increase 

due to 

restrictions 

on surface 

disturbance

Opportunity 

for increase 

due to 

restrictions on 

surface 

disturbance
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

4-120 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 4-16

Comparison of Recreation Indicators by Alternative

Indicator

Alternative

A B C D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

Change in the number 

and type of SRPs 

issued on an annual 

basis within the 

planning area and 

PHMA

No change Decrease in 

SRPs that are 

not beneficial 

or neutral

Decrease in 

SRPs that are 

not beneficial 

or neutral

Decrease in 

SRPs that are 

not beneficial 

or neutral

Decrease in 

SRPs that are 

not beneficial 

or neutral

Access No change Potential

decrease in 

motorized 

access

Decrease in 

motorized 

access due to a 

decrease in 

roads

Potential

decrease in 

motorized 

access

Potential

decrease in 

motorized 

access

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

 Traditional recreational uses in the planning area, such as hunting 

and fishing, would continue as people seek outdoor family-oriented 

activities; an active retired population spends its disposable time and 

income on recreation; and as other areas of the country become 

more urbanized.

 The LFO would continue to manage the Judith River SRMA and 13 

ERMAs in accordance with existing policies and management 

constraints, particularly in the Judith River SRMA, due to noncontiguous land holdings.

 Outdoor recreation would continue to be an important component 

of the local economy.

 Substantial increases in recreation could negatively impact GRSG

habitat.

 The potential for resource impacts and conflicts between all types 

of users would increase with increasing use.

 Demand for SRPs would remain steady or gradually increase over 

time.

 The BLM would continue to issue SRPs on a discretionary basis.

4.12.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Impacts on recreation are frequently the result of management actions related 

to other resources and resource uses (for example, special status species 

habitat protection) and stipulations placed on resource uses. New management 
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-121

actions to preserve GRSG habitat would affect a variety of resources and uses, 

which would in turn affect recreation.

BLM management of areas as unsuitable for public utilities (i.e., ROW exclusion 

areas) protects recreation opportunities. Managing areas as ROW avoidance can 

limit development that would be incompatible with nearby recreation uses.

On lands with existing oil and gas leases and facilities, the recreation setting 

would be altered during construction by equipment, noise, dust, vehicles, night 

lighting, pipelines, and human activity. Fluid mineral development that requires 

surface occupancy generally impacts recreation management objectives,

opportunities, and activities. Oil and gas development can impact recreation 

opportunities if the development conflicts with existing recreation activities.

Minerals development and disposal result in short- and long-term impacts during 

construction and operations by displacing recreation opportunities. Closure of 

certain areas to mineral development decreases the likelihood for conflict with 

recreation users and maintains desired recreation settings.

Travel management affects recreation opportunities and the overall recreation 

experience by managing for access to areas where recreation activities take 

place. Closure of routes to motorized travel can decrease access to recreation 

uses, while at the same time reducing conflicts between motorized and nonmotorized recreation activities. Travel and transportation management policies 

that close routes to OHV use directly affect recreation opportunities in the 

closed area and can increase OHV impacts outside the closure boundary. 

Management actions that restrict future route construction limit the ability of 

the travel network to accommodate increased recreational demands, such as 

increased OHV use, over time. Conflicts among users could increase if the 

existing network becomes congested.

Where lands are open to livestock grazing, impacts on recreation can result. 

The intensity of the impact varies based on recreation activity, visitor

expectation, and nature of the grazing activity. Range improvements help to 

reduce conflicts by keeping grazing animals away from popular recreation areas, 

particularly SRMAs and ERMAs. Structural range improvements may also hinder 

cross-country movement by hunters, bird watchers, hikers, and other 

recreationalists.

Development of renewable energy projects, such as wind, could result in the 

loss of recreation opportunities. Management of areas as ROW exclusion and 

avoidance areas can minimize impacts from renewable energy projects.

BLM management for ACECs often includes restrictions on surface-disturbing 

activities within the ACEC boundary, which could directly or indirectly affect 

recreation opportunities within an ACEC. At the same time, management 
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

4-122 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

prescriptions for ACECs can help maintain the existing physical setting by 

preserving natural landscapes.

Implementing management for certain resources would have negligible or no 

impact on recreation and are therefore not discussed in detail. Resources not 

likely to have an effect on recreation include fire and fuels management, and 

habitat restoration and vegetation management. Impacts from mineral split 

estate are covered under the discussions of impacts from fluid and solid 

minerals. As such, there is no further discussion of mineral split estate in this 

section.

4.12.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under all alternatives, impacts on recreation opportunities from existing ROWs

would continue. The restoration of discontinued or abandoned ROWs pursuant 

to FLPMA guidelines would reduce the potential for long-term impacts. 

Particularly in situations where the ROW includes a linear obstruction such as a 

fence; removal of the feature could improve recreation user experiences.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Although BLM management prescriptions under the alternatives would vary, 

there is no foreseeable solid leasable (coal) or locatable mineral potential in the 

decision area which would result in no impacts on recreation across all 

alternatives.

4.12.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative A, through site-specific planning, the BLM would designate 

roads and trails for motorized use. Roads and trails would be inventoried, 

mapped, and analyzed to the degree necessary to evaluate and designate the 

roads and trails as open, seasonally open, or closed. As a result, the potential 

for conflicts among different types of recreation users, such as hikers and OHV

operators, would continue under Alternative A.

Per BLM regulations, temporary area, road, or trail closures for other resources 

would be considered where OHVs are causing, or would cause, considerable 

adverse effects on wildlife and its habitat. Those closures could affect the 

convenience of OHV use, as described above under Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Recreation

BLM management under Alternative A would result in no additional measures 

to protect GRSG habitat. No new impacts from BLM management actions to 

recreation would occur.
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-123

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative A, 215 total miles of existing ROWs, including roads, 

telephone and power lines, pipelines, and railroads, may (in the case of roads, 

some may play a part in the recreational experience) continue to impact 

recreation opportunities. A total of 9,708 acres associated with the Acid ShalePine Forest ACEC and Judith River Canyon would continue to be managed as 

ROW avoidance areas, concurrently protecting existing recreation 

opportunities in those areas.

BLM-administered lands would continue to be available for ROWs on a case-bycase basis, in accordance with Title V of FLPMA and 43 CFR, Part 2800. All 

ROW applications would be reviewed using the criteria of following existing 

corridors wherever practical and avoiding the proliferation of separate ROWs. 

Recreational opportunities could be diminished where new ROWs are 

authorized.

Renewable energy projects, such as wind facilities, would be authorized through 

the ROW authorization process. See Section 4.21 for impact analysis 

regarding renewable energy development.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative A, PH and GH would continue to be open to grazing. Impacts 

on recreationists would be consistent with the Nature and Types of Effects, 

especially where cattle grazing areas overlap prime big game hunting areas. 

Impacts of grazing on SRPs would continue to be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis through the SRP issuance process.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative A, oil and gas development would continue to impact 

recreational opportunities on 8,120 leased acres throughout the decision area, 

including 3,851 acres in GH and 2,786 acres in GH. Refer to Nature and Types of 

Effects, above for the nature of impacts on recreation from fluid mineral

development. Impacts on recreationists include activities and disturbance related 

to exploration, development, and operations.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

There are three existing sand and gravel pits in the decision area, each less than 

five acres in size. Under Alternative A, salable material disposal is expected to 

continue to have no impact on SRPs because the sand and gravel pits do not 

conflict with areas or activities currently experiencing demand for SRPs.

Impacts from ACECs

Under Alternative A, the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC would continue to 

provide a rural, undeveloped experience for popular recreation activities such as 

hunting, OHV use, hiking, birding, and nature photography.
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

4-124 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

4.12.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Per BLM regulations, temporary area, road, or trail closures for other resources 

would be considered where OHVs are causing, or would cause, considerable 

adverse effects on wildlife and its habitat. BLM would also evaluate the need for 

permanent or seasonal road closures during CTTM planning under Alternative 

B. Should the BLM determine there is a need to close certain routes those 

closures could restrict route-based recreation opportunities. Areas where 

routes would be closed could include areas where permitted recreation 

activities take place.

Under Alternative B, the BLM would only allow new routes where access to 

valid existing rights is necessary and does not currently exist. While new routes 

could improve certain recreation experiences such as OHV operation, actions 

proposed under Alternative B would reduce the potential for new conflicts 

between motorized travel and existing recreation uses that do not require 

motorized vehicle operation.

Impacts from Recreation

Under Alternative B, the BLM would consider the effects of SRPs on PHMA. 

Impacts on the number or types of SRPs would only occur if the BLM 

determines that a proposed SRP activity negatively affects PHMA. If SRPs are 

reduced, there would be a corresponding reduction in organized recreation

opportunities on BLM-administered lands in the planning area. Because BLM has 

not identified a conflict between hunting and PHMA, this alternative is 

anticipated to have little or no impact on big game or upland bird hunting SRPs. 

Only SRPs that are neutral or beneficial in PHMA would be allowed. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative B, PHMA would be designated as ROW exclusion area and 

GHMA would be designated ROW avoidance area. Additionally, under 

Alternative B, the BLM would take advantage of opportunities to remove, bury, 

or modify existing power lines within PHMA. A long-term reduction in the 

amount of acres dedicated to ROWs and above-ground linear features, such as 

transmission lines and pipelines, would improve recreation opportunities as 

described under Nature and Types of Effects, potentially limiting development 

that would be incompatible with nearby recreation uses.

Impacts from Range Management

Impacts under Alternative B would be the same as those described above under 

Alternative A.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Restrictions such as TLs on fluid mineral development in PHMA under 

Alternative B would decrease the potential for oil and gas development 

conflicting with recreation users. The benefits of reduced surface disturbance 
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-125

and less construction activity associated with oil and gas development would be 

consistent with the effects described under Nature and Types of Effects. 

Restriction of geophysical exploration to helicopter-portable drilling methods 

could diminish the quality of certain recreation activities, such as hunting, if 

helicopter operations are in proximity to key big game or bird hunting areas or 

existing SRMAs and ERMAs.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Proposed BLM management actions for Alternative B would include the closure 

of all PHMA to salable mineral disposal. In addition, mineral pits no longer in use 

would be restored. Since there are only three small sand and gravel pit 

operations in the decision area, a reduction in salable mineral disposal would 

have a neutral effect or slightly enhance recreation opportunities by minimizing 

salable material extraction and hauling activities that have the potential to 

conflict with hunting, fishing, birding, camping, and other recreational activities. 

A change in the amount of salable material disposal under Alternative B would 

have a neutral effect on SRPs.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts on recreation under Alternative B for ACECs are the similar to those 

described under Alternative A. In addition to management actions under 

Alternative A, Alternative B would include conservation measures consistent 

with the identified management actions and constraints identified for PHMA.

This would provide additional opportunities for an undeveloped experience for 

popular recreation activities, such as hunting, OHV riding, hiking, birding, and 

photographing nature.

4.12.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts under Alternative C would the same as those described above under 

Alternative B, with the exception that Alternative C would include additional 

prohibitions on new road construction within four miles of active leks. Under 

this alternative, new roads would be allowed on 71,125 acres (21 percent) of 

the lands within the decision area. Limitations on new construction would limit 

motorized recreation access to existing roads and trails with resultant impacts 

consistent with those described under Nature and Types of Effects.

Impacts from Recreation

BLM management prescriptions under Alternative C for GRSG habitat 

protection would not directly affect the permitting criteria for SRPs. Direct and 

indirect impacts on recreation under Alternative C would result from new 

management actions for other resources and uses, particularly the designation 

of 96,246 acres as an ACEC to protect GRSG habitat (see Impacts from ACECs, 

below).
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

4-126 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative C, all GRSG habitat, with the exception of 843 acres of 

unitized areas, would be designated as ROW exclusion area for new ROW 

authorizations. Any new development would be allowed only if it could be 

contained within an existing ROW. Consistent with the impacts described 

under Nature and Types of Effects, the designation of the decision area as ROW 

exclusion area would benefit recreation uses. ROW exclusion area designations 

would also protect the desired settings in the Judith Valley SRMA and the 11 

ERMAs.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative C, 337,165 acres in PHMA and GHMA would be closed to 

grazing. As such, the potential for conflicts with recreationists would be reduced 

in those areas. Alternative C could also remove range improvements and 

prevent the construction of new water developments, which would further 

minimize potential conflicts with recreationists. However, additional fencing to 

keep livestock in designated non-GRSG habitat areas could conflict with certain 

recreation activities, such as hunting. 

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Restrictions on fluid mineral development in PHMA under Alternative C would 

decrease the potential for oil and gas development conflicting with recreation 

users. The benefits of reduced surface disturbance and less construction activity 

associated with oil and gas development would be consistent with the impacts 

described under Nature and Types of Effects and under Alternative B.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B.

Impacts from ACECs

Under Alternative C, the BLM would designate 96,246 acres of GRSG habitat as 

a new ACEC. Designation of the ACEC could affect recreation opportunities by 

limiting surface disturbing activities within the ACEC boundaries. For example, 

motorized recreation associated with popular hunting, fishing, camping, and 

hiking areas could be limited by the designation. The ACEC designation could 

also limit the number and type of SRPs within the ACEC.

Designation of a new ACEC would at the same time limit ROW development, 

grazing, and mineral development. Management prescriptions for the ACEC 

would be to preserve, protect, conserve, restore, and sustain sage-brush 

populations and the sagebrush ecosystem upon which the GRSG depend. As a 

result, recreation activities such as hunting, fishing, birding, and nature 

photography that create little to no surface disturbance and benefit from rural 

settings would likely be enhanced under Alternative C.
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-127

4.12.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative D, the BLM would complete a CTTM plan in PHMA within 

five years of the signing of the ROD for the RMP. The plan would identify 

existing roads and trails and designate certain roads as open, closed or limited 

to motorized travel. The BLM would also consider permanently closing certain 

user-created roads and trails. Closure of certain routes could diminish routebased recreational opportunities, but could also reduce user conflict.

Administrative off-road use for BLM personnel and BLM-authorized activities 

would be allowed. BLM-implemented CTTM would not apply to private or state 

lands within the LFO.

Impacts from Recreation

SRPs in PHMA may be allowed if they are neutral or beneficial for GRSG

habitat. Impacts would be similar to Alternative B. This requirement would limit 

issuing SRPs for certain activities.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative D, PHMA would be managed as ROW avoidance areas for 

new ROW authorizations and wind energy projects. ROWs would continue to 

be allowed in GHMA. However, wind energy ROWs would be managed as 

ROW avoidance areas in GHMA. Any new development would be allowed only 

if it could be contained within an existing ROW. Consistent with the impacts 

described under Nature and Types of Effects, the designation of PHMA as a ROW 

avoidance area would benefit recreation activities that take place in undeveloped 

settings. Limitations on ROW development would also preserve the existing 

recreation settings in each of the 11 ERMAs in PHMA.

New ROWs in GHMA could conflict with dispersed recreation uses in those 

areas. The extent of the effects would be based on the location and type of any 

new ROW.

Impacts from Range Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative D, conservation measures would be applied as COAs to 

existing federal leases. These measures would limit disturbance, noise, and high 

profile structures that conflict with popular recreation activities in the planning 

area.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Denying salable mineral disposal applications that cannot provide adequate 

mitigation to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation would further limit 

potential conflict with recreational activities in the planning area.
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

4-128 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternatives A and B.

4.12.8 Proposed Plan Amendment

Impacts from GRSG Management

The Proposed Plan Amendment would incorporate additional GRSG 

management, including density and disturbance caps, regional mitigation, and lek 

buffers that could limit future placement of recreation facilities in certain areas.

Responses from the adaptive management plan may include limiting access over 

the short or long term. However, these same actions, along with management 

responses to adaptive management hard triggers, could limit other types of 

development that could conflict with recreation opportunities and activities.

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts would be the same as those described above under Alternative B.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts from recreation management would be similar to those under 

Alternative B, except that there would be a prohibition on new recreational 

facilities that do not provide a net conservation gain to GRSG habitat. This 

could result in a long-term reduction in recreational opportunities and activities 

in areas where new facilities could not be designed or surface disturbance 

mitigated to provide for net GRSG habitat conservation gain or required for 

visitor health and safety or resource protection.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Impacts would be similar to Alternative D, except that there would be 

additional restrictions on high-voltage transmission lines and large pipeline

ROWs in GHMA. This would provide a greater benefit to recreation activities 

that take place in undeveloped settings by further limiting the type of 

development allowed in these areas. Management of GHMA as open to minor 

ROWs would allow for certain development projects (e.g., electrical 

distribution lines) with the potential to conflict with recreation activities. 

Retaining GHMA and PHMA lands unless disposal represents a net conservation 

gain would likely reduce the amount of land disposed and, as a result, would 

help maintain long-term recreation opportunities by preserving contiguous 

blocks of BLM-administered land.

Impacts from Range Management

Impacts on recreation from range management would be similar to those 

described above under Alternative A, except that the added emphasis on 

reviewing leases/permits for modification and renewal may indirectly benefit 

recreation activities and opportunities, especially those that utilize riparian areas 

and wet meadows.
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-129

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative D.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Impacts would be similar to those under Alternative D, except that PHMA 

would be closed to new commercial mineral material sales. This would provide 

a slightly greater level of protection for recreation activities and opportunities 

by limiting surface disturbance in these areas.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternatives A and B.

4.13 RANGE MANAGEMENT

4.13.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Table 4-17 provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the 

effects on range management under each alternative.

Table 4-17

Comparison of Range Management Indicators by Alternative

Indicator

Alternative

A B C D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

Permitted AUMs in GRSG habitat 69,408 69,408 0 69,408 69,408 

Permitted AUMs in SFAs N/A N/A N/A N/A 10,946

Permitted AUMs in non-GRSG habitat 34,398 34,398 34,398 34,398 34,398

Prohibitions to the ability to construct 

or maintain range improvements and 

conduct treatments (infrastructure and 

vegetation)

No change Increase Increase Increase Increase

Acres closed to livestock grazing 0 0 337,165 0 0

Acres open to livestock grazing in 

GRSG habitat

337,165 337,165 0 337,165 337,165

Acres open to livestock grazing in 

SFAs

N/A N/A N/A N/A 53,440

Acres open to livestock grazing in nonGRSG habitat248,435 248,435 248,435 248,435 248,435

Changes to timing, duration or 

frequency of permitted use

No change Potential 

increase

Increase Potential 

increase

Potential 

increase

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

 All new and existing leases and permits would be subject to terms 

and conditions determined by the authorizing officer to achieve the 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

4-130 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

management and resource condition objectives for BLMadministered lands and to meet range land health standards, in 

accordance with BLM grazing regulations.

 Range improvements (e.g., fences, pipeline, water wells, troughs, and 

reservoirs) could result in a localized loss of vegetation cover 

throughout the improvements’ useful life. Vegetation would be 

reestablished through reclamation practices along water pipelines 

within five years to the extent possible, whereas areas with fences, 

water wells, troughs, and reservoirs could contain a portion of the 

area disturbed during their useful life and would be revegetated 

when abandoned.

 The construction and maintenance of range improvements would 

continue in the decision area as needed. New range improvements 

could be subject to limitations, as defined in the plan. Range 

improvements lead to better livestock distribution and management, 

which would maintain or improve rangeland health and could 

benefit the forage base.

 Livestock grazing is a “diffuse” form of biotic disturbance that exerts 

repeated pressure over many years on a system; unlike point 

sources of disturbance such as fires, livestock grazing exerts 

repeated pressure across the landscape.

 Vegetation could be treated to allow the current level of AUMs to 

be maintained.

4.13.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Impacts on livestock grazing are generally the result of activities that affect 

forage levels, areas open to grazing, the class of livestock, the season of use and 

timing, the ability to construct range improvements, and human disturbance or 

harassment of livestock in grazing allotments. Key types of impacts are detailed 

below.

Protecting GRSG habitat may directly affect livestock grazing if management 

requires limitations to areas open to grazing or available AUMs, modification of 

grazing strategies, or changes to season of use, which could result in increased 

time and cost to leases/permittees. For example, management actions to 

enhance habitat for GRSG could affect livestock grazing by restricting grazing 

intensity, retiring permitted grazing uses in some areas, or changing livestock 

rotation patterns, in order to maintain residual herbaceous cover in sagebrush 

habitat (NTT 2011).

Management of vegetation resources to benefit GRSG, may, however, indirectly 

benefit livestock grazing by increasing vegetation productivity and improving 

forage in the long term, especially in cases where current conditions are not 

meeting or exceeding land health standards. For example, in allotments with a 

history of intensive grazing, transitions in the composition of sagebrush 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-131

communities may have occurred that have reduced cover or forage for GRSG

(Cagney et al. 2010) and grazing livestock. However, when grazing management

is put into place to promote health and vigor of the herbaceous community for 

livestock, this would generally result in sufficient herbaceous cover to meet 

habitat requirements for breeding GRSG (Objective SS-1.4).

Similarly, vegetation management designed to curb incursion of nonnative annual 

grasses or encroachment of shrubs, could remove forage in the short term. 

However, these treatments generally enhance rangeland conditions in the longer 

term (NTT 2011).

Unregimented livestock grazing can have adverse impacts on riparian

ecosystems (Armour et. al 1991); therefore, managing riparian habitat can 

directly impact livestock grazing through excluding livestock at specific sites, 

increasing herding, adding range improvements (such as cross fences and water 

gaps), and adjusting season of use and livestock numbers. Managing riparian 

habitat to maintain PFC would benefit grazing livestock by indirectly providing 

cleaner and more reliable water sources and more dependable forage 

availability.

Protecting water quality and watershed health could require changes in livestock 

management, such as deferring or shortening grazing periods, adding range 

improvements, excluding grazing from riparian areas, establishing riparian 

pastures, and increasing livestock herding. In areas requiring exclusion of 

livestock or other restrictions on livestock management, these limitations could 

increase costs to lessees and permittees if changes were to reduce AUMs or 

result in more livestock movements.

Recreation can affect livestock grazing directly through human disturbance and 

indirectly through rangeland degradation. Direct disturbance can include 

undesired animal dispersing or trespassing due to gates left open by recreational 

users; animal displacement, harassment or injury from collisions or shooting; or 

damage to range improvements, particularly from the use of recreational 

vehicles or from recreational shooting. Disturbance could occur during the 

hunting season due to increased presence of people, vehicles, and noise. In 

addition, OHV use results in indirect impacts, such as increased dust on forage 

in high use areas, leading to lower forage palatability. Limitations on recreational 

use in GRSG habitat could indirectly benefit livestock by reducing direct 

disturbances.

Other direct long-term recreation impacts include disturbance caused by 

increased levels of human activities. The degree of impacts would vary with the 

intensity of recreation (that is, large numbers of people for SRP use would likely 

have a higher level of disturbance, as compared to frequent use by a small 

number of visitors), the timing of recreation activities (livestock could be more 

susceptible to disturbance during the spring when young are present), and 

location of recreation in the allotment (a higher level of disturbance could occur 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

4-132 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

near areas frequented by livestock such as water sources or salt licks). As stated 

above, limitations on recreational use in GRSG habitat could indirectly benefit 

livestock by reducing direct disturbances.

Limits on construction or use of transportation routes may affect livestock 

grazing practices. Road construction may cause loss of forage, harassment, and 

displacement; therefore, reduction of these activities may benefit livestock by 

reducing disturbances. Closing roads or trails not leading to range 

improvements would also increase forage availability when the area is 

rehabilitated or when natural rehabilitation occurs. Administrative cross-country 

travel would continue to be granted to grazing lessees and permittees to access 

grazing allotments and range improvement projects. Travel management actions 

for GRSG protection generally involve increased limitations or restrictions on 

travel management.

Wildland fire alters sagebrush habitat due to the long time required for 

sagebrush to regenerate, which may allow for invasion of invasive species (NTT 

2011). Wildland fire would remove vegetation and forage over the short term 

but can result in short-term increases in forage post-fire. Impacts on livestock 

operations could also occur when BLM guidelines require a rest period 

following rehabilitation before grazing is reestablished. Changes in wildland fire 

suppression and fuels management to protect GRSG habitat would have varying 

effects on livestock grazing. Measures to protect sagebrush habitat might reduce 

the spread of wildland fire and the associated disruption to livestock. The 

management of habitat for GRSG using natural disturbance regimes, such as fire, 

and using vegetative treatments to accomplish biodiversity objectives to 

improve plant community resilience, could also benefit livestock grazing in the 

long term by maintaining a balance of seral stages. In general, selectively thinning 

woodland species benefits livestock grazing by creating a healthier grass, forb, 

and shrub community.

Restrictions on ROWs or land transfers may indirectly impact grazing by 

reducing construction impacts from development of these ROWs (such as dust, 

displacement and introduction of noxious weeds). In addition, such restrictions 

can also inhibit the development of water sources for livestock use where 

power may be required. Lands and realty actions taken to protect GRSG habitat 

would involve avoiding or excluding ROWs (e.g., for power lines, pipelines, and 

other structures) or land transfers in PHMA or GHMA. This could result in 

placement of such developments outside of GRSG habitat to which ROWs are 

relocated may see an increase in construction-related.

Energy and mineral development could impact grazing as follows: During the 

exploration and testing phase of mineral development, the footprint of 

disturbance is usually small and localized; therefore, minimal acres available for 

grazing would be directly impacted. However, during the exploration phase 

impacts on livestock dispersal and trespass could occur, increasing time and cost 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-133

to permittees and lessees. Outside of the exploration and testing phase, surfacedisturbing mineral development directly affects areas of grazing in the short 

term during construction of well pads, roads, pipelines, and other facilities. 

Potential impacts include changes in available forage, reduced forage palatability 

because of dust on vegetation, limitations on livestock movement, harassment, 

temporary displacement of livestock, and an increased potential for the 

introduction and proliferation of noxious weeds that lack the nutritional value 

needed for productive grazing practices. In the long term, a smaller amount of 

grazing acreage is permanently lost from mining operations following 

rehabilitation. Improving roads associated with mineral development could 

facilitate livestock management operations by maintaining or improving access 

to remote locations within allotments. Properly implemented RDFs and 

reclamation mitigation measures would help maintain rangeland health and 

forage levels for livestock.

Management for energy and mineral development on split estate lands would 

not impact lessees and permittees with BLM-administered land leases; however,

impacts could occur to livestock grazing on private, state or lands of other 

ownership as stated above.

Changes in livestock grazing management could impact grazing opportunities in a

variety of ways. For example, implementing particular livestock grazing 

management requirements to benefit GRSG could affect livestock grazing by 

increasing operators’ costs or changing required management actions. Some 

management requirements may result in short-term and long-term costs to 

lessees and permittees, or AUMs could decrease for some lessees and 

permittees due to the following:

 Implementation of a grazing strategy

 Change in season-of-use or livestock class

 Modification to grazing systems

 Construction or modification of range improvements

 Voluntary relinquishment of authorized grazing use

These management requirements could result in economic impacts on 

individuals and the community at large, both direct and indirect.

Some management changes may require a short-term output of cost for lessees 

and permittees, but would result in long-term benefits. For example, 

construction of range improvements to improve livestock distribution and allow 

use of a larger portion of the rangeland would generally enhance rangeland 

health in the long term; however, it would have short-term costs. Constructing 

off-site water sources and fencing riparian and spring sources could keep 

livestock away from sensitive riparian areas and provide a cleaner more reliable 

source of water for livestock but would similarly represent an increased cost for 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

4-134 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

lessees and permittees. See Section 4.22, Social and Economic Conditions, for 

a discussion of socioeconomic impacts from grazing.

ACECs may be designated to protect sensitive habitat for the benefit of GRSG. 

Grazing availability would depend on the designated ACEC management 

objectives. Restrictions can include total exclusion of grazing from the ACEC, 

limitations on the class of livestock animal, or the season, duration, or location 

that livestock are allowed to graze.

4.13.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under all alternatives, OHVs would be designated as limited to existing roads, 

primitive roads, and trails, thereby limiting the impacts on livestock grazing from 

dispersed travel as discussed under Nature and Type of Effects. Impacts, such as 

loss of forage, harassment, or displacement, from motorized and mechanized 

travel could occur, as described in Nature and Type of Effects. Access to 

authorized BLM uses, such as grazing allotments, would not be impacted in any 

alternatives. Site specific travel management planning could, when completed, 

reduce the potential for conflicts between range management and travel 

management.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

There are 43,408 acres of existing leases in the decision area; this acreage

would be consistent across all alternatives. Conflicts between livestock grazing 

and existing leases could be present as described in Nature and Type of Effects.

Potential impacts include changes in available forage, reduced forage palatability 

because of dust on vegetation, limitations on livestock movement, harassment, 

temporary displacement of livestock, and an increased potential for the 

introduction and proliferation of noxious weeds that lack the nutritional value 

needed for productive grazing.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Across all alternatives, impacts from coal management on livestock grazing 

would be minimal due to the lack of coal development in the planning area.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Objectives for all alternatives for fire management set target sage-brush canopy 

forage cover at no less than 15 percent cover, which is not necessarily optimal 

for range management as cover for livestock forage depends on a variety of site 

specific conditions.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Restoration of native plants under all alternatives has the potential to impact 

grazing management. In many cases, replacement of nonnative plants with native 

plants would increase suitable forage for livestock and reduce the risk of 

wildland fire which has the potential to disrupt grazing should it occur. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-135

Restoration of crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) has the potential to 

impact the season of livestock grazing.

4.13.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts would be as described under Impacts Common to All Alternatives.

Impacts from Recreation

Direct impacts, such as human disturbance, and indirect impacts through 

rangeland degradation under Alternative A would be as described under Nature 

and Type of Effects. Under this Alternative there would be no new restrictions 

on SRPs in the decision area; therefore; livestock could be disturbed by 

recreational activities or groups in the planning area.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative A, 0 acres of ROW avoidance areas would be present in the 

decision area in areas open to livestock grazing (see Table 4-18). As discussed 

under Nature and Type of Effects, disturbance of livestock could be decreased in 

this area from construction and operation of infrastructure within the ROW. 

No ROW exclusion areas or lands proposed for withdrawal are present in this 

alternative.

Table 4-18

Impacts on Livestock Grazing from Lands and Realty Actions

Management Action Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

ROW avoidance areas 

within PHMA and open 

to livestock grazing

0 0 0 232,964 233,219

ROW avoidance areas 

within GHMA and open 

to livestock grazing

0 106,508 0 7,123 112,341

ROW exclusion areas

within GHMA and open 

to livestock grazing

0 0 0 0 0

ROW exclusion areas

within PHMA and open 

to livestock grazing

0 230,716 0 0 230,7161

1

PHMA would be exclusion for wind and solar energy only.

Note: PHMA and GHMA for Alternatives B, C, and D, PH and GH for Alternative A (no PHMA or GHMA is 

presently designated).

Impacts from Range Management

Grazing would be permitted within PH or GH, totaling 314 allotments with 

337,165 acres and 69,408 AUMs (Table 4-17). An additional 34,398 AUMS 

would be available on 248,435 acres open to grazing in non-GRSG habitat. Lands 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

4-136 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

would be maintained and restored to maintain healthy ecological conditions, and 

BLM-administered rangeland management would be directed first to allotments 

not meeting rangeland health standards due to current livestock; therefore,

impacts on grazing management options or permitted AUMs would most likely 

change in these areas (approximately 105,437 acres).

Livestock grazing would continue to be managed through development and 

monitoring of AMPs or similar grazing plans and adjustment to grazing systems, 

with modification to the kind or class of livestock grazing on an allotment, the 

season of use, the stocking rate, or the pattern of grazing made as needed based 

on site-specific conditions and monitoring results. Permitted use levels would 

normally be reviewed and adjusted when permits and leases are renewed.

Vegetative manipulation projects would be designed to minimize impact on 

wildlife habitat and to improve it whenever possible, which could result in some 

costs for lessees and permittees, or limitations on manipulation for livestock 

forage. Long-term benefits to rangeland conditions could also result from these 

vegetation manipulation projects.

Noxious weed control would be the responsibility of the affected permittee or 

lessee under weed control cooperative range improvement agreements. Each 

year, permittees and lessees would submit records and maps of treatment areas

to the BLM; therefore, tracking annual treatments may help to improve or 

maintain rangeland conditions.

The focus in riparian areas and wetlands would be to improve functioning-atrisk and non-functioning riparian areas and wetlands towards PFC; therefore,

there is potential for some impacts on grazing management options and related 

costs and time required for lessees and permittees in these areas.

Range improvements would be designed to achieve wildlife, GRGS objectives,

and rangeland health standards; however, no specific actions apply to 

modification for improvements for GRSG. Therefore, impacts on costs for 

modification of range improvements would likely be the lowest under this 

alternative.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative A, COAs may be applied to existing fluid mineral leases on a 

case-by-case basis. Approximately 45,012 acres of existing leases are located in 

areas open to livestock grazing; therefore, conflicts between grazing and mineral 

development would be more likely to occur in this area (see Table 4-19).

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative A, development of locatable minerals, nonenergy leasable 

minerals, and salable minerals could be permitted after environmental review. 

Some restrictions may be put in place, such as requirements in Plan of 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-137

Table 4-19

Fluid Mineral Impacts on Range Management by Alternative

Management Action Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Proposed 

Plan 

Amendment

Acres of existing fluid 

mineral leases within 

areas open to grazing

45,012 29,778 0 29,778 24,250

Operations for locatable minerals, but this alternative would generally be the 

least restrictive on mineral development, with the highest potential for conflicts 

with range management. Impacts on livestock grazing would be as described in 

Nature and Type of Effects; however, the intensity would vary by site-specific 

conditions and restrictions. Potential impacts are changes in available forage, 

reduced forage palatability because of dust on vegetation, limits on livestock 

movement, harassment, temporary displacement of livestock, and an increased 

potential for the introduction and proliferation of noxious weeds.

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

Across all alternatives, federal lessees and permittees would not be impacted by 

split-estate lands; however, there is the potential for impacts on range 

management on other lands. Under Alternative A, some minimal regulations are 

in place for mineral development on nonfederal surface lands, including 

permitting and reclamation requirements.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Under Alternative A, treatment for fuels management would allow for some 

burning to improve wildlife and livestock forage, allowing for management 

options of lessees and permittees. Impacts would vary based on site-specific 

management actions, but fire could be utilized to maintain optimal forage for 

livestock in the long term.

A minimum rest period from livestock grazing of two growing seasons would be 

required after any major vegetative disturbance, including wildfire. Specific 

timing and the type of rest would be determined at the site-specific EA phase. 

As a result, livestock grazing would typically be excluded from areas following a 

fire, impacts on and costs and time for lessees and permittees would depend on 

location of fire in relation to grazing allotments.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative A, grazing methods would be designed and monitored to 

accomplish rangeland health standards and meet wildlife habitat needs, as 

determined in coordination with MFWP. Where objectives for wildlife did not 

correspond with needs for livestock forage, there is the potential for impacts on

range management, specifically ability of lessees and permittees to effectively 

distribute livestock or fully utilize permitted AUMs.
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

4-138 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Impacts from ACECs

No new ACECs would be designated under Alternative A; therefore, there 

would be no additional impacts on range management.

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

Amendment

Under Alternatives B-D and the Proposed Plan Amendment, the BLM would 

implement a defined monitoring strategy, tracking and documenting the 

implementation of land use plan decisions as defined in Section 2.7.2 and 

Appendix B. Should changes be detected in sagebrush availability or sagebrush 

habitat degradation, additional changes may be required to the level of 

permitted grazing, grazing strategies, or physical range improvements at the sitespecific level, at potential increased time and cost for permittees/lessees.

4.13.6 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative B, future travel plans would analyze PHMA for the need for 

routes closures and limitations would be put in place on development of new 

routes. Some reduction in routes and limitations on new routes as well as 

upgrades to existing routes would be in place compared to Alternative A, which 

could result in indirect reduction in disturbance to livestock in PHMA.

Impacts from Recreation

Direct impacts, such as from human disturbance, and indirect impacts through 

rangeland degradation under Alternative B are similar to those described under 

Nature and Type of Effects. SRPs in PHMA would be limited when they were 

found to have negative impacts on GRSG; therefore, overall SRPs may be 

reduced with potential benefits to livestock grazing due to decreased 

disturbance.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative B, approximately 106,508 acres of ROW avoidance areas and 

230,501 of ROW exclusion areas would be present in the decision area in areas 

open to grazing (see Table 4-18). As discussed under Nature and Type of 

Effects, disturbance of livestock from construction and operation of 

infrastructure could be decreased in this area as a result of these management 

actions.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative B, acres open to grazing and permitted AUMs would be the 

same as Alternative A (Table 4-17). All GRSG habitat objectives and 

management would be incorporated into AMPs and permit/lease renewals; 

therefore, impacts would occur at a site-specific level during the renewal 

process. Completion of land health assessments and permits/leases would be 

prioritized within PHMA. As a result, impacts on range management would be 

most likely to occur in these areas.
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-139

Retirement of permitted grazing uses would be an option in PHMA, resulting in 

potential reductions in AUMs in the planning area. Compensation for authorized 

range improvements would be provided as appropriate.

Vegetation treatments that benefit livestock forage could only be completed if 

these treatments would also conserve, enhance or improve GRSG habitat;

therefore, the management options in PHMA could be reduced and the ability 

to fully utilize permitted AUMs could be impacted. Land health assessment 

utilizing ecological site descriptions would be required to determine if standards 

of rangeland health as well as GRSG habitat objectives were being met. Impacts

from noxious weed control would be the same as those described under

Alternative A.

Under Alternative B, riparian areas and wet meadows would be managed for 

PFC within PHMA, with potential limitations on grazing within these areas or 

increased use of fencing/herding, seasonal limitations on grazing, creation of 

water developments or other measures to manage distribution of livestock so 

that pressure on these systems is limited; this could result in increased costs or 

time by lessees and permittees.

Under Alternative B, structural range improvements, such as fences and 

exclosures, would be allowed in PHMA, but they must be developed to 

conserve or enhance GRSG habitat. In addition, fences would require flagging to 

lessen risk for GRSG strike impacts; therefore, the cost of building or 

maintaining these structures may be increased as compared to Alternative A. 

Similarly, new water developments from diversion of spring or seeps would be 

permitted only when it also would benefit GRSG habitat. Therefore, lessees and 

permittees may not be able to fully use permitted AUMs if water were limited 

on a given allotment.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative B, additional RDFs and conservation measures would be 

applied as COAs in PHMA to existing leases. These measures would limit 

surface occupancy on federal leases in PHMA as well as impose seasonal limits 

on exploratory drilling, resulting in a decrease in conflicts between livestock 

grazing and fluid mineral extraction, as described in Nature and Type of Effects. 

Approximately 29,778 acres of existing leases are open to livestock grazing (33 

percent less than Alternative A), reducing the disturbance from mineral 

development under this alternative (see Table 4-19).

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative B, additional restriction would be put in place on mineral 

development as compared to Alternative A. PHMA would be closed to 

nonenergy leasable mineral leasing as well as salable mineral disposal. In addition, 

lands in PHMA would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. As a 

result, disturbance of range management from mineral development on would 

decrease.
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

4-140 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

As described under Alternative A, there would be no impact on BLM 

permittees from mineral development of these lands. Impacts on private range 

management would likely decrease in PHMA due to the application of the same 

conservation measures as applied on BLM-administered lands.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Under Alternative B, suppression of fire would be prioritized when PHMA was 

threatened. As a result, disturbance to grazing could decrease because fewer 

wildfires require fewer post-fire rest periods. However, in the long term 

vegetative condition may become less than ideal for grazing as cover and 

sagebrush density would likely increase and available forage decrease.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative B, vegetation treatments would still occur, given special 

consideration for the protection and maintenance of sagebrush ecosystems. 

Projects would be prioritized in areas thought to be limiting GRSG abundance 

based on defined habitat parameters. Impacts could occur to range management 

when objectives for range management did not match with those for GRSG

habitat. Post restoration management requirements could also result in changes 

to grazing systems, AUM levels or other range management changes, with 

resulting potential for an increase in costs and time for lessees and permittees.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A.

4.13.7 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Due to the removal of grazing from PHMA and GHMA, impacts from travel 

management would be limited. However, the type of impacts described under 

Alternative A would still occur in areas that are PHMA or GHMA in the 

decision area.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts from recreation on grazing would be limited due to removal of grazing 

from all allotments in PHMA and GHMA under this alternative. However, the 

type of impacts described under Alternative A would still occur in areas that are 

not PHMA or GHMA in the decision area.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Impacts from lands and realty action on livestock grazing would be limited by 

the removal from grazing on all allotments in PHMA and GHMA. There is 

potential for indirect impacts on occur on BLM-administered lands outside of 

GRSG habitat should ROW grants and associated development and/or livestock 

grazing increase in this area.
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-141

Impacts from Range Management

Management under Alternative C would remove livestock grazing from all 

allotments in PHMA and GHMA, for a total of 337,165 acres closed to grazing in 

the decision area, on 305 allotments with 69,408 removed AUMs (see 

Table 4-17). Like Alternative A, 34,398 AUMS would be available on 248,435 

acres open to grazing in non-GRSG habitat.

Removal of grazing from all PHMA and GHMA would result in economic 

impacts on lessees and permittees. As discussed under Nature and Type of 

Effects, lessees and permittees would be faced with reducing AUMs for their 

operations or locating replacement forage, often at higher costs than that 

currently obtained from BLM-administered lands, with potential impacts on 

individual leases/permits as well as the local community. Closures would also 

impact ability of lessees and permittees current seasonal rotations or other 

management strategies that utilize both BLM-administered and private lands.

Existing structural range improvements under Alternative C would require 

modifications or removal when determined to have a high risk of GRSG strike. 

In addition, management actions would allow no new water developments and 

could dismantle existing developments. Lessees/permittees who have 

investments on BLM-administered lands in PHMA and GHMA would be 

impacted and could be subject to compensation. In addition, the substantial 

range infrastructure installed by the BLM would fall into disrepair and the 

investments would be lost. Furthermore, approximately 3,400 additional miles 

of fencing may be required to exclude livestock from BLM-administered lands 

where grazing is excluded, representing potential additional costs. Removal of 

livestock grazing from BLM-administered land would eliminate the opportunity 

to initiate weed control cooperative range improvement agreements for 

noxious weed control on affected lands. All noxious weed control efforts would 

be BLM personnel based, which may lead to an increase in weed distribution 

and patch size.

Removal of range improvements and water developments on PHMA and GHMA

would also further restrict management options. Lessees and permittees who 

currently rotate pastures between private and BLM-administered lands may 

need to construct additional water developments or other structural range 

improvements on private pastures, resulting in increased time and costs.

As a result of removal of grazing from PHMA and GHMA, there is also the 

potential for increase conflicts between grazing and other resources and 

resource uses on lands of other surface ownership should livestock grazing 

increase in this area. For example, under this alternative, if permittees and 

lessees were to lose the forage that the BLM currently provides, many of them 

would try to increase forage production on their private and other leased land. 

This could accelerate the conversion of private native range, including GRSG

habitat, to agricultural or introduced grass production.
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

4-142 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative C, due to the removal of livestock grazing from all PHMA and 

GHMA, impacts from mineral development on range management in this habitat 

would be negligible. There is potential for an increase in conflicts between 

grazing and mineral development in areas outside of PHMA and GHMA, should 

grazing and mineral development increase in this area.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative C, impacts from solid minerals on grazing would be negligible 

due to the limitations on mineral development and the removal of livestock 

grazing from all PHMA and GHMA. There is potential for an increase in conflicts 

between grazing and mineral development in areas outside of PHMA and 

GHMA, should grazing and mineral development increase in this area.

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

As in Alternative A, there is no impact of split estate mineral development on 

BLM lessees and permittees. It is likely that mineral development on split-estate 

PHMA and GHMA under this alternative would result in the least disturbance to 

private range management due to the application of conservation measures to 

these areas.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Under this Alternative, impacts on range management would be minimized due 

to the removal of livestock grazing from PHMA and GHMA. However, the type 

of impacts described under Alternative A would still occur in non-PHMA or 

GHMA in the decision area.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts on range management in PHMA and GHMA under this alternative 

would be minimized due to the removal of grazing from PHMA and GHMA.

However, the type of impacts described under Alternative A would still occur in 

non-PHMA or GHMA in the decision area.

Impacts from ACECs

Under Alternative C, 96,246 acres of the planning area would be designated as 

an ACEC to protect GRSG. Due to the removal of grazing from PHMA and 

GHMA, impacts from the ACEC designation would be limited.

4.13.8 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative D, impacts would be similar to those described under 

Alternative B, but with additional restrictions on upgrades, realignment of roads, 

and requirements for site-specific travel management planning completion 

applied to PHMA and GHMA. As a result, disturbance from travel management 

on livestock grazing would be limited.
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-143

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative B.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative D approximately 240,087 acres would be proposed as a 

ROW avoidance area within areas open to livestock grazing. Impacts would be 

as described in Alternative A, but with increased intensity, due to the larger 

area that is less likely to be developed (see Table 4-18).

Impacts from Range Management

Similar to Alternative A, grazing would be allowed on all lands identified as 

suitable (see Table 4-17).

Within PHMA, the BLM would conduct land health evaluations and 

determinations that include (at a minimum) indicators and/or measurements of 

structure/condition/composition of vegetation specific to achieving GRSG

habitat objectives. Management actions would be developed if land health 

determinations indicate that an allotment is not meeting standards due to 

current livestock grazing. State objectives would be used for fine-scale analysis 

unless local objectives are developed at the field office level, in partnership with 

MFWP and USFWS. Similar to Alternative B, the BLM would prioritize 

completion of land health assessments in PHMA. Like Alternative B, 

management under Alternative D would focus forage treatments in PHMA.

Management objectives would require analysis of grazing systems during the 

grazing authorization renewal process to determine the best treatment for 

maintaining or improving PHMA. Modifications to grazing systems could be 

required, increasing costs to lessees and permittees. 

Impacts from noxious weed control would be the same as under Alternative B.

Actions to reduce grazing in riparian areas would include fencing and herding 

techniques or seasonal use or livestock distribution changes to meet GRSG

habitat objectives. Some grazing within these areas may be allowed at sitespecific locations when consistent with GRSG habitat objectives. However,

options for permittees and lessees would be limited and their costs could be 

increased should additional fences be required.

Overall, impacts would be similar to Alternative B but would vary in site-specific 

implementation.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Acres of existing leases open to grazing would be the same as in Alternative B 

(29,778 acres, 33 percent less than Alternative A; see Table 4-19). RDFs and 

conservation measures applied as COAs to existing leases to limit fluid minerals

impacts would also be similar to those described under Alternative B, but under 

this alternative would have greater flexibility for site-specific modification. As in 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

4-144 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Alternative B, surface disturbing/disruptive activities in PHMA would avoid or 

minimize disturbance to GRSG or their habitat; therefore, conflicts between 

range management and fluid mineral development would be minimized in this 

area. In addition to the measures included under Alternative B, measures 

limiting placement of utility structures and noise would further reduce 

disturbance of livestock and livestock forge by mineral development as 

compared with Alternative A.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative D, impacts from solid mineral development would be similar 

to those described under Alternative A. Some additional site-specific restriction 

on nonenergy minerals and salable minerals could result in a reduction in 

development where not in the public interest; therefore, impacts on livestock 

grazing from mineral development could be slightly reduced as compared with 

Alternative A.

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

Under Alternative D, as described in Alternative A, there would be no impact 

on BLM lessees and permittees. Conservation measures would be applied when 

federal action (mineral exploration or development) occurs, resulting in some 

potential reduction in disturbance for livestock on lands not administered by the 

BLM.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Under Alternative D, no fuels treatments would be allowed in GRSG winter 

range unless they would benefit GRSG. Rest requirements would vary based on 

site-specific conditions. As a result, some site-specific locations could have 

restrictions on range management due to fire and fuels management.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative D, restoration projects to benefit GRSG habitat 

improvements would be prioritized. Impacts would be similar to that described 

in Alternative B. However, under this alternative, any changes required to 

grazing systems, AUM levels or other changes to range management would be 

determined in consultation with lessees and permittees; therefore, the potential 

for impacts would be reduced.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A.

4.13.9 Proposed Plan Amendment

Impacts from GRSG Management

The Proposed Plan Amendment would incorporate additional GRSG 

management, including adaptive management, density and disturbance caps,

regional mitigation, and lek buffers that could limit development and disturbance 

of livestock in certain areas. Further, if areas not achieving the GRSG habitat 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-145

objectives due to grazing would require site-specific adjustments to livestock 

grazing needed to achieve objectives. This strategy could result in site-specific 

changes in permitted use levels or grazing management strategy outside of the 

permit renewal cycle.

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative B.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts from recreation would be similar to Alternative B. The Proposed Plan

Amendment also restricts the construction of recreation facilities unless a net 

conservation gain would result. Restrictions on construction of new facilities 

would further limit disturbance to grazing from recreational use, as described 

under Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Impacts from lands and realty would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative D, however, the Proposed Plan Amendment would place a greater 

degree of restriction on GHMA by managing GHMA as ROW avoidance for 

high-voltage transmission lines and large pipelines (similar to Alternative B, see

Table 4-18).

Impacts from Range Management

Similar to Alternative A, grazing would be allowed on all lands identified as 

suitable (see Table 4-17). Impacts would be similar to those described under 

Alternatives B and D. As under Alternative D, land health evaluations and 

determinations would be conducted that include indicators and/or 

measurements of structure/condition/composition of vegetation specific to 

achieving GRSG habitat objectives.

Under the Proposed Plan Amendment, the BLM would prioritize completion of 

land health assessments for allotments in PHMA not meeting Land Health 

Standards, focusing on those with riparian areas, followed by those in other 

PHMA, with timelines for changes in management following this priority. Based 

on current information as discussed in Section 3.14.2, approximately 24 

allotments and 91,878 acres did not meet BLM’s Standards for Rangeland Health 

due to livestock grazing in PHMA. Priority for assessment would be adjusted 

based on best available data and other natural resource concerns or legal 

obligations.

Adjustments to grazing management or authorized grazing use level would be 

tailored to achieve Land Health Standards and specific management thresholds 

based on GRSG habitat objectives (see Objective SS-1.4) for the specific 

GRSG habitat type in the areas assessed (i.e., breeding, nesting, wintering, etc.). 

Site-specific review of seasonal habitat type would be required as part of the 

land assessment process; quantitative analysis of current GRSG seasonal habitat 

conditions of allotments is not available at this time and is likely to change over 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

4-146 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

time based on precipitation level and other factors. Modifications to grazing 

systems could be required, increasing costs to lessees and permittees. Acres 

within nesting habitat may be more likely to require changes to grazing 

management, due to the desired conditions for this habitat type, including 

perennial grass height of at least seven inches. Impacts would occur on an 

allotment scale as changes to land assessments, permit renewal, and related 

management changes were implemented. The level and intensity of impacts 

would vary on a site-specific basis.

Under the Proposed Plan Amendment, limitations on structural range 

improvements would apply as discussed under Alternative D, increasing the 

time and cost for construction and maintenance of improvements.

Noxious weed control impacts would be as discussed under Alternatives A and 

D.

Under the Proposed Plan Amendment, as under Alternatives B-D, voluntary 

relinquishment of grazing privileges would be permitted. The BLM may 

determine if relinquished allotments should remain available for livestock grazing 

or be used for other resource management objectives per WO IM 2013-184. 

This may result in some reduction of overall available AUMs. Economic impacts 

on local communities that depend on livestock grazing are further discussed in 

Section 4.22.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative D.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under the Proposed Plan Amendment, more acres would be withdrawn and 

proposed for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry than under Alternative A. 

More acres would also be closed to nonenergy solid mineral leasing than under 

Alternative A (281,487 acres under the Proposed Plan Amendment compared 

to 0 acres under Alternative A). As a result, disturbance of livestock grazing 

from mineral development would be reduced as compared with Alternative A.

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative D. 

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts under the Proposed Plan Amendment would be similar to those under 

Alternative D. Additional limits on prescribed burns in PHMA could limit 

disturbance of livestock forage from fuels management activities. Site-specific 

impacts from fire and fuels management would vary based on results of the 

GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment (as described in 

Appendix K).
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-147

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts under the Proposed Plan Amendment would be similar to those under 

Alternative D. In addition, specific goals would be set for sagebrush canopy 

cover. Retaining cover could reduce suitability of site-specific areas for livestock 

forage. However, removal of conifers near sagebrush habitats would be 

extended, and this could potentially improve forage conditions in some areas. 

As in Alternative D, consultation with leases/permittees would reduce potential 

impacts from grazing management changes required to meet vegetation 

objectives.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A.

4.14 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

4.14.1 Methods and Assumptions

Direct impacts on ACECs are considered to be those that either impair or 

enhance the relevant and important values for which the ACEC was proposed 

for designation. This analysis focuses on the impacts on relevant and important 

values from the special management derived from ACEC designation or, under 

Alternatives A, B, and D and the Proposed Plan Amendment, where a GRSG 

ACEC is not proposed for designation, the management actions and allocations 

for other resources and resource uses. In this case, the relevant and important 

values considered are the unique pine forest and shale landscape of the existing 

Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC (which would continue to be managed as an 

ACEC under all alternatives) and GRSG habitat in the proposed GRSG ACEC

(Alternative C). All impacts discussed are direct impacts, though some may not 

occur immediately after implementation of management actions.

Indicators

Table 4-20 provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the 

effects on ACECs under each alternative.

Table 4-20

Comparison of ACEC Indicators by Alternative

Indicator

Alternative

A B C D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

Changes in the size 

or location of ACEC

boundaries 

No change No change New GRSG ACEC

results in net increase 

of 96,246 acres

No change No change

Specific management 

provisions designed 

to protect the 

relevant and 

No change No change Manage 96,246 acres 

of new GRSG ACEC

as ROW exclusion 

area

No change No change
4. Environmental Consequences (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern)

4-148 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 4-20

Comparison of ACEC Indicators by Alternative

Indicator

Alternative

A B C D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

important values for 

which the ACEC

was designated 

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

 Permitted activities would not be allowed to impair the relevant and 

important values for which the ACEC(s) are designated. The 

exception is locatable minerals; until withdrawn from mineral entry, 

a mining claim can be filed, and subsequent mining activities could 

have an impact. However, measures would have to be identified in a 

Plan of Operations to mitigate unnecessary and undue degradation.

4.14.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Special status species management objectives would prevent degradation of, and 

could improve, relevant and important values where a GRSG ACEC is 

designated to protect such values. BLM management could protect the relevant 

and important values in the GRSG ACEC independent of an ACEC designation. 

Refer to Section 4.3, Greater Sage-Grouse, for a discussion of impacts on 

GRSG habitat.

In general, management actions that protect resources—such as surfacedisturbance restrictions, management for desired habitats, travel restrictions 

and closures, livestock grazing, and recreation restrictions—would help maintain 

and improve the important and relevant values within ACECs. Management 

actions that create the potential for resource degradation—such as mineral 

development, livestock grazing, and infrastructure development—could impact 

the relevant and important values for which an ACEC is designated. Recreation 

and travel within ACECs could impact ACEC values. Limiting motorized travel

to existing routes and trails would reduce surface disturbance and the potential 

for related GRSG habitat loss. Dispersed recreation activities in the planning

area affect the unique soils found within the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC. 

Management approaches that direct recreation to specific areas could result in 

more predictable and manageable impacts.

Identifying ACECs as ROW exclusion or avoidance areas would protect 

relevant and important values by reducing (for avoidance areas) or eliminating 

(for exclusion areas) impacts from development requiring a land use 

authorization, including utilities, access roads, and renewable energy projects. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-149

Impacts from such development on GRSG habitat include compaction, erosion, 

and potentially habitat fragmentation. Impacts from development on the Acid 

Shale-Pine Forest ACEC include soil compaction and erosion and removal or 

disruption of the ACEC’s unique plant community, which includes slow growing 

ponderosa pine trees. Due to the area’s severely erodible soils and lack of 

understory vegetation, development would impact ACEC values beyond the 

footprint of the grant.

Energy and mineral development could impact ACEC values by increasing soil 

erosion potential and through the removal or disruption of unique ponderosa 

pine trees. Where GRSG habitat exists, energy and mineral development could 

degrade and fragment habitat. Construction, operation, and maintenance 

activities could disturb GRSG populations. Closing ACECs to fluid minerals

leasing would help protect relevant and important values by eliminating surfacedisturbance associated with such development.

Depending on their extent, location, and severity, wildfires could cause shortand long-term damage to ACEC values, particularly by removal of critical 

sagebrush habitats. ES&R techniques would be applied to minimize impacts 

where special values are at risk. If these techniques are successful, wildfires 

could also cause long-term improvement in ACEC values by maintaining natural 

vegetative ecosystem cycles.

Livestock grazing could impact ACEC values by increasing soil erosion potential 

and reducing understory plant species. Closing ACECs to livestock grazing

would help protect relevant and important values by eliminating soil and 

vegetation disturbance associated with grazing, but could also increase the risk 

for fire due to increased fuel loads.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on ACECs and are therefore not discussed in detail: solid minerals, 

mineral split estate, fire and fuels management, and habitat restoration and 

vegetation management.

4.14.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Alternative C is the only alternative under which the BLM proposes a new 

ACEC. As such, analysis of impacts common to all alternatives focuses on the 

relevant and important values of the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC, and impacts 

on these values from the special management derived from ACEC designation.

Impacts from Range Management

Under all alternatives, the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC would continue to be 

open to grazing. Impacts on the ACEC would be consistent with those 

described in Nature and Type of Effects, including soil erosion potential and 

reducing understory plant species.
4. Environmental Consequences (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern)

4-150 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under all alternatives, the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC would continue to be 

closed to fluid mineral leasing and development and would therefore be 

protected from the impacts, such as soil erosion and the removal or disruption 

of unique ponderosa pines. Where GRSG habitat exists, energy and mineral 

development could degrade associated with oil and gas development, as 

described under Nature and Types of Effects.

4.14.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative A, the BLM would continue to limit motorized travel to 

existing routes and trails within the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC. The types of 

impacts are the same as those described under Nature and Types of Effects, 

including limiting surface disturbance.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts from recreation on the relevant and important values for which the 

Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC was established would be the same as those 

described under Nature and Types of Effects. Dispersed recreation could affect 

soils within the ACEC.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

The Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC would continue to be managed as a ROW

avoidance area; impacts from ROW development, including soil compaction and 

erosion, and removal or disruption of the ACEC’s unique plant community, are 

described under Nature and Types of Effects.

Impacts from ACECs

Table 4-21 provides a comparison of ACEC acreages by alternative. Under 

Alternative A, the BLM would continue to manage the Acid Shale-Pine Forest as 

the only ACEC within GRSG habitat in the planning area. The Square Butte 

ACEC, Judith Mountains Scenic Area ACEC, and Collar Gulch ACEC are also in 

the planning area but are outside GRSG habitat. Management activities to 

protect GRSG would not affect the relevant and important values for which the 

ACECs were established or the BLM management prescriptions for these 

ACECs. The BLM would continue to manage lands and PH in accordance with 

existing management policies.

4.14.5 Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the BLM would continue to manage the Acid Shale-Pine 

Forest as the only ACEC in the planning area. The BLM would implement new 

management strategies to protect PHMA but without establishing an ACEC. 

Refer to Section 4.3 for a discussion of impacts on GRSG habitat.
4. Environmental Consequences (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-151

Table 4-21

ACECs by Alternative

ACEC

Alternative

A B C D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

Acid Shale Pine 

Forest (acres)

2,463 2,463 2,463 2,463 2,463

GRSG ACEC (acres) 0 0 96,246 0 0

4.14.6 Alternative C

Under Alternative C, in addition to the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC, the BLM 

would manage a new GRSG ACEC. As a result, the total ACEC acreage in the 

planning area would increase by 96,246 acres. BLM management for the Acid 

Shale-Pine Forest (2,463 acres) would continue to be tailored to protect the 

relevant and important values for which the ACEC was originally designated.

Management actions in the new GRSG ACEC would be the same as those 

actions proposed for GRSG habitat outside the ACEC, including ROW

exclusion areas, closures to mineral entry, and livestock grazing limitations. 

Designation of the GRSG ACEC boundary would bring heightened management 

attention and public awareness to GRSG habitat, and would further the 

management objective of helping to maintain and improve the important and 

relevant values within ACECs.

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

The BLM would evaluate the need for permanent or seasonal road closures and 

would avoid new construction within ACECs. If the BLM determines there is a 

need to close certain routes, then those closures would benefit the values for 

which the ACECs would be designated. Effects on ACECs under Alternative C 

would be the same as those described under Alternative B, except that 

Alternative C would include additional road closures within four miles of active 

GRSG leks.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts from recreation to the relevant and important values for which the 

Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC was established would be the same as those 

described under Nature and Types of Effects.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative C, the Acid Shale-Pine Forest would continue to be managed 

as an ACEC, with the addition of the GRSG ACEC (96,246 acres), which would 

bring added restrictions to lands and realty actions to protect GRSG habitat to 

minimize surface-disturbing activities. The types of impacts are the same as 

those described under Nature and Types of Effects.
4. Environmental Consequences (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern)

4-152 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

In addition to the impacts described in Impacts Common to All Alternatives, under 

Alternative C, the BLM would also pursue options to buy out existing fluid 

minerals leases. Management to reduce fluid mineral development would also 

protect the new GRSG ACEC from the impacts associated with fluid minerals 

exploration, development, and production, described under Nature and Types of 

Effects.

Impacts from ACECs

The designation and management of the GRSG ACEC would be used as a way 

to protect GRSG habitat. Management prescriptions to protect habitat under 

this ACEC would be similar to protective prescriptions under Alternatives B 

and D but would have the added ACEC administrative boundary designation.

ACEC designation could heighten awareness of the resource and help prioritize 

BLM management. Acquisition of lands within a designated ACEC could help 

protect relevant and important values by bringing additional acres under BLM 

control and managing those acres according to special protection of GRSG

habitats.

4.14.7 Alternative D

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative B.

4.14.8 Proposed Plan Amendment

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative B.

4.15 AIR RESOURCES

4.15.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Table 4-22 provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the 

effects on air resources under each alternative.

Table 4-22

Comparison of Air Resource Indicators by Alternative

Indicator

Alternative

A B C D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

A substantial change in 

the likelihood or 

severity of wildland 

fire/management actions 

that substantially inhibit 

a response to or 

appropriate treatments 

to prevent fire

Fires more 

likely to 

occur /no 

change

Fires less 

likely to occur

/no change

Fires more 

likely to occur 

because, by 

removing 

grazing, fine 

fuels would 

increase

Fires less

likely to 

occur/no 

change

Fires less likely 

to occur/no 

change
4. Environmental Consequences (Air Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-153

Table 4-22

Comparison of Air Resource Indicators by Alternative

Indicator

Alternative

A B C D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

Acres closed to new 

road construction

0 0 274,435 0 0

Acres closed to salable

mineral disposal

2,538 284,337 457,774 2,538 284,3371

Acres closed to 

nonenergy leasable

mineral exploration or 

development

2,538 284,337 457,774 2,538 284,3371

1

PHMA would be “open” to free use permits and the expansion of existing active pits if criteria is met.

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

 Air resource impacts can be localized or regional.

 Weather-related events and wildfires may cause or contribute to 

local or regional air resource impacts.

4.15.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Actions that reduce emissions of air pollutants improve air resources. Actions 

that initiate or increase emissions of air pollutants can degrade air resources, 

including increased concentrations of air pollutants, decreased visibility, 

increased atmospheric nitrogen and sulfur deposition on soils and vegetation, 

and acidification of sensitive water bodies.

Emissions of hazardous air pollutants could potentially result in localized 

increased risk of impacts on human health. Criteria and hazardous air pollutants 

can negatively impact human health in a variety of ways. Exposure to air 

pollution most often affects the respiratory system, and is often also associated 

with pulmonary, cardiac, vascular, and neurological impairments (EPA 2010b). 

Children and other high-risk groups, such as the elderly, pregnant women, and 

individuals with chronic heart and lung diseases, are especially susceptible to 

impacts from air pollution (EPA 2010b).

Actions that increase emissions of air pollutants can result in negative effects on 

air quality related values, including visibility and atmospheric deposition. An 

increase in SO2, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions can result in decreased 

visibility, increased atmospheric nitrogen and sulfur deposition on soils and 

vegetation, and acidification of sensitive water bodies. Fugitive dust could 

potentially result in increases in ambient concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5

resulting in localized impacts on vegetation and increases in atmospheric 
4. Environmental Consequences (Air Resources)

4-154 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

deposition. Particulate matter also contributes to haze and limits visibility (EPA 

2012b). Ozone, which is formed by a chemical reaction between volatile organic 

compounds and nitrogen oxides, contributes to smog, which limits visibility 

(EPA 2012c).

Particulate matter emissions (fugitive dust) are primarily caused by earth-moving 

activities and vehicular traffic on unpaved roads and surfaces associated with 

development and operation.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on air resources and are therefore not discussed in detail: travel and 

transportation management (except for Alternative C), recreation, lands and 

realty, range management, fluid minerals, mineral split estate, habitat restoration 

and vegetation management, and ACECs.

4.15.3 Alternative A

Air resource impacts under Alternative A would be identical to impacts 

associated with current management as described above in Nature and Type of 

Effects. No changes to criteria air pollutant or hazardous air pollutant emissions 

would occur.

4.15.4 Alternative B

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fires, particularly uncontrolled fires, can significantly affect air quality by 

introducing large amounts of particulate, CO, atmospheric mercury, ozone

precursors, and volatile organic compounds into the air, affecting both visibility 

and human health (BC Air Quality 2013). Controlling fuel load through 

prescribed burns and vegetation treatments can reduce the risk of uncontrolled 

wildfire and resultant effects on air resources (Wiedinmyer and Hurteau 2010).

Management under Alternative B would generally restrict prescribed burning 

within PHMA; however, fires would be less likely to occur compared with 

Alternative A because management actions would decrease the risk of humancaused ignitions and increase the level of fire suppression in PHMA. 

Management actions that would decrease human risk of fire include limiting 

route construction in PHMA, emphasizing nonmotorized recreation, and closing 

areas to mineral development. Because wildfires would be less likely to occur, 

there would be fewer fire-related impacts on air resources.

Habitat reconstruction or vegetation treatments used in fire and fuels 

management would cause negligible increases in exhaust and fugitive dust.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative B, 279,097 acres would be closed to salable mineral disposal 

and nonenergy leasable mineral exploration or development. Development of 

these mineral resources results in short-term and long-term emissions of 
4. Environmental Consequences (Air Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-155

criteria and hazardous air pollutants during fuel combustion in vehicles and 

construction equipment; it also produces particulate emissions from surface

disturbance. Closing areas with solid mineral potential to development would 

have the potential to result in fewer impacts on air resources, due to decreased 

emissions that would otherwise be associated with development of these 

mineral resources.

4.15.5 Alternative C

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts on air resources from fire and fuels management would be similar to 

those described under Alternative B, except restrictions would be applied to 

PHMA and GHMA. However, grazing may reduce fine fuel buildup, so removing 

it could increase the occurrence of large wildfires, given the potential impact on 

weed control.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative C, 453,969 acres would be closed to salable mineral disposal 

and nonenergy leasable mineral exploration or development. As described 

under Alternative B, closing areas with solid mineral potential to development 

would have the potential to result in fewer impacts on air resources, due to 

decreased emissions that would otherwise be associated with development of 

these mineral resources.

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative C, the BLM would close 274,435 acres of the planning area to 

new road construction compared with Alternative A. Road construction has 

short-term effects associated with construction of the roads, including fugitive 

dust emissions from surface disturbance and exhaust emissions associated with 

road construction equipment, worker vehicles, and material deliveries, and longterm effects associated with road use and maintenance. Prohibiting new road 

construction would likely result in fewer impacts on air resources, due to 

decreased emissions associated with road construction and use.

4.15.6 Alternative D

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts on air resources from fire and fuels management would be similar to 

those described under Alternative B in that restrictions may decrease the risk of 

fire from human-caused resource use. Under Alternative D, emphasis would be 

placed on tailoring GRSG habitat objectives to local site conditions and 

monitoring sites to ensure fuels treatments are helping to meet objectives; 

therefore, habitat may be further improved in the long term, which may reduce 

the risk of significant wildfires.
4. Environmental Consequences (Air Resources)

4-156 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative D, no new areas would be closed to salable mineral disposal 

and nonenergy leasable mineral exploration or development. Impacts on air 

resources would be the same as those described under Alternative A.

4.15.7 Proposed Plan Amendment

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts would be the same as described under Alternative D.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Impacts on air resources would be similar to those described under Alternative 

B. Under the Proposed Plan Amendment, 235,757 acres would be closed to 

salable mineral disposal, while 235,757 acres would be closed to nonenergy 

leasable mineral exploration and development. Closing areas with solid mineral 

potential to development would have the potential to result in fewer impacts on 

air resources, due to decreased emissions that would otherwise be associated 

with development of these mineral resources.

SFAs (53,440 acres) would be recommended for withdrawal. As discussed 

under Section 4.9, Solid Minerals (Locatable Minerals), there is no known 

locatable mineral potential in GRSG habitat, so no effect from locatable minerals 

is anticipated.

4.16 CLIMATE

4.16.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Table 4-23 provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the 

effects related to climate change under each alternative.

Table 4-23

Comparison of Climate Change Indicators by Alternative

Indicator

Alternative

A B C D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

A substantial change in 

the likelihood or 

severity of wildland fire

/ management actions 

that substantially inhibit 

a response to or 

appropriate treatments 

to prevent fire

Fires more 

likely to 

occur /no 

change

Fires less 

likely to 

occur /no 

change

Fires are 

more likely 

because 

removing 

grazing would 

increase fine 

fuels

Fires less

likely to 

occur/no 

change

Fires less likely 

to occur/no 

change
4. Environmental Consequences (Climate)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-157

Table 4-23

Comparison of Climate Change Indicators by Alternative

Indicator

Alternative

A B C D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

Acres closed to new 

road construction

0 0 274,435 0 0

Acres closed to salable

mineral disposal

2,538 284,337 457,774 2,538 284,3371

Acres closed to 

nonenergy leasing and 

salable mineral disposal

2,538 284,337 457,774 2,538 284,3371

1

PHMA would be “open” to free use permits and the expansion of existing active pits if criteria is met.

Assumption

The analysis assumes that there is a correlation between global concentrations

of GHGs and climate change.

4.16.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Management actions that could affect climate change would include actions that 

increase GHG emissions, actions that reduce GHG emissions, actions that 

create carbon sinks, and actions that eliminate or damage carbon sinks.

While GHG emissions or GHG sequestration may result from many of the 

proposed management actions, these changes would be quite small relative to 

annual state, national, or global GHG emissions. For reference, the amount of 

total gross emissions in Montana in 2005 was 36.8 million metric tons of carbon 

dioxide equivalents (MTDEQ 2007). Relative to state and national GHG 

emissions, emission changes due to management actions associated with this 

RMPA would be negligible. 

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on climate and are therefore not discussed in detail: travel and 

transportation management (except for Alternative C), recreation, lands and 

realty, range management, fluid minerals, mineral split estate, habitat restoration 

and vegetation management, and ACECs.

4.16.3 Alternative A

Climate impacts under Alternative A would be identical to impacts resulting 

from current management as described above in Nature and Type of Effects. No 

changes to GHG emissions would occur.
4. Environmental Consequences (Climate)

4-158 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

4.16.4 Alternative B

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fires, particularly uncontrolled fires, can emit large quantities of GHGs into the 

atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide (EPA 2012d, 

page 7-21 to 7-22); fires also remove vegetation that acts as a carbon sink. 

Controlling fuel load through prescribed burns and vegetation treatments could

reduce the risk of uncontrolled wildfire and resultant releases of GHG 

emissions (Wiedinmyer and Hurteau 2010).

Management under Alternative B would generally restrict prescribed burning 

within PHMA; however, fires would be less likely to occur compared with 

Alternative A because management actions would decrease the risk of humancaused ignitions and increase the level of fire suppression in PHMA. Because 

wildfires would be less likely to occur compared with Alternative A, there 

would be lower GHG emissions and smaller contributions to climate change 

than under Alternative A.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative B, 279,097 acres would be closed to salable mineral disposal 

and nonenergy leasable mineral exploration or development. Development of 

these mineral resources results in short-term and long-term emissions of GHG 

pollutants during fuel combustion in vehicles and construction equipment; it also 

removes vegetation and releases sequestered carbon. Closing areas with solid 

mineral potential would likely result in fewer GHG emissions in the planning 

area.

4.16.5 Alternative C

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts from fire and fuels management would be the same as described under

Impacts on air resources from fire and fuels management would be similar to 

those described under Alternative B, except restrictions would be applied to 

PHMA and GHMA. However, grazing may reduce fine fuel buildup, so removing 

it could increase the occurrence of large wildfires, given the potential impact on 

weed control.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative C, 453,969 acres would be closed to salable mineral disposal 

and nonenergy leasable mineral exploration or development. As described 

under Alternative B, closing areas with solid mineral potential would likely result 

in fewer GHG emissions, and fewer contributions towards climate change.

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative C, the BLM would close 274,435 more acres of the planning 

area to new road construction compared with Alternative A. Road construction 

and use emits GHGs through the combustion of fuel in vehicles and 
4. Environmental Consequences (Climate)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-159

construction equipment. Prohibiting new road construction could reduce GHG 

emissions associated with road construction and use.

4.16.6 Alternative D

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts from fire and fuels management would be similar to those described 

under Alternative B in that restrictions may decrease the risk of fire from 

human-caused resource use and associated GHG emissions. Under Alternative 

D, emphasis would be placed on tailoring management objectives to local site 

conditions and monitoring sites to ensure fuels treatments are helping to meet 

GRSG habitat objectives; therefore, habitat may be further improved in the long 

term, which may reduce the risk of significant wildfires. This would have the 

potential to result in fewer emissions of GHGs and fewer contributions towards 

climate change, as well as improve carbon sequestration in vegetation.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative D, no new areas would be closed to salable mineral disposal 

and nonenergy leasable mineral exploration or development. Impacts on

climate change from solid minerals would the same as described under 

Alternative A.

4.16.7 Proposed Plan Amendment

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts under the Proposed Plan Amendment would be the same as those 

described under Alternative D. 

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Impacts on climate change would be similar to those described under 

Alternative B. Under the Proposed Plan Amendment, 235,757 acres would be 

closed to salable mineral disposal, while 235,757 acres would be closed to

nonenergy leasable mineral exploration and development. Closing areas with 

solid mineral potential to development would have the potential to result in 

fewer impacts on climate change, due to decreased GHG emissions that would 

otherwise be associated with development of these mineral resources.

SFAs (53,440 acres) would be recommended for withdrawal. As discussed 

under Section 4.9, there is no known locatable mineral potential in GRSG 

habitat, so no effect from locatable minerals is anticipated.
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

4-160 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

4.17 SOIL RESOURCES

4.17.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Table 4-24 provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the 

effects on soils resources under each alternative.

Table 4-24

Comparison of Soil Resources Indicators by Alternative

Indicator

Alternative

A B C D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

Acres managed as ROW

avoidance areas

30,193 1322,826 0 260,949 366,045

Acres managed as ROW

exclusion areas

0 233,219 345,560 0 233,2191

Acres found unsuitable for 

surface coal leasing

0 284,337 464,178 0 0

Acres closed to 

nonenergy leasing and 

salable mineral disposal

0 284,337 457,774 0 284,3372

1

PHMA would be exclusion for wind and solar energy only.

2

PHMA would be “open” to free use permits and the expansion of existing active pits if criteria is met.

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

 Soils of the BLM-administered lands would be managed to maintain 

productivity and promote sustained yields while keeping erosion at 

minimal/acceptable levels and minimizing physical or chemical 

degradation.

 Proposed surface-disturbing projects would be analyzed to 

determine suitability of soils to support or sustain such projects and 

designed to minimize soil loss.

 Prime Farmlands would be protected from unnecessary and 

irreversible conversion to nonagricultural uses through 

identification as such and special attention during construction and 

reclamation.

 Achieving or maintaining Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management generally are effective 

in managing the effects on soils from livestock grazing. Adjustments 

to grazing authorizations would be made on a case-by-case basis 

when site-specific studies indicate changes in management are 

needed.
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-161

 BLM management actions and objectives would be consistent with 

soil resource capabilities.

 Fuels projects, as well as planned and un-planned fire, that 

contribute towards establishment of a more "natural" fire regime 

would have long-term benefits on soil health.

 Restoration would effectively mitigate long-term surface-disturbing 

effects.

 Surface-disturbing actions related to fluid mineral development 

would comply with Onshore Oil and Gas Orders and Gold Book 

surface operating standards and guidelines (and subsequent 

updates). These orders and standards and guidelines would mitigate 

most effects.

4.17.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Activities that disturb, compact, contaminate, mix soil horizons, or remove 

vegetation from soils are generally considered to negatively affect soil health. 

Impacts on soil resources can result from a number of causes, including 

improper livestock grazing, recreation, mineral resource activities, renewable 

energy development, and road construction. The intensity and extent of impacts 

on soil resources are determined in part by the type and location of the surfacedisturbing activities and surface occupancy. Impacts on soil resources can also 

be affected by any applicable stipulations and Plan of Operations that address 

site-specific environmental concerns and require mitigation to stabilize soil, to 

prevent unnecessary erosion, and to revegetate disturbed surfaces. 

Direct and indirect impacts from resource programs to soil resources are 

generally mitigated by avoiding or minimizing the impact using designations such 

as ROW exclusion and avoidance areas. Impacts that cannot be avoided are 

generally minimized by the application of COAs, RDFs, and standard operating 

procedures.

Mixing of soil horizons is another concern with surface-disturbing actions, as is 

loss of the “A” horizon (i.e., top layer of the soil horizon or the topsoil) through

erosional forces (e.g., wind and water). Mixing of topsoil and subsoil and loss of 

the “A” horizon remove surface cover for erosion control and organic matter 

inputs for nutrient recycling. The result is decreased soil productivity in the long 

term, inhibiting revegetation, decreasing soil reclamation potential, and 

increasing susceptibility for noxious and invasive species.

Surface-disturbing activities and surface occupancy can impact soil resources by 

compacting soil. In some cases, soil compaction aids in plant establishment and 

growth. However, too much compaction decreases water infiltration rates and 

gas exchange rates. Decreased gas exchange rates can cause aeration problems, 

induce nitrogen and potassium deficiency, and negatively impact root 

development, which is a key component of soil stabilization. As soil compaction 
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

4-162 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

increases, the soil’s ability to support vegetation diminishes because the 

resulting increase in soil strength and change in soil structure (loss of porosity) 

inhibit root system growth and reduce water infiltration. As vegetative cover, 

water infiltration, and soil stabilizing crusts are diminished or disrupted, the 

surface water runoff rates increase, further accelerating rates of soil erosion.

Poor soil health generally limits the ability of an area to support vegetation, 

particularly native vegetation such as sagebrush. Any impacts that adversely 

affect soil health would also adversely affect sagebrush.

Travel across land by foot, bicycle, horse or OHV results in vegetation loss, soil 

compaction, and soil erosion. Management approaches that designate travel to 

specified routes can result in more predictable, localized and manageable 

impacts. Selectively locating travel routes away from areas of sensitive soil 

conditions can minimize the extent of these effects, ideally limiting them to the

footprint of the trail.

Most recreation on BLM-administered lands results in vegetation loss, soil 

compaction, and soil erosion. Management approaches that direct recreation to 

specific areas and avoid dispersed recreation can result in more predictable, 

localized and manageable impacts.

Lands and realty management decisions affect where ground disturbing activities 

can and cannot occur. Ground disturbing activities could result in the 

compaction of soils, the erosion of soils, or vegetation loss which reduces soil 

stability. ROW exclusion and ROW avoidance areas protect certain areas from 

compaction and erosion.

Fluid mineral development generally requires temporary roads, wells, and 

associated well pads. Local soil health and characteristics within project 

footprints are typically impacted by compaction and clearing of vegetation. 

Restoration and revegetation efforts can restore soil health over the long term 

once mineral extraction activities are complete.

Solid mineral development generally requires roads and large areas of soil 

excavation. Local soil health and characteristics within project footprints are 

typically impacted by excavation, compaction, erosion, and vegetation clearing 

Restoration and revegetation efforts can restore soil health over the long term 

once mineral extraction activities are complete, but landscapes are often 

scarred and areas of prior soil cover are often permanent altered through open 

pits, mineshafts, and other features.

Grazing is known to alter vegetation and biological soil crust communities. 

Livestock grazing can have adverse impacts on soils, particularly in the case of

high-intensity, low-duration, grazing systems in small pastures. Modified grazing 

management can be necessary to maintain soil health where soils are found to 

be sensitive to livestock disturbances (for example, soil on steep slopes and 
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-163

fragile soils). Properly managed grazing can protect soils and help provide 

healthy plant communities.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on soil resources and are therefore not discussed in detail: fire and 

fuels management, and ACECs.

4.17.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under all alternatives habitat restoration would occur and would be 

implemented based on environmental variables that indicate areas most likely to 

succeed in restoration. Restoring habitat generally has a beneficial effect on 

soils, and soils that currently have a high restoration potential value would tend 

to support restorative vegetation easier due to proper soil conditions, such as 

low salt content, adequate water retention, and available rooting depth.

Table 4-25 provides a comparison of the quantifiable impacts of each 

alternative to soils.

Table 4-25

Quantitative Impact Summary by Alternative for Soils

Resource Use Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

ROW exclusion area

(acres)

0 233,219 345,560 0 233,2191

ROW avoidance area

(acres)

30,193 132,826 0 260,949 366,045

Closed to livestock 

grazing (acres)

0 0 337,165 0 0

Unsuitable for surface 

coal mining (acres)

0 284,975 464,178 0 0

Closed to salable 

minerals (acres)

2,538 284,337 457,774 2,538 284,3372

Closed to nonenergy 

leasing (acres)

0 284,337 457,774 0 284,337

1PHMA would be exclusion for wind and solar energy only.

2PHMA would be “open” to free use permits and the expansion of existing active pits if criteria is met.

4.17.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Direct impacts on soils from travel and transportation management are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative A, 

motorized cross country travel would be restricted to existing roads and trails 
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

4-164 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

throughout the project area on BLM-administered lands, which would reduce 

new soil disturbances and localize further disturbance to existing travel routes.

Per BLM regulations, temporary area, road, or trail closures for other resources 

would be considered where OHVs are causing, or would cause, considerable 

adverse effects on wildlife and its habitat. Those closures could reduce new soil 

disturbances and localize further disturbance to existing travel routes.

Impacts from Recreation

Direct impacts on soils, including vegetation loss, soil compaction, and soil 

erosion, from recreation is discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. 

Under Alternative A, SRPs would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis 

throughout the project area. Management approaches that direct recreation to 

specific areas and avoid dispersing recreation could result in more predictable, 

localized, and manageable impacts. This would result in less vegetation loss, soil 

compaction, and soil erosion from recreation.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Direct impacts on soils from ground-disturbing activities related to ROW

development are discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. As shown in

Table 4-25, Alternative A has two ROW avoidance areas and no ROW 

exclusion areas. The ROW avoidance areas make up 9,708 acres and are 

associated with the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC and Judith River Canyon.

Surface-disturbing activities related to ROW development would be restricted

in the ROW areas, limiting impacts on soil resources.

Impacts from Range Management

Direct impacts on soils from range management are discussed above under 

Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative A, livestock grazing would 

continue to be managed through the development and monitoring of AMPs 

which use guidelines to maintain or enhance ecological condition, enhance 

vegetation production, maintain and enhance wildlife habitat, protect 

watersheds, and reduce bare ground by introducing soil stabilizing vegetation 

cover that is applicable to the soil subgroup type. Achieving or maintaining 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management generally are effective in managing the effects on soils from 

livestock grazing. Grazing would continue to alter vegetation and biological soil 

crust communities.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Direct impacts, such as erosion and compaction, to soils from fluid minerals

development are discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Alternative A 

does not prohibit surface occupancy on existing federal leases within the 

decision area and therefore does not protect any portions of the decision area 

from the expected associated impacts on soils. Local soil health and 

characteristics within project footprints would be impacted by compaction and 

vegetation clearing.
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-165

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Direct impacts, such as erosion and compaction, to soils from solid minerals 

management are discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Under 

Alternative A, 2,538 acres would be closed to salable mineral disposal (see

Table 4-25). Management under Alternative A would allow for coal

exploration and does not identify any portions of the decision area as unsuitable 

or unacceptable for surface mining of coal, and does not provide for 

withdrawing any lands from mineral entry. Alternative A therefore does not 

protect most of the planning area from impacts on soils associated with solid 

mineral extraction.

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

Direct impacts on soils from mineral split estate are the same as those

discussed above for fluid and solid minerals under Nature and Type of Effects. 

Under Alternative A, lands where the BLM manages the subsurface mineral 

estate but not the surface would be administered and managed in each phase of 

mineral extraction to ensure that undue degradation to soil resources does not 

occur and that final restoration of the landscape is satisfactory to the surface 

landowner. Management actions would reduce the total surface disturbance and 

protect soils from unnecessary compaction, erosion, and vegetation loss.

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

Amendment

Adoption of a Monitoring Framework (see Section 2.7.2) to oversee the 

implementation and effectiveness of GRSG habitat improvement efforts could 

result in improved soil conditions.

4.17.6 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Direct impacts on soils from travel and transportation management are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under Alternative 

B would provide for protection measures on PHMA, which would provide for 

fewer and more localized disturbances to soils. In PHMA, motorized travel

would be limited to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails and construction 

of new routes would be limited to specified needs. Construction of new routes 

or the upgrade of current routes would be limited to the realignment of existing 

designated routes if the realignment would eliminate the need for the 

construction of a new road, is necessary for motorist safety, or would have a 

minimal impact on GRSG habitat. The construction of new roads for access to 

valid existing rights would be limited to a cumulative total disturbance of less 

than three percent of the PHMA, and restricted to the minimal road standard 

necessary. This would reduce overall soil disturbance from construction.

Travel management would provide for the evaluation of roads and areas for 

permanent or seasonal closures, and for the restoration of travel routes using 
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

4-166 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

appropriate seed mixes, and possibly transplanted sagebrush. These actions 

would allow soils to return, over time and through the re-establishment of 

vegetation, to a more natural state and would reduce site-specific erosion.

Like Alternative A, temporary area, road, or trail closures for other resources 

would be considered where OHVs are causing, or would cause, considerable 

adverse effects on wildlife and its habitat. Those closures could reduce new soil 

disturbances and localize further disturbance to existing travel routes.

Impacts from Recreation

Direct impacts on soils from recreation are discussed above under Nature and 

Type of Effects. Under Alternative B, SRPs in PHMA would only be approved 

when recreation would have a neutral or beneficial effect on PHMA. Such 

restriction on recreation could reduce impacts on soils from compaction, 

erosion, and vegetation loss.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Direct impacts on soils from lands and realty management are discussed above 

under Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative B, the BLM would manage

PHMA as ROW exclusion areas for new land use authorizations, and GHMA as 

ROW avoidance areas for new land use authorizations. These actions protect a 

larger portion of the decision area from surface disturbing activities and 

therefore would be more protective of soil resources from vegetation loss, soil 

compaction, and soil erosion than Alternative A, which does not provide for 

exclusion areas or as much acreage of avoidance areas (see Table 4-25).

Impacts from Range Management

Direct impacts on soils from range management are discussed above under 

Nature and Type of Effects. Alternatives B would be similar to Alternative A with 

the addition of GRSG habitat objectives and management considerations 

incorporated into all BLM AMPs within PHMA. Also, the option of voluntary 

retirement of permitted grazing uses in PHMA would be available. GRSG habitat 

objectives would manage or restore PHMA so that at least 70 percent of the 

land cover provides adequate sagebrush habitat to meet GRSG needs, and 

manage anthropogenic disturbances to cover less than three percent of the total 

GRSG habitat which would protect soils from disturbances on 70 percent of the 

land cover within PHMA from surface disturbing activities that could result in 

soil compaction, soil erosion, and vegetation loss.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Direct impacts on soils from fluid minerals development are discussed above 

under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under Alternative B would apply 

RDFs and conservation measures as COAs on existing leases in PHMA. These 

measures would include surface use restrictions on existing federal leases within 

PHMA, which would protect portions of the decision area from the soil impacts 

associated with oil and gas exploration, development, and production.
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-167

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Direct impacts on soils from solid minerals management are discussed above 

under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under Alternative B would find all 

PHMA unsuitable for surface mining of coal and would allow subsurface mining 

only if associated facilities were located outside of PHMA. Under Alternative B, 

the BLM would also provide for withdrawing areas from mineral entry within 

PHMA, and closing PHMA to nonenergy mineral leases and salable mineral 

disposal. Closure to surface disturbing activities reduces the potential for 

impacts on soil resource through compaction, erosion, and contamination. The 

BLM would also provide for restoring salable mineral pits within PHMA, which 

would increase soil health and stability in those areas. Solid minerals 

management would be more protective of soils resources under Alternative B 

than under Alternative A, as seen in (Table 4-25).

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

Direct impacts on soils from mineral split estate would be the same as those

discussed above for fluid and solid minerals under Nature and Type of Effects. On 

lands where the BLM manages the surface, but not the subsurface mineral 

estate, appropriate fluid mineral RDFs would be applied in PHMA. This would 

protect a greater amount of soil resources from undue degradation through 

compaction, erosion, and vegetation loss than Alternative A.

On PHMA lands where the BLM manages the subsurface split estate, but not the 

surface, the same conservation measures applicable to solid minerals on BLMadministered lands would be applied. This includes closing PHMA to surface coal

mining, nonenergy mineral leases, and salable mineral disposal, which would 

reduce the potential for soil compaction, erosion and vegetation loss.

4.17.7 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Direct impacts on soils from travel and transportation management are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under Alternative 

C would provide the same measures as Alternative B in PHMA and GHMA,

which would result in less disturbance to soils than under Alternative A. 

Management under Alternative C would also prohibit the construction of new 

roads within four miles of GRSG leks, would avoid new road construction 

where possible, and would require the mitigation of any impacts on GRSG

habitat from the construction of new roads or the upgrade of existing roads by 

using measures that have been proven to offset GRSG habitat loss. These 

additional measures would further protect soils from surface-disturbing 

activities.

Like Alternative A, temporary area, road, or trail closures for other resources 

would be considered where OHVs are causing, or would cause, considerable 
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

4-168 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

adverse effects on wildlife and its habitat. Those closures could reduce new soil 

disturbances and localize further disturbance to existing travel routes.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts on soil resources from recreation would be the same as under 

Alternative A.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Direct impacts on soils from lands and realty management are discussed above 

under Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative C, the BLM would manage 

PHMA and GHMA as ROW exclusion areas for new land use authorizations, 

which would reduce the potential effects of surface-disturbance on soils (see 

Table 4-25). This would protect a larger portion of the decision area from 

surface disturbing activities and therefore would be more protective of soil 

resources from vegetation loss, soil compaction, and soil erosion than 

Alternative A.

Impacts from Range Management

Direct impacts on soils from range management are discussed above under 

Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative C livestock grazing would be 

removed from all allotments within PHMA and GHMA, totaling 337,165 acres 

and 69,408 AUMs. Management under Alternative C would provide for the 

opportunity for improving PHMA and GHMA through striving to attain 

reference state vegetation relative to the ecological site description. The lack of 

grazing would provide the potential for soil health to improve in areas where 

Rangeland Health Standards are not met due to current livestock grazing.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Direct impacts on soils from fluid minerals development are discussed above 

under Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative C, the BLM would apply 

RDFs and conservation measures as COAs on existing leases in GHMA and 

PHMA. These measures would include surface use restrictions on existing 

federal leases within PHMA and GHMA, which would protect portions of the 

decision area from the soil impacts associated with oil and gas exploration, 

development, and production.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Direct impacts on soils from solid minerals management are discussed above 

under Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative C, the BLM would find both 

GHMA and PHMA as unsuitable for surface mining of coal and would allow

subsurface mining only if associated facilities were located outside of PHMA and 

GHMA. Management under Alternative C would also provide for withdrawing 

areas from mineral entry within PHMA, closing PHMA to nonenergy mineral 

leases and salable mineral disposal, which would reduce the potential for soil 

impacts of compaction, erosion, and contamination. Management under 

Alternative C would also provide for restoring salable mineral pits within 

PHMA, which would increase soils health and stability in those areas. Solid 
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-169

minerals management would be more protective of soils resources under 

Alternative C due to more land closures than under Alternative A (see Table

4-25).

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

Direct impacts on soils from mineral split estate would be the same as those

discussed above for fluid and solid minerals under Nature and Type of Effects. On 

lands where the BLM manages the surface, but not the subsurface mineral 

estate, appropriate fluid mineral RDFs would be applied in PHMA and GHMA. 

This would protect a greater amount of soil resources from undue degradation 

through compaction, erosion, and vegetation loss than Alternative A.

In PHMA and GHMA where the BLM manages the subsurface split estate, but 

not the surface, the same conservation measures applicable to solid minerals on 

BLM-administered lands would be applied. This includes closing PHMA and 

GHMA to surface coal mining, nonenergy mineral leases, and salable mineral 

disposal, which would reduce the potential for soil compaction, erosion and 

vegetation loss. 

4.17.8 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Direct impacts on soils from travel and transportation management are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under Alternative 

D would be more protective of soils than Alternative A and similar to 

Alternative B. Management under Alternative D would result in additional 

closures and reclamation of roads, providing for less future disturbance and 

further mitigation of current disturbances of soils. Management under 

Alternative D would provide for, on a case-by-case basis, the reclamation of 

commercially or administratively used roads upon completion of site-specific 

projects. Roads that were user created and unauthorized would also be subject 

to closure for further restoration. Within PHMA, roads may be evaluated for 

permanent or seasonal closures where off-road vehicles may be causing adverse 

effects.

Like Alternative A, temporary area, road, or trail closures for other resources 

would be considered where OHVs are causing, or would cause, considerable 

adverse effects on wildlife and its habitat. Those closures could reduce new soil 

disturbances and localize further disturbance to existing travel routes.

Impacts from Recreation

Direct impacts on soils from recreation are discussed above under Nature and 

Type of Effects. Management under Alternative D would be more protective of 

soils than Alternative A in that SRPs on PHMA would only occur if the 

recreation would have a neutral or beneficial effect on PHMA. This could result 

in less possible disturbance to soils and vegetation as these are key habitat 

features for GRSG. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

4-170 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Direct impacts on soils from lands and realty management are discussed above 

under Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative D, the BLM would manage 

PHMA as a ROW avoidance area for all land use authorizations (including wind 

energy). GHMA would also be managed as a ROW avoidance area for wind 

energy. Impacts on soil resources from construction could be reduced due to 

restrictions on development in ROW avoidance areas. Other ROW 

authorizations in GHMA would be authorized with appropriate mitigation and 

conservation measures, which would reduce the potential for effects of 

construction disturbances to soil resources. Management under Alternative D 

would provide for more protection than Alternative A.

Impacts from Range Management

Direct impacts on soils from range management are discussed above under 

Nature and Type of Effects. Management under Alternative D would be similar to 

Alternative A with the additional incorporation of GRSG habitat objectives into 

all AMPs, and the addition of GRSG management considerations into AMPs of 

allotments on PHMA. Management under Alternative D would provide for the 

opportunity for improving GHMA and PHMA through striving to attain suitable

GRSG seasonal habitats; therefore, soil conditions would improve in these 

areas.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Direct impacts on soils from fluid minerals development are discussed above 

under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under Alternative D would 

provide greater protection of soil resources by applying conservation measures 

as COAs to existing leases. The conservation measures would be designed to 

reduce surface disturbances associated with mineral extraction, which would 

reduce soil compaction, soil erosion, and vegetation loss.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Direct impacts on soils from solid minerals management are discussed above 

under Nature and Type of Effects. As with Alternative A, management under 

Alternative D would manage 2,437 acres of PHMA and 101 acres of GHMA as 

closed to salable mineral disposal. Under Alternative D, the BLM would allow 

for coal exploration, does not identify any portions of the decision area as 

unsuitable or unacceptable for surface mining of coal, and does not provide for 

withdrawing any lands from mineral entry. Alternative D provides for the 

restoration of salable mineral pits on PHMA which could locally improve soil 

health.

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

Direct impacts on soils from mineral split estate are the same as those 

discussed above for fluid and solid minerals under Nature and Type of Effects. As 

with Alternative A, Alternative D, would manage lands where the BLM manages 

the subsurface mineral estate, but not the surface, during each phase of mineral 
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-171

extraction to ensure that undue degradation does not occur and that final 

restoration is satisfactory to the surface landowner. Management actions would 

reduce the total surface disturbance and protect soils from unnecessary 

compaction, erosion, and vegetation loss.

4.17.9 Proposed Plan Amendment

Impacts from GRSG Management

The Proposed Plan Amendment would incorporate additional GRSG 

management, including adaptive management, regional mitigation, density and 

disturbance caps, and lek buffers. If an adaptive management hard trigger 

response was met, PHMA would be the top priority for regional mitigation, 

habitat restoration, and fuels reduction treatments. These actions could offer 

considerable protection for soil resources by maintaining or restoring 

vegetation and by limiting vegetation disturbance in certain areas as described in 

Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative B.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts would be similar to Alternative D. In addition, the Proposed Plan 

Amendment would limit the construction of new recreational facilities, which 

would reduce impacts on soils from development activities, as described in 

Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Impacts from ROW management would be similar to those described under 

Alternative D. However, under the Proposed Plan Amendment, both PHMA and 

GHMA would be ROW avoidance areas for high voltage transmission lines and 

large pipelines (366,045 acres) with limited exceptions, while PHMA would also 

be minor ROW avoidance areas. In addition, PHMA would be ROW exclusion 

areas, and GHMA would be ROW avoidance areas for wind and solar energy. 

These measures could offer an increased level of protection from disturbance 

and habitat loss than Alternative A.

Impacts from Range Management

Impacts from the Proposed Plan Amendment would be similar to Alternative A 

with respect to the number of AUMs available and the acreage open for grazing, 

resulting in the same impacts on soils (see Table 4-25). In addition, under the 

Proposed Plan Amendment, the BLM would prioritize the review and processing 

of grazing permits/leases in PHMA, particularly in areas not meeting Land Health 

Standards. Together, these measures would help to improve soil conditions 

throughout the planning area and would have a beneficial incidental impact on 

soils, as described under Nature and Type of Effects.
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

4-172 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Impacts from fluid minerals management would be similar to those described for 

Alternative D. However, additional restrictions on geophysical exploration 

within PHMA would be proposed. Therefore, these measures would have a 

beneficial incidental impact on soil resources due to reductions in disturbance

the planning area from exploration.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

The BLM would determine coal suitability on a case-by-case basis as leases or 

lease modifications are submitted. Currently, there is no coal potential in the 

planning area. Therefore, no impacts on soils are expected from coal 

management.

The Proposed Plan Amendment would provide additional protections on soils in 

the planning area by closing nonenergy leasable mineral leasing and new mineral 

material sales. These closures would reduce the potential disturbance of soils 

from mineral activities, as described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from locatable minerals management would be similar to those 

described under Alternative D. SFAs (53,440 acres of PHMA) would be 

recommended for withdrawal. As discussed under Section 4.9, there is no 

known locatable mineral potential in GRSG habitat, so no effect from locatable 

minerals is anticipated.

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

Direct impacts on soils from mineral split estate are the same as those 

discussed above for fluid and solid minerals under Nature and Type of Effects. The 

Proposed Plan Amendment would manage lands in PHMA or GHMA with subsubsurface federal mineral estate through each phase of mineral extraction using 

RDFs and COAs, which would reduce the total surface disturbance and protect 

soils from unnecessary compaction, erosion, and vegetation loss.

4.18 WATER RESOURCES

4.18.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Table 4-26 provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the 

effects on water resources under each alternative.

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

 Projects that help restore watersheds, desirable vegetation 

communities, or wildlife habitats (including surface disturbance 

associated with these efforts) would benefit water resources over 

the long term;
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-173

Table 4-26

Comparison of Water Resources Indicators by Alternative

Indicator

Alternative

A B C D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

Acres managed as ROW

avoidance areas

30,193 132,826 0 260,949 366,045

Acres managed as ROW

exclusion areas

0 233,219 345,560 0 233,2191

Acres found unsuitable for 

surface coal mining

0 284,975 464,178 0 0

Acres closed to nonenergy 

leasing and salable mineral 

disposal

0 284,337 457,774 0 284,3372

Opportunity to restore or 

improve water sources for 

GRSG and their habitat

through range 

management

No change Increase Variablesee analysisIncrease Increase

Opportunity for 

elimination of mosquito 

breeding water conditions

No change Increase Increase Increase Increase

1

PHMA would be exclusion for wind and solar energy only.

2

PHMA would be “open” to free use permits and the expansion of existing active pits if criteria are met.

 The degree of impact attributed to any one disturbance or series of 

disturbances would be influenced by several factors, including 

proximity to drainages and groundwater wells, location within the 

watershed, time and degree of disturbance, reclamation potential of 

the affected area, vegetation, precipitation, and mitigating actions 

applied to the disturbance; 

 Fuels projects as, well as planned and un-planned fire, that 

contribute towards establishment of a more "natural" fire regime 

would have long-term benefits on water quality; and

 Surface-disturbing actions related to fluid mineral development 

would comply with Gold Book surface operating standards (and 

subsequent updates).

4.18.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Management actions could change the quality and accessibility of water features. 

Streams surrounded by poorly functioning riparian habitat do not have sufficient 

vegetation cover, forb diversity, or insect life to provide quality habitat that 

streams with riparian habitat in PFC could. Streams with poorly functioning 

riparian habitats are also more susceptible to stream bank erosion and cutting,

and poorer water quality due to a reduced ability to filter sediments, dissipate 
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

4-174 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

stream energy during high flow periods, and develop diverse ponding and 

channel characteristics to provide the habitat, water depth, duration, and 

temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding and other uses.

Management actions could also increase or decrease the ability of water sources 

to serve as mosquito breeding habitat, which could in turn increase or decrease, 

respectively, the risk of West Nile virus transmission to GRSG.

Surface water quality is influenced by both natural and human factors. Surface 

water quality concerns created by natural conditions are hard to control.

Surface water quality impacts can result from a number of causes, including 

transport of eroded soils into streams due to improperly managed livestock 

grazing, introduction of waste matter into streams from domestic livestock, and 

“low-water” crossing points of roads, routes, and ways used by motorized 

vehicles.

Livestock can cause decreases in water quality through the trampling of soils 

and vegetation along and within natural water features. At the same time, water 

supply structures throughout the landscape that have been established for the 

benefit of livestock also often provide seasonal foraging habitat (succulent forbs, 

grasses, and associated insects) for wildlife.

Mineral development is generally associated with the risk of impairments to 

local surface waters and groundwater. Mineral development disturbs soils and 

can result in increased erosion and contamination of waterways through runoff. 

Mineral development increases the presence of petroleum-using vehicles and 

equipment on the land, and increases the likelihood of chemical spills that can 

sink into the earth and contaminate groundwater. Mineral development can 

result in pools of standing water that can serve as mosquito breeding habitat, 

increasing the ability for West Nile virus to spread into a landscape otherwise 

not at risk to the pathogen.

Travel across land by foot, bicycle, horse or OHV results in vegetation loss and 

soil compaction, which can then lead to soil erosion and increased in sediment 

flow into waterways. Travel by vehicle also increases the presence of 

petroleum-using vehicles and equipment on the land, which increases the 

likelihood of chemical spills that could contaminate surface waters through 

runoff. Management approaches that designate travel to specified routes can 

result in more predictable, localized and manageable impacts. Selectively locating 

travel routes away from areas where water resources exist can minimize the 

extent of these effects.

Most recreation on BLM-administered lands is dispersed recreation associated 

with hunting and includes walking and vehicle use (limited to existing roads and 

trails). Use of this type results in minor amounts of vegetation loss, soil 

compaction, and soil erosion, which would incidentally impact water resources 

by increasing sediment load and chemical contamination. Management 
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-175

approaches that direct recreation to specific areas and avoid dispersed 

recreation can result in more predictable, localized and manageable impacts.

Lands and realty management decisions affect where ground disturbing activities 

can and cannot occur. The use of ROW exclusion and ROW avoidance areas

limit the amount of man-made runoff of soils and chemicals into waterways 

within those areas, and are generally considered to be protective of water 

quality. ROW exclusion and avoidance areas are also seen to reduce the 

likelihood of chemical spills onto the ground, which can then sink into the earth 

and contaminate groundwater.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on water resources and are therefore not discussed in detail: fire and 

fuels management, and ACECs.

4.18.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under all alternatives habitat restoration would occur and would be 

implemented based on environmental variables that indicate areas most likely to 

succeed in restoration and therefore benefit GRSG. Restoring habitat generally 

has a beneficial effect on water quality through the reduction in runoff and 

sedimentation into surface waters. Restoration would include restoring streams 

to PFC, which would increase water quality by propagating proper channel 

widths, water temperatures, transportation of suspended and bedload 

sediments, and stream bank vegetation.

4.18.4 Alternative A

Table 4-27 provides a comparison of the quantifiable aspects of each 

alternative with respect to soils.

Table 4-27

Quantitative Impact Summary by Alternative for Water Resources

Resource Use Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Proposed Plan

Amendment

ROW exclusion 

area (acres)

0 233,219 345,560 0 233,2191

ROW avoidance 

area (acres)

30,193 132,826 0 260,949 366,045

Closed to livestock 

grazing (acres)

0 0 337,165 0 0

Unsuitable for 

surface coal mining 

(acres)

0 284,975 464,178 0 0

Closed to salable 

minerals (acres)

2,538 284,337 457,774 2,538 284,3372
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

4-176 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 4-27

Quantitative Impact Summary by Alternative for Water Resources

Resource Use Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Proposed Plan

Amendment

Closed to 

nonenergy leasing 

(acres)

2,538 284,337 457,774 2,538 284,337

1

PHMA would be exclusion for wind and solar energy only.

2

PHMA would be “open” to free use permits and the expansion of existing active pits if criteria are met.

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Direct impacts on water resources from travel and transportation management 

are discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative A, 

motorized cross country travel would continue to be restricted to existing 

roads and trails throughout the project area on BLM-administered lands, which 

would reduce new soil disturbances and localize further disturbance to existing 

travel routes which would reduce the possibility of additional sediment load or 

chemical contamination into water resources.

Per BLM regulations, temporary area, road, or trail closures for other resources 

would be considered where OHVs are causing, or would cause, considerable 

adverse effects on wildlife and its habitat. Those closures could reduce soil 

disturbances and reduce erosion or contamination.

Impacts from Recreation

Direct impacts, including vegetation loss, soil compaction, and soil erosion, to

water resources from recreation are discussed above under Nature and Type of 

Effects. Under Alternative A, SRPs would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis 

throughout the project area. Management approaches that direct recreation to 

specific areas and avoid dispersed recreation can result in more predictable, 

localized, and manageable impacts. This would result in less vegetation loss, soil 

compaction, and soil erosion from recreation, which could limit sediment load 

into waterways and disturbance to stream banks.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Direct impacts on water resources from ground-disturbing activities related to 

ROW development are discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. 

Alternative A has two ROW avoidance areas and no ROW exclusion areas as 

seen in Table 4-27. The ROW avoidance areas make up 9,708 acres and are 

comprised of the Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC and Judith River Canyon.

Surface-disturbing activities related to ROW development would be restricted 

in the ROW areas, limiting impacts on water resources.

Impacts from Range Management

Direct impacts on water resources from range development are discussed 

above under Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative A, stream bank 

riparian habitat would be improved from unsatisfactory to satisfactory 
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-177

conditions. BLM would maintain PFC of riparian and wetland areas through 

proper livestock grazing systems and methods. Water sources would be 

developed where needed as indicated by allotment monitoring.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Direct impacts, such as impairment of water quality from erosion and chemical 

spills, to water resources from fluid minerals development are discussed above 

under Nature and Type of Effects. It is presumed that water quality has been 

affected in the planning area due to fluid mineral exploration and development. 

It is also presumed that fluid mineral projects have resulted in standing water 

that has provided mosquito breeding habitat and increased the likelihood that 

GRSG could be infected with West Nile virus. Alternative A does not include 

any fluid minerals management actions for the protection of GRSG against West 

Nile virus.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Direct impacts, such as impairment of water quality from erosion and chemical 

spills, to water resources from solid minerals development are discussed above 

under Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative A, 2,538 acres are managed 

as closed to salable mineral disposal (Table 4-27). Alternative A does not 

include any locatable minerals management actions that would protect GRSG

against West Nile virus. Management under Alternative A would allow for coal

exploration and does not identify any portions of the decision area as unsuitable 

or unacceptable for surface mining of coal, and does not provide for the 

withdrawal of lands from mineral entry.

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

Direct impacts on water resources from mineral split estate are the same as 

those discussed above for fluid and solid minerals under Nature and Type of 

Effects. Under Alternative A, lands where the BLM manages the subsurface 

mineral estate, but not the surface, would be administered and managed in each 

phase of mineral extraction to ensure that undue degradation does not occur 

and that final restoration is satisfactory to the surface landowner. Management 

actions would reduce the possibility of man-made erosion, runoff and chemical 

contamination into surface and ground water features.

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

Amendment

Adoption of a Monitoring Framework (see Section 2.7.2 and Appendix B) to 

oversee the implementation and effectiveness of GRSG habitat improvement 

efforts could result in improvement of water resources by reducing soil erosion 

and the introduction of contaminants.
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

4-178 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

4.18.6 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Direct impacts on water resources from travel and transportation management 

are discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under 

Alternative B would provide for protection measures on PHMA, which would 

provide for fewer and more localized disturbances to water resources. In 

PHMA, motorized travel would be limited to existing roads, primitive roads, and 

trails and construction of new routes would be limited to specified needs. 

Construction of new routes or the upgrade of current routes would be limited 

to the realignment of existing designated routes if the realignment would 

eliminate the need for the construction of a new road, is necessary for motorist 

safety, or would have a minimal impact on GRSG habitat. The construction of 

new roads for access to valid existing rights would be limited to a cumulative 

total disturbance of less than three percent of the PHMA, and restricted to the 

minimal road standard necessary, which would reduce overall soil disturbance 

from construction resulting in a reduced possibility of runoff into streams and 

springs.

Travel management would provide for the evaluation of roads and areas for 

permanent or seasonal closures, and for the restoration of travel routes using 

appropriate seed mixes, and possibly transplanted sagebrush which could 

indirectly influence water quality by stabilizing soils and restoring restricted 

areas a natural state.

Like Alternative A, temporary area, road, or trail closures for other resources 

would be considered where OHVs are causing, or would cause, considerable 

adverse effects on wildlife and its habitat. Those closures could reduce soil 

disturbances and erosion, or contamination.

Impacts from Recreation

Direct impacts on water resources from recreation are discussed above under 

Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative B, SRPs in PHMA would only be 

approved when the recreation would have a neutral or beneficial effect on 

PHMA. Such restriction on recreation could reduce impacts on water resources 

from compaction and erosion of soils, and vegetation loss.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Direct impacts on water resources from lands and realty management are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative B, the BLM

would manage PHMA as ROW exclusion areas and GHMA as ROW avoidance 

areas for new land use authorizations. These actions protect a larger portion of 

the decision area from surface disturbing activities and therefore would be more 

protective of water resources than Alternative A (see Table 4-27).
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-179

Impacts from Range Management

Direct impacts on water resources from range development are discussed 

above under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under Alternative B would 

provide greater potential for improvement of water quality sources in riparian

areas and wet meadows with PFC than Alternative A. Unlike Alternative A, 

management under Alternative B would provide the opportunity for improving 

PHMA through new water diversions from springs and seeps. Impacts from 

Alternative B would be of greater benefit than Alternative A through the 

analysis of existing water sources and the implementation of appropriate 

modifications to maintain the continuity of the predevelopment riparian area 

within PHMA. Management under Alternative B would provide GRSG with 

greater protection against West Nile virus than Alternative A through 

implementing RDFs when developing or modifying water developments in 

PHMA.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Direct impacts on water resources from fluid minerals development are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under Alternative 

B would apply conservation measures to PHMA for fluid mineral leasing. These 

measures would include limitations on surface disturbances in PHMA, which 

would decrease the chance for the contamination of surface and ground waters,

and would decrease the likelihood for the creation of new mosquito breeding 

habitat and the risk of infection of GRSG with West Nile virus in these areas.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Direct impacts on water resources from solid minerals development are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative B, the BLM

would find all PHMA as unsuitable for surface mining of coal and would allow

subsurface mining only if associated facilities were located outside of PHMA. 

Management under Alternative B would also provide for withdrawing areas 

from mineral entry within PHMA, and would close PHMA to nonenergy mineral 

leases and salable mineral disposal. This would reduce the chance for the 

contamination of water resources within PHMA, and would reduce the chance 

for forming mosquito breeding habitat and furthering the potential transmission 

of West Nile virus to GRSG. Overall, management under Alternative B would 

be more protective of GRSG with respect to water quality and West Nile virus 

transmission than Alternative A (see Table 4-27).

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

Direct impacts on water resources from mineral split estate would be the same 

as those discussed above for fluid and solid minerals under Nature and Type of 

Effects. On lands where the BLM manages the surface, but not the subsurface 

mineral estate, appropriate fluid mineral RDFs would be applied in PHMA. This 

would protect a greater amount of water resources from manmade runoff, 

sedimentation and chemical contamination, and would reduce the chance for 
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

4-180 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

forming mosquito breeding habitat and furthering transmission of West Nile 

virus to GRSG. 

On PHMA lands where the BLM manages the subsurface split estate, but not the 

surface, the same conservation measures applicable to solid minerals on BLMadministered lands would be applied. This includes closing PHMA to surface coal

mining, nonenergy mineral leases and salable mineral disposal, which would 

reduce the potential for contamination of water resources within PHMA and 

would reduce the chance for forming mosquito breeding habitat and furthering 

the potential transmission of West Nile virus to GRSG.

4.18.7 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Direct impacts on water resources from travel and transportation management 

are discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under 

Alternative C would provide the same measures as Alternative B in PHMA and 

GHMA, which would result in fewer disturbances to water resources than 

under Alternative A. Under Alternative C, the BLM would also prohibit the 

construction of roads within four miles of GRSG leks, would avoid new road 

construction where possible, and would require the mitigation of any impacts 

on GRSG habitat from the construction of new roads or the upgrade of existing 

roads by using measures that have been proven to offset GRSG loss. These 

additional measures would further protect water resources from surfacedisturbing activities.

Like Alternative A, temporary area, road, or trail closures for other resources 

would be considered where OHVs are causing, or would cause, considerable 

adverse effects on wildlife and its habitat. Those closures could reduce soil 

disturbances and erosion, or contamination.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts on water resources from recreation activities would be the same as 

under Alternative A.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Direct impacts on water resources from lands and realty management are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Alternative C would manage 

PHMA and GHMA as ROW exclusion areas for new land use authorizations 

(see Table 4-27). This would protect a larger portion of the decision area from 

surface disturbing activities and therefore would be more protective of water 

resources than Alternative A.

Impacts from Range Management

Direct impacts on water resources from range development are discussed 

above under Nature and Type of Effects. Alternative C would remove livestock 

grazing from PHMA and GHMA totaling 337,165 acres and 69,408 AUMs. This 
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-181

would provide the potential for improved soil and vegetative health, and would 

reduce the amount of fecal coliforms being generated on the landscape that 

could then flow into waterways, and would overall move the landscape toward 

more natural conditions that support clean surface waters. Alternative C would 

improve surface water quality over existing conditions as represented by 

Alternative A.

Alternative C would also provide greater potential for improvement of water 

quality sources than Alternative A by striving to attain reference state 

vegetation relative to ecological site descriptions in riparian areas and wet 

meadows on GHMA and PHMA. Compared with Alternative A, Alternative C 

may limit the BLM in its ability to improve water availability through banning the 

authorization of new water developments through diversions from seeps or 

springs in GRSG habitat. Alternative C would provide GRSG with greater 

protection against West Nile virus than Alternative A through implementing 

RDFs when developing or modifying water developments in PHMA.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Direct impacts on water resources from fluid minerals development are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Alternative C would apply 

conservation measures to both GHMA and PHMA for fluid mineral leasing. 

These measures would include surface use restrictions on existing federal 

leases, which would decrease the chance for the contamination of surface and 

ground waters and would decrease the likelihood for the creation of new 

mosquito breeding habitat and the risk of infection of GRSG with West Nile 

virus in these areas.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Direct impacts on water resources from solid minerals development are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Alternative C would find all 

GHMA and PHMA as unsuitable for surface mining of coal and would allow

subsurface mining only if associated facilities were located outside of PHMA. 

Alternative C would also provide for withdrawing areas from mineral entry

within PHMA, and would close both GHMA and PHMA to nonenergy mineral 

leases and salable mineral disposal. This would reduce the chance for the 

contamination of water resources within PHMA and would reduce the chance 

for forming mosquito breeding habitat and furthering the potential transmission 

of West Nile virus to GRSG. Overall, Alternative C would be more protective 

with respect to water quality and West Nile virus transmission than Alternative 

A (see Table 4-27).

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

Direct impacts on water resources from mineral split estate would be the same 

as those discussed above for fluid and solid minerals under Nature and Type of 

Effects. On lands where the BLM manages the surface, but not the subsurface 

mineral estate, appropriate fluid mineral RDFs would be applied in PHMA and 
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

4-182 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

GHMA. This would protect a greater amount of water resources from 

manmade runoff, sedimentation, and chemical contamination and would reduce 

the chance for forming mosquito breeding habitat and furthering transmission of 

West Nile virus to GRSG.

On PHMA and GHMA lands where the BLM manages the subsurface split 

estate, but not the surface, the same conservation measures applicable to solid 

minerals on BLM-administered lands would be applied. This includes closing 

PHMA and GHMA to surface coal mining, nonenergy mineral leases, and salable 

mineral disposal, which would reduce the potential for would reduce the chance 

for the contamination of water resources within PHMA and GHMA, and would 

reduce the chance for forming mosquito breeding habitat and furthering the 

potential transmission of West Nile virus to GRSG.

4.18.8 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Direct impacts on water resources from travel and transportation management 

are discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under 

Alternative D would be more protective of water resources than Alternative A 

and similar to Alternative B. Management under Alternative D would result in 

additional closures and reclamation of roads, providing for less future 

disturbance and further mitigation of current disturbances of water resources. 

Management under Alternative D would provide for, on a case-by-case basis, 

the reclamation of commercially or administratively used roads upon 

completion of site-specific projects. Roads that were user created and 

unauthorized would also be subject to closure for further restoration. Within 

PHMA, roads may be evaluated for permanent or seasonal closures where offroad vehicles may be causing adverse effects.

Like Alternative A, temporary area, road, or trail closures for other resources 

would be considered where OHVs are causing, or would cause, considerable 

adverse effects on wildlife and its habitat. Those closures could reduce soil 

disturbances and erosion, or contamination.

Impacts from Recreation

Direct impacts on water resources from recreation are discussed above under 

Nature and Type of Effects. Management under Alternative D would be more 

protective of soils than Alternative A in that SRPs on PHMA would only occur if 

the recreation would have a neutral or beneficial effect on PHMA. This would 

result in less disturbance GRSG habitat which would prevent impacts on water 

resources from runoff and stream bank erosion.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Direct impacts on water resources from lands and realty management are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Under Alternative D, the BLM 

would manage PHMA as a ROW avoidance area for all land use authorizations 
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-183

(including wind energy). GHMA would also be managed as a ROW avoidance 

area for wind energy (see Table 4-27). Impacts on water resources from 

construction could be reduced by restricting development in ROW avoidance 

areas. Other ROW authorizations in GHMA would be authorized with 

appropriate mitigation and conservation measures, which would reduce the 

potential for effects of construction on water resources. Management under 

Alternative D would provide for more protection than Alternative A.

Impacts from Range Management

Direct impacts on water resources from range development are discussed 

above under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under Alternative D would 

provide similar potential for improvement of water quality as Alternative A.

Riparian-wetland habitats would be managed for PFC and the desired plant 

community, thereby mitigating many nonpoint source pollutants. Unlike 

Alternative A, management under Alternative D would provide the opportunity 

for improving PHMA through new water diversions from springs and seeps. 

Management under Alternative D would provide GRSG with greater protection 

against West Nile virus than Alternative A through implementing RDFs when 

developing or modifying water developments in PHMA.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Direct impacts on water resources from fluid minerals development are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Similar to Alternative B, 

conservation measures would be applied to provide greater protection of GRSG

from West Nile virus than Alternative A through managing water developments 

to reduce the spread of the virus within GRSG habitat areas, and through 

minimizing or avoiding surface disturbance.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Direct impacts on water resources from solid minerals development are 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Management under Alternative 

D, as with Alternative A, would manage 101 acres of PHMA and 2,437 acres of 

GHMA as closed to salable mineral disposal. Management under Alternative D 

does not include any locatable minerals management actions that would protect 

GRSG against West Nile virus (see Table 4-27). Management under 

Alternative D would allow for coal exploration and does not identify any 

portions of the decision area as unsuitable or unacceptable for surface mining of 

coal, and does not provide for the withdrawal of lands from mineral entry.

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

Direct impacts on water resources from mineral split estate would be the same 

as those discussed above for fluid and solid minerals under Nature and Type of 

Effects. As with Alternative A, Alternative D, would manage lands where the 

BLM manages the subsurface mineral estate but not the surface each phase of 

mineral extraction to ensure that undue degradation does not occur and that 

final restoration would be satisfactory to the surface landowner. Management 
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

4-184 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

actions would reduce the total surface disturbance and protect soils from 

unnecessary compaction, erosion, and vegetation loss which would protect 

surface waters from additional runoff and sedimentation, as well as chemicals 

from mineral extraction.

4.18.9 Proposed Plan Amendment

Impacts from GRSG Management

The Proposed Plan Amendment would incorporate additional GRSG 

management, including adaptive management, regional mitigation, density and 

disturbance caps, and lek buffers. If an adaptive management hard trigger 

response was met, PHMA would be the top priority for regional mitigation, 

habitat restoration, and fuels reduction treatments. These actions could offer 

incidental protection for water resources by maintaining or restoring vegetation 

and by limiting vegetation disturbance in certain areas. As described in Nature 

and Type of Effects, this could reduce erosion of soils into waterbodies.

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative B.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts would be similar to Alternative D. In addition, the Proposed Plan 

Amendment would limit the construction of new recreational facilities, which 

may further protect water resources from potential runoff. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Impacts from ROW management would be similar to those described under 

Alternative D. However, under the Proposed Plan Amendment, both PHMA and 

GHMA would be ROW avoidance areas for high-voltage transmission lines and 

large pipelines (366,045 acres) with limited exceptions, while PHMA would also 

be minor ROW avoidance areas for minor ROWs. In addition, PHMA would be 

ROW exclusion areas, and GHMA would be ROW avoidance areas for wind 

and solar energy. These measures could offer an increased level of protection of 

water resources from disturbance and habitat loss designation, as described 

under Nature and Types of Effects.

Impacts from Range Management

Impacts from the Proposed Plan Amendment would be similar to Alternative A 

with respect to the number of AUMs available and the acreage open for grazing, 

resulting in the same impacts on soils (see Table 4-27). In addition, under the 

Proposed Plan Amendment, the BLM would prioritize the review and processing 

of grazing permits/leases in PHMA, particularly in areas not meeting Land Health 

Standards. Together, these measures would help to improve soil, vegetation,

and water resource conditions throughout the planning area and would have a 

beneficial incidental impact on water resources, as described under Nature and 

Type of Effects.
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-185

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Impacts from fluid minerals management would be similar to those described for 

Alternative D. However, additional restrictions on geophysical exploration 

within PHMA would be proposed. Therefore, these measures would have a 

beneficial incidental impact on water resources due to reductions in soil and 

vegetation disturbance in the planning area from exploration.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

The BLM would determine coal suitability on a case-by-case basis as leases or 

lease modifications are submitted. Currently, there is no coal potential in the 

planning area. Therefore, no impacts on water resources are expected from 

coal management.

The Proposed Plan Amendment would provide additional protections on water 

resources in the planning area by closing nonenergy leasable mineral leasing and 

new mineral material sales. These closures would reduce the potential for soil 

erosion/runoff and contamination of waterbodies from mineral activities, as 

described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from locatable minerals management would be similar to those 

described under Alternative D. SFAs (53,440 acres) would be recommended 

for withdrawal. As discussed under Section 4.9, there is no known locatable 

mineral potential in GRSG habitat, so no effect from locatable minerals is 

anticipated.

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

Direct impacts on water resources from mineral split estate are the same as 

those discussed above for fluid and solid minerals under Nature and Type of 

Effects. The Proposed Plan Amendment would manage lands in PHMA or 

GHMA with sub-subsurface federal mineral estate through each phase of 

mineral extraction using RDFs and COAs, which would reduce the total surface 

disturbance and protect water resources from unnecessary contamination, 

compaction, erosion, and vegetation loss.

4.19 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES – OTHER SPECIES OF ISSUE

4.19.1 Methods and Assumptions

Although data on known locations and habitats within the planning area are 

available, the data are neither complete nor comprehensive concerning all 

special status species known to occur nor potential habitat that might exist. 

Known and potential special status species and habitat locations were 

considered in the analysis; however, the potential for species to occur outside 

of these areas was also considered and, as a result, some impacts are discussed 

in more general terms. See Section 4.3 for a discussion of impacts on GRSG.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-186 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Indicators

Table 4-28 provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the 

effects on special status species under each alternative.

Table 4-28

Comparison of Special Status Species-Other Species of Issue Indicators by 

Alternative

Indicator

Alternative

A B C D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

ROW exclusion areas

(acres)

0 233,219 345,560 0 233,2191

ROW avoidance areas 

(acres)

30,193 132,826 0 260,949 366,045

Acres closed to 

livestock grazing

0 0 337,165 0 0

Available AUMs 69,408 69,408 0 69,408 69,408

1 Wind and solar energy development would be excluded in PHMA.

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

 The travel and transportation management analysis of impacts on 

special status species has an assumed road width of 10 feet. This 

width is an overestimate for two track roads and an underestimate 

for two-lane roads. Additionally, the existing route data are not 

surface management specific, it includes all ownerships.

 The exclusion or removal of livestock in grazing allotments as 

proposed in Alternative C would eventually require the installation 

of fences. In the short term, reduced grazing could lead to an

accumulation of fuels thus increasing the risk of fire. In the long

term, more fencing would be installed within the decision area that 

could lead to an increase habitat fragmentation, reducing the 

connectivity for animal movement across the decision area and 

limiting access to resources.

 Direct and indirect effects of reduced ROWs for each alternative 

within the ROW avoidance and exclusion areas were analyzed using 

data from BLM-administered land only. Potential increased 

development of ROWs on land not administered by the BLM would 

increase habitat fragmentation and increase the likelihood of 

spreading noxious weeds in these areas.

 Impacts on special status species would be more significant than 

impacts on common species because population viability is already 

uncertain for special status species.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-187

 Short-term effects would occur over a timeframe of two years or 

less and long-term effects would occur over longer than two years. 

4.19.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Habitat loss, competition, predation, disease, and other factors are causes of 

species decline and imperilment. Habitat loss or modification due to human 

activity is the greatest threat to ecosystems, particularly for species adapted to 

specific ecological niches. BLM land management practices are intended to 

sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of BLM-administered lands for the 

use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

Impacts on special status species would primarily result from surface-disturbing 

activities, such as construction of roads and facilities, construction of barriers 

and fences, resource extraction, cross-country motorized travel, wildfires, 

wildfire suppression, erosion, unauthorized collection or poaching, and 

trampling. Direct and indirect impacts on special status species result from 

surface-disturbing activity that alters habitats or disruptive activities that disturb 

animals. Without mitigation, surface-disturbing and disruptive activities can 

cause the flowing impacts on special status species: 

 Violation of the ESA, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or applicable state laws or BLM 

regulations (e.g., BLM Manual 6840 and related IMs)

 Harm, harassment, or adverse effects on any federally listed 

threatened or endangered species or federally proposed or 

candidate species

 Destruction or deterioration of federally listed threatened or 

endangered species’ or federally proposed or candidate species’ 

habitat, migration corridors, breeding areas, or designated or 

proposed critical habitat

 Decreased population viability or contribution to the need for a 

federal listing of any federal candidate species or BLM sensitive 

species

 Loss of habitat function or habitat value in BLM sensitive species

habitats

All federal actions would comply with ESA consultation requirements. All 

implementation actions would be subject to further special status species review 

before site-specific projects are authorized or implemented. Federal protections 

and BLM policy protecting threatened, endangered, and sensitive species are 

considered methods for reducing the potential impacts from permitted 

activities. If adverse impacts were identified, mitigation measures would be 

implemented to minimize or eliminate the impacts, or in some cases project 

authorization could be denied. However, even with the above administrative 

processes, not all impacts could be avoided.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-188 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Types of Impacts—Special Status Wildlife Species

Special status wildlife habitats on BLM-administered lands within the decision 

area would be affected under all alternatives, and the condition of habitats is 

directly linked to vegetation conditions, water quality and quantity, and 

progression towards land health standards (Section 4.5, Vegetation (Including 

Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands), and Section 4.18, Water 

Resources).

The decision area provides a wide variety of habitat vegetation types for special 

status wildlife species across multiple ownerships (Table 3-3 and Table 3-4). 

Nearly 170,000 acres within BLM-administered PH or PHMA consists of 

sagebrush followed by 4,807 acres of mixed-grass prairie. In BLM GH or 

GHMA, 44,698 acres consists of sagebrush and 8,377 acres of mixed-grass 

prairie. Special status species that occupy these dominant habitat types within 

PH/PHMA and GH/GHMA would be the most affected by changes to habitat

caused by the following three types of disturbances: 1) disturbance from casual 

use; 2) disturbance from permitted activities; and 3) changes to habitat 

conditions.

Disturbance from Casual Use

Substantial analysis and planning is used to determine the locations and types of 

casual use activities that would occur, such as recreation, motorized vehicle use, 

and use of authorized and unauthorized routes. However, these uses are not 

subject to site-specific environmental review and monitoring requirements, and 

impacts on habitats or species would not be apparent until after change has 

occurred. Examples of impacts on special status wildlife from casual use include 

habitat modifications, fragmentation, or degradation; mortality or injury of 

animals; sedimentation of waterways; increased turbidity; decreased water 

quality; disturbance to species during sensitive or critical periods in their life 

cycle such as nesting or denning; short-term displacement; and long-term habitat 

avoidance by species that are sensitive to noise or human presence such as 

raptors. Some species may adapt to disturbances over time and could 

recolonize disturbed habitats. Conversely, changes to these habitats may 

promote the expansion of other species from adjacent habitats or the spread of 

invasive weeds. While no lands within the decision area are designated open to 

motorized travel, impacts would still occur in areas limited to designated routes 

due to noise disturbance, human presence, potential for weed spread and 

habitat modification, and the potential for injury or mortality to wildlife from 

vehicle collisions.

Both short-term loud noise (such as from vehicles or construction) and longterm low-level noise (such as from oil and gas development) have been 

documented to cause physiological effects on multiple wildlife species, including 

increased heart rate, altered metabolism, and hormones changes, foraging and 

antipredator behavior, reproductive success, density, and community structure 

(Radle 2007; Barber et al. 2009a). In addition, noise can impact wildlife species,
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-189

including mammals and birds, by disrupting communication and environmental 

cues (FHA 2011). 

Determining the effect of noise is complicated because different species and 

individuals have varying responses, and certain species rely more heavily on 

acoustical cues than others (Radle 2007; Barber et al. 2009b). Impacts would be 

both short term and long term, depending on the type and source of noise. 

On-site management of recreation and motorized activity and designation and 

closure of travel routes could prevent or reduce impacts on habitat. Seasonal 

closure of routes would prevent impacts on species during sensitive or critical 

times of the year, such as during winter or birthing. 

Disturbance from Permitted Activities

Permitted, surface-disturbing activities (e.g., mineral exploration and 

development and ROW authorizations) would result in short-term direct 

impacts through mortality, injury, displacement, and noise or human disturbance 

caused by increased vehicle traffic and use of heavy machinery. Displacement of 

species could increase competition for resources in adjacent habitats or 

promote the expansion of species from adjacent habitats. Over the long term, 

these activities would remove and fragment habitats due to road development 

and use, facility construction and placement, creation of well pads and pipelines, 

and construction within ROWs. Species could avoid developed areas over the 

long term, or may adapt and recolonize sites after construction. ROW

exclusion areas would eliminate habitat impacts on BLM-administered lands 

from infrastructure development activities, but they could shift impacts to 

private lands in the same vicinity. ROW avoidance areas could concentrate 

infrastructure development on non-BLM-administered lands which would 

decrease direct impacts from ROW developments on special status species on 

federal lands but could increase indirect impacts on those species on non-BLMadministered lands.

Bird mortality and injury could occur from collision or electrocution with 

transmission lines and other ROW structures. Similar development in areas 

where there are existing ROWs would reduce impacts, since resident birds may 

have adapted to the existing ROWs. COAs such as requiring flight diverters or 

following Avian Power Line Interaction Committee guidelines would be applied 

to new ROW authorizations to reduce impacts. Wind energy may also cause 

direct impacts on birds and bats, including blade strikes, barotrauma (injury or 

mortality caused by rapid or excessive pressure changes), habitat loss, and 

displacement. Indirect impacts may include introduction of invasive vegetation 

that may result in altered fire cycles, degraded land health conditions and habitat 

fragmentation.

Changes to Habitat Conditions

Changes to habitat conditions could occur from vegetation and weed

treatments; livestock grazing; GRSG habitat enhancements; fire; fuels 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-190 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

treatments; and range improvements. Overall, the BLM would aim to achieve or 

make significant progress toward achieving Rangeland Health Standard 5: 

Biodiversity, which would maintain and/or restore habitat values for wildlife. 

Over the short term, vegetation, fire, and weed treatments would alter habitat

for existing species, and impacts would occur until the desired habitat was 

established. Over the long term, vegetation and habitat treatments would 

increase habitat structural and compositional diversity, increase cover and 

nesting habitat, prevent sedimentation of waterways, and retain riparian and 

wetland habitats. Depending on the extent and severity, fire can improve habitat 

for some species in the long term.

Wildlife species that use grazing habitat can benefit from properly managed

livestock grazing. These benefits to wildlife include providing sustainable, 

diverse, and vigorous mixtures of native vegetation for forage and habitat,

control of noxious weeds in areas where they are present, reduced fuel 

accumulations, protection of intact sagebrush habitat, and increased habitat 

extent and continuity (NRCS 2011). If managed improperly, overutilization of 

forage by livestock could lead to increased competition with wildlife for forage, 

and potentially reduced cover and nesting habitat for birds and small mammals. 

Livestock could also spread weeds into new habitats, which would degrade 

habitat. Special status wildlife could be displaced from their habitats, which could 

increase competition for resources in adjacent habitats. These impacts would 

vary depending on the extent of removal, type of vegetation impacted, and 

length of the grazing period. In general, the more acres that are open to grazing 

under a given alternative, the greater the risk for impacts. Livestock may also 

degrade riparian areas, which could impact riparian-dependent, aquatic species.

The complete closure of BLM-administered lands to grazing may reduce the 

impacts from livestock grazing on special status species; however, this action 

could significantly increase fencing requirements and therefore, impacts from 

habitat fragmentation would also increase. Additionally, the closure of BLMadministered lands to livestock grazing could lead to an increase in numbers of 

livestock foraging on non-BLM-administered lands, thus increasing impacts on

special status species on those lands.

Unplanned fire ignitions could cause short- or long-term damage to habitats 

depending on the vegetation type affected, extent, and severity of the fire. In the 

short term, fire removes forage, nesting, and habitat cover and leaves bare areas 

that provide little habitat value. Sagebrush destroyed by fire takes years to 

become reestablished and could lead to long-term reductions in available habitat 

for sagebrush obligate special status species. Grasses can recover more quickly 

from wildfire; therefore, special status species that inhabit grasslands could have 

an increase in available habitat in the short term. 

Further, fire could displace species from suitable habitat, which could increase 

competition for resources in adjacent habitats. In the long term, wildland and 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-191

prescribed fires, as well as fuels treatments, improve habitat by increasing 

structural diversity. Often, fire and fuels treatments lower the risk for an 

uncharacteristically large or severe wildfire that would destroy a large acreage 

of wildlife habitats. For additional information on the effects of wildland fire on 

sagebrush habitat see Section 4.3.2, Nature and Type of Effects.

Management actions that restrict surface-disturbing activities would reduce 

impacts such as habitat removal, fragmentation, and human disturbance. Such 

management actions include measures to protect GRSG; closure of areas to 

mineral leasing and development; ROW avoidance and exclusion areas; areas 

recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry; restrictions within ACECs; 

and route closure or restrictions.

Criteria would be used to guide land exchanges, disposals, and acquisitions, 

which could reduce the fragmentation of BLM-administered land in the planning 

area. This could improve the BLM’s ability to implement management actions 

that would result in improved habitats, undisturbed wildlife populations, and 

attainment of land health standards. However, lands identified for disposal could 

cause fragmentation and habitat loss if the disposed land is converted to other 

uses, such as agriculture or residential or industrial development.

Types of Impacts—Special Status Plant Species

Based on the 2014 BLM sensitive species list (see Appendix L), there are no 

special status plant species within the planning area.

4.19.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Determination of Effects

Based on Black-footed ferret, Canada lynx, and Pallid Sturgeon descriptions 

discussed in Section 3.20.1, 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, because 1) there is no lynx Critical 

Habitat or occupied habitat that occurs in any PHMA or GHMA in the planning 

area; 2) no prairie dog colonies occur in the planning area on PHMA or GHMA

of sufficient size to support black-footed ferrets; and 3) no active GRSG leks or 

PHMA occur near the Missouri River (where pallid sturgeon occur) for the 

planning area.

4.19.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

BLM-administered lands are designated limited yearlong for motorized wheeled 

vehicles which are restricted to existing roads and trails. The BLM would 

minimize or prevent road and trail development on crucial big game and upland 

bird habitat areas. Road and trail areas may be closed to off-road vehicles where 

harm to wildlife or habitat is occurring. These policies would protect special 

status species as described in Nature and Type of Effects.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-192 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Ecological impacts would likely continue from roads and motorized trails include 

mortality due to collisions, behavior modifications due to noise, activity or 

habitat loss, alteration of physical environment, leaching of nutrients, erosion, 

spread of invasive plants, increased use, and alteration by humans due to 

accessibility.

Impacts from Recreation

Under Alternative A, the BLM would implement limited recreation management. 

Recreational use may result in human disturbance, degradation of habitat, or 

mortality, as described in Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative A, ROWs outside of the ROW avoidance areas and WSAs

are considered on a case-by-case basis. As a result, human disturbance- and 

infrastructure-related impacts described above in Nature and Type of Effects

would continue. There is a current policy to collocate grants when possible. 

This would reduce impacts on some special status species by reducing the 

extent of new disturbance. A total of 9,708 acres of habitat would continue to 

be managed as a ROW avoidance area which would protect special status 

species habitat (Table 4-29). GHMA and PHMA ReGAP Class 3 habitat 

composition details, including associated acreages for each alternative, are 

described in Section 4.1. There would be no ROW exclusion areas within the 

planning area.

Land tenure adjustments would be subject to current disposal/acquisition 

criteria in the Headwaters Resource Management Plan (BLM 1984) and Judith 

Resource Area Resource Management Plan (BLM 1994). This could include

retaining important wildlife habitat as well as nesting and breeding habitat for 

game animals, which would benefit special status species. This would reduce the 

likelihood of habitat conversion to agriculture, urbanization, or other uses that 

would remove habitat.

Impacts from Range Management

Livestock grazing would continue to be managed through development and 

monitoring of AMPs, or similar grazing plans. Methods and guidelines from the 

Headwaters Resource Management Plan (BLM 1984) and Judith Resource Area 

Resource Management Plan (BLM 1994) would be followed to maintain 

ecological conditions, enhance vegetation production, maintain and enhance 

wildlife habitat, during implementation of grazing regimens. Livestock use would

be adjusted by changing the kind or class of livestock, the season of use, or 

distribution patterns if necessary to maintain the ecological conditions 

objectives. Monitoring would be used to maintain the effectiveness of these 

practices. As discussed in the Assumptions section above, grazing practices could

have negative, neutral or positive effects on special status species. Impacts from 

grazing as described under Nature and Types of Effects would continue under 

Alternative A.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-193

Table 4-29

Non-BLM Acreage, GHMA, and PHMA within Right-of-way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas by Alternative (Acres)

Non-BLM1 Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Proposed Plan

Amendment

GHMA PHMA Avoidance2 Neither3 Avoidance4 Exclusion5 Neither3 Exclusion6 Neither3 Avoidance7 Neither3 Avoidance8 Exclusion9

902,694 974,775 9,919 335,852 112,341 233,219 0 345,560 0 233,219 112,341 366,032 233,219

Source: BLM 2012a

1 – Non-BLM acreage includes state lands, privately owned land, and other lands not managed by BLM.

2 – Alternative A avoidance acreage represents existing protective habitat within BLM-administered lands.

3 – Represents BLM-administered lands outside of the avoidance and exclusion areas.

4 – Alternative B avoidance acreage is equal to GHMA.

5 – Alternative B exclusion acreage is equal to PHMA.

6 – Alternative C exclusion acreage is equal to GHMA + PHMA.

7 – Alternative D avoidance acreage is equal to PHMA.

8 – Proposed Plan Amendment avoidance acreage is equal to PHMA + GHMA + Alternative A Avoidance Area.

9 – Exclusion is for solar and wind energy development ROWs within PHMA.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-194 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Riparian habitats would be managed to achieve PFC, maintain desired plant 

community or wildlife habitat, improve watershed conditions, and comply with 

the Clean Water Act. Grazing systems would consider riparian impacts, 

including seasonal avoidance of riparian zones, encouraging livestock to 

congregate away from riparian areas, or fencing-off riparian areas. Restricting 

livestock from riparian areas would benefit riparian vegetation health and 

therefore positively impact special status species.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative A, fluid mineral leasing and development would continue on 

previously leased lands. Development in these areas would continue to impact 

special status species by surface disturbance and occupancy, as described under 

Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Prior to approving coal exploration licenses or prospecting permits for 

nonenergy leasable minerals, project-specific environmental review would be 

required to assess impacts on resources and develop mitigation measures. 

Surface occupancy is generally prohibited within key wildlife areas, floodplains 

and ROWs. No known coal resources are located in the management area.

Therefore, no impacts are expected from coal.

For locatable minerals, RDFs would be applied to the extent consistent with 

applicable law to prevent unnecessary degradation would apply to the proposed 

Plan of Operations. The BLM would review these plans in withdrawn areas and 

would consider purchasing claims where activities threaten resource values, 

such as special status species and their habitat. Prospecting permits would be 

issued for nonenergy leasable minerals after environmental review of impacts 

and development of mitigation measures. Salable minerals contracts would be 

issued where disposal is deemed to be in the public interest while providing for 

reclamation of mined lands and preventing unnecessary impacts on nonmineral 

resources. Solid minerals management could improve other special status 

species habitat in the decision area. Impacts from surface disturbance and 

changes in habitat, as described under Nature and Type of Effects, would 

continue.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Prescribed burning may be used in support of resource management objectives, 

such as restoring grassland or shrubland, reducing conifer encroachment, or 

increasing age-class variety. The intention of prescribed burning is to improve 

wildlife habitat and vegetation production. Sagebrush treatments would be

designed to maintain sagebrush within the canopy at 15 to 50 percent and to 

increase succulent forbs. 

Chemical weed treatments (herbicide) may also be applied following prescribed 

burns to limit the expansion of weeds or invasive species in the burned area. A 

minimum rest period from livestock grazing of two growing seasons would be 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-195

required after major vegetative disturbance, such as re-seeding. Rest periods 

following wildfire or controlled burn would be determined on a site-specific 

basis.

Intensive wildfire suppression would be applied to high-value areas, such as 

sagebrush areas, fire-sensitive woody riparian areas, and commercial forests. 

Current fire management practices within the decision area would not reduce

impacts on special status species as described under Nature and Type of Effects.

In some instances, habitat for some special status species would be lost to fire,

while other habitats would be protected from fuels management.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Grazing methods, land treatments and other improvements would be designed 

to accomplish habitat restoration objectives. Surface-disturbing activities greater 

than 0.25 acre require rehabilitation. Normally, native species would be used for 

re-seeding surface disturbances, unless nonnative species would better provide 

habitat stabilization. The BLM would manage for the benefit of succulent 

vegetation, forbs, and maintenance of big and silver sage in GRSG habitat areas.

These improvements would also affect special status species associated with 

sagebrush ecosystems. Sagebrush obligate populations would trend upward in 

the long term, while special status grassland species would likely decline.

Impacts from ACECs

Under Alternative A, the BLM would not designate any additional ACECs and 

therefore would not provide additional protection to other special status 

species’ habitats through ACEC management.

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

Amendment

Adoption of a Monitoring Framework (see Section 2.7.2 and Appendix B) to 

oversee the implementation and effectiveness of GRSG habitat improvement 

efforts would facilitate and expedite the necessary management responses to 

improve and protect sagebrush and GRSG habitats. Indirectly, these protections 

would maintain or improve habitat for other sagebrush obligates and associates 

in PHMA and GHMA such as Brewer’s sparrow, sagebrush sparrow, and sage 

thrasher. Managing PHMA and GHMA for more shrub habitats would reduce 

habitat suitability for grassland associates such as chestnut-collared longspur and 

long-billed curlew.

4.19.6 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Actions to limit motorized vehicles to existing roads and trails would continue 

until travel management planning is completed. Planning would evaluate roads in 

PHMA for permanent or seasonal closure. Route construction in PHMA would 

be limited to realignments of existing roads or would be built or upgraded to 

minimum standards necessary. This would reduce impacts from disturbance, 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-196 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

habitat changes, and mortality on other special status species in these areas. The 

surface disturbance to vegetation associated with road-building would be part of 

the three percent maximum disturbance for that area. If closures were applied, 

the impacts from roads on special status species described in the Nature and 

Type of Effects section would be reduced in these areas.

Like Alternative A, road and trail areas may be closed to off-road vehicles 

where harm to wildlife or habitat is occurring. These policies would protect 

special status species, as described in Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Recreation

To protect GRSG, SRPs would be issued in PHMA only where the effects of the 

recreational use were neutral or beneficial to GRSG habitat. This action would 

reduce impacts, such as human disturbance, degradation of habitat, or mortality,

from recreation as described under the Nature and Type of Effects for special 

status species that occur in PHMA.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

ROW exclusion areas (233,219 acres) for PHMA would be established and 

could reduce impacts from disturbance and habitat changes as described under 

Nature and Type of Effects for other special status species that occur in these 

areas (Table 3-3). Additionally, ROW avoidance areas (112,341 acres) would 

be included for GHMA under Alternative B (Table 4-29). See Table 3-4 for a 

description of vegetation types within GH that would be included as ROW 

avoidance areas However, due to the large aerial extent and variety of 

ownerships (non-BLM) within PHMA (974,735 acres) and GHMA (899,659 

acres), impacts from development on other special status species would still 

continue to occur on lands outside of BLM jurisdiction.

Public ownership would be retained in PHMA, with exceptions for increasing 

contiguous federal ownership patterns within PHMA, and in areas with effective 

mitigation or conservation easement for disposal of federal land. State or private 

lands may be acquired to enhance GRSG conservation value of existing federal 

lands. Ownership changes might positively or negatively impact special status 

species, depending on the proposed use of the land, as described under Nature 

and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative B, the number of acres open or closed for grazing and 

available AUMs would be the same as Alternative A. As described under Nature 

and Types of Effects, impacts from grazing would occur, including changes to 

habitat conditions.

Permit renewals and AMPs would be used to incorporate GRSG habitat 

objectives into grazing allotments. NEPA analysis of grazing permit renewals 

would include specific objectives to restore and improve GRSG habitat, and 

include an alternative that achieves this objective. Planning efforts would identify 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-197

allotments where retirement of permitted grazing uses is potentially beneficial

to special status species habitat.

In PHMA, management would promote vegetation composition and structure 

consistent with GRSG habitat objectives. Grazing management actions, such as 

numbers or type of livestock, season of use or distribution may be considered 

to meet GRSG habitat objectives. Following drought periods, PHMA would be 

managed to allow for vegetation recovery. Wet meadows and riparian areas in 

PHMA would be managed to maintain forbs, edge cover, and species richness to 

facilitate GRSG brood rearing. Seasonal restrictions on livestock grazing would 

be used to reduce pressure on riparian vegetation used by GRSG in summer. 

Modifications to water developments would be considered to maintain 

continuity of riparian areas within PHMA. This management could benefit other 

special status species that depend on these habitats.

Vegetation treatments to increase forage for livestock would only be allowed in 

PHMA if they conserve or enhance GRSG habitat. Structural range 

improvements would be designed to improve GRSG habitat through improved 

grazing management. Existing structural range improvements (e.g., fences) would 

be modified to minimize strikes on GRSG. Existing improvements and project 

planning for new improvements would reduce impacts described under Nature 

and Type of Effects for other special status species that occur in these areas.

However, sensitive grassland species may have reduced habitat as a result of 

GRSG habitat enhancements.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

The BLM would implement limitations on exploration within PHMA, which 

would reduce impacts on special status species and their habitats from 

exploration and development of fluid minerals (i.e., mortality, injury, 

displacement, noise or human disturbance, and habitat loss and fragmentation). 

RDFs and conservation measures would be applied as COAs on existing federal 

leases, limiting surface occupancy within PHMA, imposing seasonal restrictions, 

and restricting surface disturbance to three percent of the area. 

Impacts from Solid Minerals

All surface mining of coal would be found to be unsuitable in PHMA. Subsurface 

leases would be allowed if all surface facilities were placed outside PHMA. In 

existing lease areas, surface facilities would be located outside PHMA, or 

collocated in existing disturbed areas to the extent possible. In GHMA, surface 

disturbances would be minimized during activity level planning. Currently there 

is no coal potential in the management area. Therefore, no impacts are 

expected from coal.

For locatable minerals, areas in PHMA would be proposed for withdrawal from 

mineral entry based on risk to GRSG habitat. Existing claims would be subject 

to validity examination, mitigation would be applied to claims, and RDFs would 

be applied to the extent consistent with applicable law.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-198 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

PHMA would be closed to nonenergy leasable mineral leasing and to salable 

mineral disposal. RDFs would be applied to existing leases and restoration to 

any existing salable mineral pits. These proposed limitations would minimize 

impacts from surface disturbance and changes in habitat, as described under 

Nature and Type of Effects for other special status species that occur in these 

areas.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

The approach to prescribed burning would be as described under Alternative A.

Fuels treatments would be designed and implemented with an emphasis on 

promoting sagebrush. Sagebrush canopy would not be reduced below 15 

percent unless required for fuels management objectives, and seasonal 

restrictions would be applied to fuels management. Rest periods would be 

required and invasive species controlled, with native seeds utilized for treatment 

wherever possible, including for emergency stabilization projects. Climate 

change potential would be considered in selection of seeding for restoration. 

Grazing livestock would be considered as an option to reduce fuel load. 

Fire suppression would prioritize GRSG habitat in PHMA and GHMA, after life 

and property, and RDFs would be followed. These restrictions would minimize 

impacts described under Nature and Type of Effects for other special status 

species that occur in these habitats. Together these actions would reduce the 

effects from wildfire. However, suppression over large areas could allow for 

fuels to build up and could lead to a large-scale fire over the long term.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Within the analysis area, vegetation treatments would continue to be used to 

achieve resource management objectives and considered for the protection of 

sagebrush ecosystems. Implementation of restoration efforts would be 

prioritized based on the proposed benefit to GRSG. Habitat restoration would 

attempt to meet GRSG habitat parameters as the highest priority. Native seed 

would be used for restoration unless precluded; climate change potential would 

be considered in selection of seeding for restoration. Sagebrush seed harvest 

areas may be established in areas prone to fire. Vegetation treatments and 

sagebrush ecosystem restoration efforts would minimize impacts on special 

status species in these areas, as described under Nature and Type of Effects. This 

would improve habitat for other special status species that use the same habitat 

as GRSG.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would the same as under Alternative A.

4.19.7 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

New road construction would be prohibited within four miles of active leks and

avoided in PHMA and GHMA. Road construction would be limited to 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-199

realignments of existing routes in PHMA, if the realignment has minimal impact 

on GRSG habitat. No upgrading (e.g., paving of primitive roads) of existing 

routes would be allowed unless necessary for safety or to avoid construction of 

a new road. When roads or trails are closed, re-seeding would be done with 

native seed mixes and transplanted sagebrush would be required. All additional

impacts would be the same as under Alternative B. Prohibiting or limiting road 

construction in the decision area would minimize impacts on special status 

species in these areas, as described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Recreation

As under Alternative A, the BLM would continue to manage the area for 

dispersed recreation opportunities, such as hunting, camping, biking, and hiking; 

therefore, no protection would be provided to other special status species’ 

habitats. Impacts would be similar to Alternative A.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

PHMA would be ROW exclusion areas (345,560 acres). No ROW avoidance 

areas would be established. Designation of PHMA and GHMA as a ROW 

exclusion area would improve protection of other special status species on 

BLM-administered lands from disturbance and habitat loss, as described under

Nature and Type of Effects. Because of the current ownership patterns in PHMA

(974,735 acres), the ROW exclusion areas proposed under Alternative C could 

increase habitat fragmentation on land not administered by the BLM. See 

Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for a description of vegetation types in PHMA and GHMA

that would be designated ROW exclusion and avoidance areas respectively.

As under Alternative B, public ownership would be maintained in PHMA, but 

without the exceptions provided under that alternative. Private lands, when 

offered, may be acquired in ACECs to enhance GRSG conservation value of 

existing lands. Adding lands to ACECs would enhance protection of special 

status species in these areas.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative C, 337,165 acres of grazing lands would be removed within 

PHMA and GHMA, and would include the removal of 103,806 AUMs. This 

action would likely reduce the impacts from grazing as stated under the Nature 

and Type of Effects section. However, grazing practices contribute to noxious 

weed control efforts and grazing reduces fuels. Therefore, removing grazing 

could allow for noxious weeds to spread and fuels to accumulate, leading to an 

increase in wildfire risk in special status species habitat. Unplanned fire ignitions 

could lead to long-term reductions in the availability of sagebrush habitat. This 

could lead to a short-term increase in habitat for grassland special status 

species, including Sprague’s pipit, as described in Nature and Type of Effects. For a 

detailed list of species associated with sagebrush or grasslands habitat refer to 

Appendix L.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-200 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

In addition, not allowing grazing on BLM-administered lands could substantially

increase fencing to avoid trespassing from private lands onto BLM-administered 

lands. This would result in over 3,400 miles of fencing and would both increase 

and decrease habitat quality described above. However, it would further 

fragment the landscape.

An indirect impact from excluding livestock grazing from BLM-administered

lands is the potential conversion of adjacent private grazing lands to agriculture 

or other land uses in the planning area, including development. This is especially 

a concern in areas with a mosaic of ownership boundaries, which would 

decrease available habitat for special status species that inhabit rangeland 

outside of BLM-administered lands.

The complete exclusion of grazing from PHMA and GHMA would also eliminate 

the need for maintaining nearly 90 percent of stock water in the long term. A 

minimum amount of stock water ponds would be maintained for other wildlife 

management on BLM-administered lands in the planning area. Special status 

amphibians, shorebirds and waterfowl, and aquatic invertebrates that depend on 

stock water would decrease. The substantial reduction in stock water in GRSG 

habitat on BLM-administered lands under Alternative C would not likely

decrease the risk of mosquito-borne diseases due to land ownership patterns 

and stock water remaining on land not administered by the BLM.

No new water diversions from seeps or springs would be permitted within 

GRSG habitat. Modifications to water developments, including dismantling, 

would be considered to maintain continuity of riparian areas within GRSG

habitat. This management could benefit other special status species habitat.

However, dismantling human modifications within PHMA could remove manmade wetlands and riparian areas. Water developments in PHMA would use 

RDFs to mitigate potential impacts from West Nile virus.

Treatments would only be allowed in PHMA if they demonstrably benefit GRSG

habitat. Existing seedings in PHMA that are primarily introduced grasses would

be considered for restoration to sagebrush. Treatment plans must include pretreatment data, nongrazing enclosures, and long-term monitoring. Soil cover and 

native herbaceous cover would be maintained in GRSG habitat. This 

management could benefit other special status species habitat.

Existing structural range improvements (e.g., fences) would be evaluated to 

ensure they conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat. Fences may be 

modified or removed to minimize strikes on GRSG. Existing improvements and 

project planning for new improvements would consider the potential for 

invasive species. The potential range management actions proposed in 

Alternative C would decrease the impacts described under Nature and Type of 

Effects for special status species in these areas.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-201

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Exploration within PHMA would be permitted to obtain information for 

adjacent areas. Only helicopter-portable drilling methods would be allowed for 

geophysical operations in PHMA, according to seasonal timing restrictions. No 

exploration would be conducted in habitat areas during their season of use by 

GRSG. As under Alternative B, RDFs and conservation measures would be 

applied as COAs on existing federal leases, limiting surface occupancy within 

PHMA and GHMA, imposing seasonal restrictions to exploratory drilling, 

including vehicle traffic and other human activity, restricting surface disturbance 

to three percent of the area, and making RDFs mandatory as COA.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Impacts from all actions on other special status species would be as described 

under Alternative B.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Vegetation treatments within the decision area may be used in support of 

resource management objectives, given special consideration for the protection 

and maintenance of sagebrush ecosystems. Fuels treatments would be designed 

and implemented with an emphasis on promoting sagebrush ecosystems. 

Sagebrush canopy would not be reduced below 15 percent unless fuels 

management objectives required it, and seasonal restrictions would be applied 

to fuels management. Evaluate the benefits of the fuel break in the NEPA

process versus the additional loss of sagebrush cover. These treatments could 

benefit special status species habitat.

Fuels treatments would not be allowed in winter range unless the treatment is 

designed to reduce wildfire risk and maintain habitat quality in the winter range. 

Establishing proper fire control lines and adequate preparation would be used in 

any fuel reduction project. Vegetation treatment plans would include 

pretreatment data, nongrazing exclosures, and long-term monitoring. These 

treatments could benefit special status species habitat.

The approach for fire suppression and emergency stabilization projects would 

be as described under Alternative B. Additional policies make efforts to assure 

availability of native seed, to establish grazing exclosures where possible to 

assess recovery post-fire, and exclude livestock from burned areas until GRSG

habitat objectives are met. These restrictions would minimize impacts described 

under Nature and Type of Effects for other special status species that occur in 

these areas. While this would reduce the likelihood of impacts from livestock 

on habitat and species, it could also allow for fuels to build up and could 

increase the likelihood of a large fire that would destroy special status species 

habitat.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

The approach is as described under Alternative B, with additional measures to 

prioritize restoration in seasonal habitats thought to be limiting GRSG and 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-202 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

where factors causing degradation (e.g., livestock management) have already 

been addressed. In addition, native vegetation community composition and 

function would specifically provide for recovering GRSG habitat. Existing areas 

of exotic plant seedings would be interseeded and restored to recover 

sagebrush in order to expand occupied habitat. Vegetation treatments and 

sagebrush ecosystem restoration would minimize impacts on special status 

species that occupy these areas, as described under Nature and Type of Effects.

As a result, a greater area of habitat would be improved for some special status 

species.

Impacts from ACECs

ACECs to protect GRSG would be designated as sagebrush reserves on 97,762 

acres. Vegetation within areas designated as ACECs would benefit from 

increased management attention to environmental resources in these areas.

4.19.8 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

In addition to measures described under Alternative A, a travel management

plan would be developed and would designate public roads and trails. Roads in 

PHMA would be evaluated for permanent or seasonal closure. Upon completion 

of projects, site-specific roads would be reclaimed unless the route provided 

specific public access benefits. Route construction would be limited to 

realignments that have minimal impact, as described under Alternatives B and C. 

Upgrading of existing roads would be allowed when there is minimal impact on

GRSG habitat. Restoration of roads not designated in travel management plans 

would occur as described under Alternative B. Prohibiting or limiting road 

construction in the decision area would minimize direct and indirect impacts on 

special status species in these areas as described under Nature and Type of 

Effects.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative B.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

PHMA would be ROW avoidance areas (233,219 acres), and PHMA and GHMA

would be ROW avoidance areas for wind energy development. New 

authorizations would be collocated within existing disturbance areas or where 

impacts on GRSG and habitat are minimized. Authorizations would be allowed 

in GHMA with appropriate mitigation measures. These measures could offer an 

increased level of protection from disturbance and habitat loss than Alternative 

A.

Retired ROWs would be reclaimed by restoring habitat, which would benefit 

special status species and their habitat. Power lines would be removed or buried 

where feasible within PHMA, but this would be on a very limited basis. Burying 

power lines would cause short-term surface disturbances but would reduce 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-203

long-term impacts for other special status species. Leases and permits for 

agricultural and other uses would be considered on a case-by-case basis, with 

PHMA a ROW avoidance area. In GHMA leases would be allowed with 

appropriate mitigation measures. 

Public land withdrawals would not be recommended within habitat areas unless 

land management would include GRSG conservation measures. Public 

ownership would be maintained in PHMA, except where land exchange would 

provide a greater benefit to GRSG. Ownership changes would reduce impacts 

described under Nature and Type of Effects for other special status species that 

occur in these areas.

Impacts from Range Management

Within PHMA, the BLM would conduct land health evaluations and 

determinations that include (at a minimum) indicators and/or measurements of 

structure/condition/composition of vegetation specific to achieving GRSG 

habitat objectives. Management actions would be developed if land health 

determinations indicate that an allotment is not meeting standards due to 

current livestock grazing. State objectives would be used for fine-scale analysis 

unless local objectives are developed at the field office level, in partnership with 

MFWP and USFWS. This management action could benefit other special status 

species that occupy GRSG habitat.

Under Alternative D, there would be no change to the acreage open for grazing 

or available AUMs: currently, 337,165 acres in the decision area are open for 

livestock grazing, with 103,806 available AUMs. Impacts from grazing on habitat 

are described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Integrated ranch planning and land health assessments would be used as 

described under Alternative B. Allotments that have the best opportunities for 

GRSG habitat conservation, enhancement, or restoration would be high 

priorities for evaluation and management. Lands would be managed for 

vegetation composition consistent with ecological potential to achieve GRSG

habitat objectives. If an effective grazing system meeting GRSG habitat objectives 

is not in place, the permit renewal process would examine at least one 

alternative to restore this habitat. This management could benefit other special 

status species that occupy GRSG habitat. Drought issues would continue to be 

managed under Montana/Dakotas drought policy (Appendix I).

Wet meadows and riparian areas in PHMA would be managed to maintain forbs, 

edge cover, and species richness to facilitate GRSG brood rearing. Seasonal 

restrictions on livestock grazing would be used to reduce pressure on riparian 

vegetation used by GRSG in summer. New water diversions from seeps or 

springs would be authorized only when PHMA would benefit from the 

development. Modifications to water developments would be considered to 

maintain continuity of riparian areas within PHMA. Reservoirs and stock ponds 

with riparian and wetland characteristics would be managed to support wildlife 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-204 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

to the extent possible, with consideration given to the original purpose of the 

development. This management could benefit other special status species that

occupy wet meadow and riparian habitat.

Vegetation treatments to increase forage for livestock would prioritize 

restoration of sagebrush steppe as budgets allow; sagebrush treatments would 

be justified for GRSG or other sensitive species and would be analyzed in 

subsequent NEPA documents. Vegetation treatments to increase forage for 

livestock would only be allowed in PHMA if they conserve or enhance GRSG

habitat. Allowances would be made for treatments with negative short-term 

effects but overall long-term benefits.

Existing seedings in PHMA that are primarily introduced grasses would be 

considered for restoration to sagebrush, as described under Alternatives B and 

C. Appropriate monitoring would be established to evaluate success of the 

treatments. Structural range improvements would be designed to improve 

GRSG habitat as described under Alternative B.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

As under Alternative B, conservation measures would be applied as COAs on 

existing federal leases. The conditions would minimize noise, traffic, and other 

disturbance associated with mineral extraction. These measures would likely 

result in minor impacts on special status species, compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

The planning area would be available for coal exploration licensing; prior to 

licensing environmental review would be conducted to assess impacts and 

develop mitigation measures. Currently, there is no coal potential in the 

planning area. Therefore, no impacts are expected from coal.

Locatable minerals development would be managed as described under 

Alternative A. Prospecting for nonenergy leasable minerals would be permitted 

after appropriate environmental review with assessment of impacts and 

mitigation. Mineral pits would be restored as described under Alternative B. 

These actions would have minimal impacts on special status species.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fuels management would be designed and implemented as described in 

Alternative C, but would also include additional specific parameters governing 

selection of sites for prescribed burns. Invasive vegetation would be monitored 

and controlled post-burn, and livestock grazing deferral evaluated on a case-bycase basis.

Fire suppression would be prioritized, RDFs applied, ES&R procedures would be 

as described in Alternative B. Additional provisions would be implemented to 

protect vegetation to benefit GRSG in fire-prone areas. Together these actions 

would reduce the effects from wildland fire. However, suppression over large 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-205

areas could allow for fuels to build up and could lead to a large fire in the long 

term. For fuels management, livestock grazing would be considered for fuel 

reduction efforts as described under Alternative B. These actions would 

minimize impacts on other special status species that occupy GRSG habitat.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

As described under Alternative B, habitat restoration would give special 

emphasis to protection of sagebrush ecosystems in designing vegetation 

treatments. Prioritization would occur as described under Alternative B, with 

emphasis given to other sensitive and listed species in addition to GRSG. 

Restoration projects would strive to meet GRSG habitat objectives for projects 

in PHMA, but those objectives would not be the highest priority as under 

Alternatives B and C. Restoration design seed mixes, landscape patterns and 

changes to grazing would be as described under Alternative B. However, this 

alternative includes management direction that other restoration projects may 

take precedence over sagebrush projects based on funding requirements, 

landowner cooperation, future ESA listings, and other factors. These actions 

would minimize impacts on other special status species, as described under 

Nature and Type of Effects, and would provide more protection for special status 

species and GRSG, compared to Alternatives B and C.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A.

4.19.9 Proposed Plan Amendment

Impacts from GRSG Management

The Proposed Plan Amendment would incorporate additional GRSG 

management, including adaptive management, regional mitigation, density and 

disturbance caps, and lek buffers that could improve and protect sagebrush and 

GRSG habitats. Indirectly these protections would maintain or improve habitat 

for other sagebrush obligates and associates in PHMA and GHMA such as 

Brewer’s sparrow, sagebrush sparrow, and sage thrasher. Managing PHMA and 

GHMA for more shrub habitats would reduce habitat suitability for grassland 

associates such as chestnut-collared longspur and long-billed curlew.

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative D.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative B. The Proposed 

Plan Amendment would provide additional incidental protections, as described 

under Nature and Type of Effects, for some special status species by limiting 

construction of new recreation facilities to those that provide a GRSG “net 

conservation gain” or are required for public health and safety or resource 

protection.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-206 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Impacts from ROW management would be similar to those described for 

Alternative D. However, under the Proposed Plan Amendment, both PHMA and 

GHMA would be ROW avoidance areas for high-voltage transmission lines and 

large pipelines (345,560 acres) with limited exceptions, while PHMA would also 

be ROW avoidance areas for minor ROWs. In addition, PHMA would be ROW 

exclusion areas, and GHMA would be ROW avoidance areas for wind and solar 

energy. RDFs would be applied to further reduce impacts. These measures 

could offer an increased level of protection from disturbance and habitat loss as 

described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Land tenure adjustments would have impacts similar to Alternative D. Under 

the Proposed Plan Amendment, public ownership would be maintained in both 

PHMA and GHMA, except where land exchange would provide a net 

conservation gain to GRSG or if there would be no direct or indirect adverse 

impact on conservation of GRSG. These measures would provide increased 

incidental protection to other special status species in the planning area by 

maintaining intact habitat.

Impacts from Range Management

Impacts from range management would be similar to those described for 

Alternative D. In addition, under the Proposed Plan Amendment, the BLM 

would prioritize the review and processing of grazing permits/leases in PHMA, 

particularly in areas not meeting Land Health Standards. RDFs would be 

implemented to reduce impacts when developing or modifying water

developments in GRSG habitat. GRSG Habitat Objectives identified as 

Objective SS-1.4, would be incorporated into the land health assessments. 

Together, these measures would help to improve and protect habitat quality 

throughout the planning area, thereby having incidental impacts on special status 

species. 

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative D.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

The BLM would determine coal suitability on a case-by-case basis as leases or 

lease modifications are submitted. Currently, there is no coal potential in the 

planning area. Therefore, no impacts on special status species are expected 

from coal management.

The Proposed Plan Amendment would provide additional protections on special 

status species and habitat in the planning area by closing nonenergy leasable 

mineral leasing and new mineral material sales. These closures would reduce the 

potential disturbance of special status species and habitats from mineral 

activities, as described under Nature and Type of Effects.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-207

Impacts from locatable minerals management would be similar to those

described under Alternative D. SFAs (53,440 acres of PHMA) would be 

recommended for withdrawal. As discussed under Section 4.9, there is no 

known locatable mineral potential in GRSG habitat, so no effect from locatable 

minerals is anticipated.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts from fire and fuels management would be similar to those described for 

Alternative D. In addition, Burn Plans would be required to meet the four 

criteria under the Proposed Plan Amendment if prescribed fire is used in GRSG 

habitat. This would provide additional protections to special status species 

habitat by reducing risks from use of prescribed fire.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts from habitat restoration and vegetation management would be similar 

to those described for Alternative D. The Proposed Plan Amendment also 

specifies management objectives for vegetation, and encroaching conifers would 

be removed from sagebrush habitats. This could impact other special status 

species occurring in these areas by removing potential nesting habitat for 

species such as Ferruginous hawks and improving and maintaining habitats for 

sagebrush associates such as Brewer’s sparrows.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A.

4.20 FISH AND WILDLIFE

4.20.1 Methods and Assumptions

Methods of Analysis

Impacts on wildlife and their habitats include the following:

 Disturbance or changes to plant communities, food supplies, cover, 

breeding sites, and other habitat components necessary for any 

species to a degree that would lead to substantial population changes.

 Disturbance or changes in seasonally important habitat (e.g., critical 

for overwintering or successful breeding) to a degree that would 

lead to substantial population changes.

 Interference with a species movement pattern that decreases the 

ability of a species to breed or overwinter successfully to a degree 

that would lead to substantial population changes.

Impacts specific to aquatic species and their habitats include the following:
4. Environmental Consequences (Fish and Wildlife)

4-208 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

 Sediment and Turbidity. Increased sediment loading in waters 

containing sediment-intolerant species, loss of recruitment, stress, 

habitat alteration, and habitat loss.

 Habitat Alteration. Changes in habitat that make it nonfunctional for 

select species or more conducive to competitive species.

 Loss or Reduction of Streamside Vegetation and Cover. Increased 

temperatures, stress, reduced productivity, and impacts on food 

webs.

 Water Quality Alteration. Actions that alter important water quality

parameters, including pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, hardness, 

alkalinity/salinity, and turbidity.

 Water Depletions. Loss of physical habitat, changes in water quality, 

sediment accumulation, habitat alteration, loss of habitat complexity, 

or food source reduction.

 Potential direct mortalities to aquatic wildlife from motorized travel.

Indicators

Table 4-30 provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the 

effects on wildlife species under each alternative.

Table 4-30

Comparison of Wildlife Species Indicators by Alternative

Indicator

Alternative

A B C D

Proposed Plan

Amendment

ROW exclusion areas (acres) 0 233,219 345,560 0 233,2191

ROW avoidance areas (acres) 30,403 132,826 0 260,560 366,045

Acres closed to livestock grazing 0 0 337,165 0 0

Available AUMs 103,806 103,806 0 103,806 103,806

1 Wind and solar energy development would be excluded in PHMA.

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

 The travel and transportation management analysis of impacts on 

wildlife species has an assumed road width of 10 feet. This width is 

an overestimate for two track roads and an underestimate for twolane roads. Additionally, the existing route data are not surface 

management specific, it includes all ownerships.

 The exclusion or removal of livestock in grazing allotments would 

eventually require that fences be installed. In the short term,

reduced grazing could lead to an increase in fire issues. In the long

term, more fencing could be installed within the decision area that 

could lead to an increase habitat fragmentation, reducing the 
4. Environmental Consequences (Fish and Wildlife)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-209

connectivity for animal movement across the decision area and 

limiting access to resources. Alternative C could result in the 

greatest increase in fencing in order to exclude both PHMA and 

GHMA from grazing.

 Direct and indirect effects of reduced ROWs for each alternative 

within the avoidance and exclusion areas were analyzed using data 

from BLM-administered land only. Potential development of ROWs 

on land not administered by the BLM would increase habitat 

fragmentation and increase the likelihood of spreading noxious 

weeds in these areas.

 Short-term effects would occur over a timeframe of two years or 

less and long-term effects would occur over longer than two years. 

4.20.2 Nature and Type of Effects

As discussed in Section 3.21, Fish and Wildlife, implementation of any of the 

alternatives would result in general and unquantifiable indirect beneficial effects 

for fish in terms of greater protection through new restrictions on surface and 

resource use resulting in reduced opportunities for surface disturbance or 

habitat disruption where they exist. Therefore, general fish species will not be 

discussed further in Chapter 4.

Similar to Section 4.19, Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue, wildlife 

habitats on BLM-administered lands would be affected under all alternatives

within the decision area. The condition of habitats is directly linked to 

vegetation conditions, water quality and quantity, and progression towards land 

health standards (see Sections 4.1 and Section 4.1).

Changes to wildlife and their habitats would be caused by the following three 

types of disturbances: 1) disturbance from casual use; 2) disturbance from 

permitted activities; and 3) changes to habitat conditions. Detailed descriptions 

of each disturbance type are provided in Section 4.19.2, Nature and Type of 

Effects. General impacts on wildlife are provided for each disturbance type 

below.

Disturbance from Casual Use

Casual use activities are not subject to site-specific environmental review and 

monitoring requirements, and impacts on habitats or species would not be 

apparent until after damage has occurred. Wildlife impacts from casual use 

include habitat loss, fragmentation, or degradation; mortality or injury of 

animals; sedimentation of waterways; increased turbidity; decreased water 

quality; disturbance to species during sensitive or critical periods in their life 

cycle such as spawning, nesting, or denning; short-term displacement; and longterm habitat avoidance by species that are sensitive to noise or human presence 

such as raptors.
4. Environmental Consequences (Fish and Wildlife)

4-210 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Noise affects many wildlife species physiologically in a variety of ways, as 

described in Section 4.19.2. Generally, noise impacts would be both short

term and long term, depending on the type and source.

Some species may adapt to disturbances over time and could recolonize 

disturbed habitats. While no lands within the decision area are designated open 

to motorized travel, impacts would still occur in areas limited to designated 

routes due to noise disturbance, human presence, potential for weed spread 

and habitat degradation, and the potential for injury or mortality to wildlife from 

vehicle collisions. On-site management of recreation and motorized activity and 

designation and closure of travel routes could prevent or reduce impacts. 

Seasonal closure of routes would prevent impacts on species during sensitive or 

critical times of the year, such as during winter or birthing.

Disturbance from Permitted Activities

Impacts from permitted, surface-disturbing activities, as described in Section 

4.19.2, would result in short-term direct impacts on wildlife through mortality, 

injury, displacement, and human disturbance. Long-term impacts would remove 

and fragment habitats due to the development and use of human infrastructure 

and development. Species could avoid developed areas over the long term or 

may adapt and recolonize sites after construction. ROW avoidance and 

exclusion areas would reduce or avoid habitat impacts and could reduce the 

total acreage of habitat disturbance and fragmentation.

Changes to Habitat Conditions

Wildlife could be impacted from changes to habitat from treatments or 

enhancement, changes in livestock grazing, and range improvements. The BLM 

would aim to achieve or trend toward achieving Rangeland Health Standard 5: 

Biodiversity, which would maintain or restore habitat values for wildlife. See 

Section 4.19.2 for general short-term and long-term descriptions of potential 

impacts on wildlife habitat from grazing, fire and fire treatment, and 

modifications to the management of surface-disturbing activities. 

4.20.3 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Management would protect habitat and reduce impacts on wildlife species,

similar to the affects described in Section 4.19.4, Alternative A. Road and trail 

areas may be closed to off-road vehicles where harm to wildlife or habitat is 

occurring. These policies would protect special status species, as described in 

Nature and Type of Effects. In addition to these effects, the BLM would minimize 

or prevent road and trail development on crucial big game and upland bird 

habitat under this alternative. Roads and trails may be closed to OHVs where 

wildlife or habitat is being harmed.
4. Environmental Consequences (Fish and Wildlife)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-211

Impacts from Recreation

The BLM would continue managing for dispersed recreation under Alternative 

A. Recreational use may result in human disturbance, degradation of habitat, or 

mortality, as described in Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Habitat loss and human-related disturbance effects on wildlife from development 

in ROWs are similar to Section 4.19.4, Alternative A.

Impacts from Range Management

Livestock grazing could have negative, neutral, or positive effects on wildlife 

species, as discussed in the Assumptions section above. Effects on wildlife from 

current grazing practices would continue, as described in Section 4.19.4. 

Management goals within riparian habitats would be set to achieve PFC, to

maintain desired plant community or wildlife habitat, to improve watershed

conditions, and to comply with the Clean Water Act. Grazing systems would

consider riparian impacts, including seasonal avoidance of riparian zones, 

encouraging livestock to congregate away from riparian areas, or fencing-off 

riparian areas. Restricting livestock from riparian areas would improve riparian 

vegetation health and would therefore provide more suitable habitat for wildlife 

species.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Fluid mineral leasing and development would continue on previously leased 

lands and would continue to affect wildlife, as described under Section 4.19.4.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

There are no known coal resources in the planning area, so there would be no 

impacts from coal development. Surface occupancy is generally prohibited within 

key wildlife areas, floodplains, and public ROWs. Solid minerals management 

could improve habitat in the decision area, as described in Section 4.19.4.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Current fire management and suppression within the decision area would likely

reduce effects on wildlife, in ways similar to the impacts described in Section 

4.19.4.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Management to improve succulent vegetation, forbs, and big and silver sage

maintenance in GRSG habitat areas would increase habitat availability for 

sagebrush obligate species. However, these improvements would reduce habitat 

for grassland species.

Impacts from ACECs

No additional ACECs would be designated under Alternative A, so no additional 

protection for wildlife habitats would occur.
4. Environmental Consequences (Fish and Wildlife)

4-212 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

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

Amendment

Adoption of a Monitoring Framework (see Section 2.7.2 and Appendix B) to 

oversee the implementation and effectiveness of GRSG habitat improvement 

efforts would facilitate and expedite the necessary management responses to 

improve and protect sagebrush and GRSG habitats. Indirectly, these protections 

would maintain or improve habitat for other sagebrush obligates and associates 

in PHMA and GHMA such pronghorn, mule deer, and sharp-tailed grouse. 

Managing PHMA and GHMA for more shrub habitats would reduce habitat 

suitability for grassland associates, primarily migratory birds not identified as 

special status species.

4.20.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Motorized vehicles would continue to be limited to existing roads and trails 

until travel management planning is completed. Roads in PHMA would be 

evaluated for permanent or seasonal closure. Route construction in PHMA

would be limited to realignments of existing roads, built or upgraded to 

minimum standards necessary. Approximately 12,937 acres of overlapping 

wildlife habitat for a number of big game including deer, elk, antelope, big horn 

sheep, and moose as well as upland species including Hungarian partridge, 

pheasant, other grouse species inhabit the proposed PHMA. An additional 3,839 

acres of winter range habitat for big game species would be included in the 

proposed PHMA. GHMA include 11,520 acres of wildlife habitat and 2,878 acres 

of winter habitat. Surface disturbances to vegetation associated with roadbuilding would be part of the disturbance cap for that area. Road closures would 

reduce the impacts on wildlife species described in Section 4.19.2.

Like Alternative A, road and trail areas may be closed to off-road vehicles 

where harm to wildlife or habitat is occurring. These policies would protect 

wildlife, as described in Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Recreation

SRPs would be issued in PHMA only where the effects of the recreational use 

were neutral or beneficial to GRSG habitat. This action would reduce impacts 

from recreation as described in Section 4.19.2 for those wildlife species that 

inhabit PHMA.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

PHMA would be managed as ROW exclusion areas (233,219 acres). These areas 

would reduce impacts described in Section 4.19.2 for those wildlife species 

that occupy these areas.

Ownership changes described in Section 4.19.6, Alternative B, could improve 

or degrade wildlife species and habitat, depending on the proposed use of the 

land.
4. Environmental Consequences (Fish and Wildlife)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-213

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative B, the number of acres open and closed for grazing and 

available AUMs would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts from grazing 

described in Section 4.19.2 would continue under Alternative B. Existing 

improvements and project planning for new range improvements would reduce 

impacts described under Nature and Type of Effects for those wildlife species that 

inhabit rangeland. Enhancement to increase GRSG habitat may increase available 

habitat for sagebrush obligates but reduce habitat for grassland species.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Limitations on exploration within PHMA would reduce impacts on wildlife 

species and their habitats, as described in Section 4.19.6. RDFs and 

conservation measures would be applied as COAs to existing fluid mineral

leases within PHMA, restricting surface occupancy, imposing seasonal 

restrictions, and restricting surface disturbance to three percent of the area. 

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Currently there is no coal potential in the management area, so there would be 

no impacts from coal development. PHMA would be closed to nonenergy

leasable minerals and to salable mineral disposal. RDFs would be applied to 

existing leases, and existing salable mineral pits would be restored. Together, 

these proposed limitations on solid mineral development would minimize the

impacts described in Section 4.19.2 for those wildlife species that occupy

these areas.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Under Alternative B, fire and fuels treatments would be managed, as described 

under Alternative A. Fire suppression would prioritize GRSG habitat in PHMA

and GHMA, after life and property, and RDFs would be followed. These actions

would minimize impacts described in Section 4.19.2 for those wildlife species 

that inhabit PHMA and GHMA.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Within the analysis area, vegetation treatments would continue to be used to 

achieve resource management objectives and would be considered to protect

sagebrush ecosystems. Restoration would be prioritized based on the proposed 

benefit to GRSG. In general, vegetation treatments and sagebrush ecosystem 

restoration would increase habitat for sagebrush obligates but would reduce 

grassland habitat, understory habitat, and habitat for species associated with 

adjacent encroaching conifers.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A.
4. Environmental Consequences (Fish and Wildlife)

4-214 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

4.20.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

New road construction would be prohibited within four miles of active leks and 

avoided in PHMA and GHMA. Road construction would be limited to 

realignments of existing routes in PHMA, if the realignment has minimal impact 

on GRSG habitat. Prohibiting or limiting new road construction in the decision 

area would minimize impacts on wildlife species in these areas, as described in 

Section 4.19.2.

Like Alternative A, road and trail areas may be closed to off-road vehicles 

where harm to wildlife or habitat is occurring. These policies would protect 

wildlife, as described in Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Recreation

As under Alternative A, the BLM would continue to manage the area for 

dispersed recreation, such as hunting, camping, biking, and hiking; therefore, no 

protection would be provided to wildlife species’ habitats. Impacts would be

similar to Alternative A.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

PHMA would be managed as ROW exclusion areas (345,660 acres) and no 

ROW avoidance areas would be established. ROW exclusion areas would 

improve protection of wildlife species as described in Section 4.19.2. Private 

lands, when offered, may be acquired in ACECs to enhance GRSG conservation 

value of existing lands. Adding lands to ACECs would enhance protection of 

wildlife species in these areas.

Impacts from Range Management

Grazing would be would be removed on allotments within PHMA and GHMA

(337,165 acres, comprising 69,408 AUMs) under Alternative C. Impacts from 

grazing on wildlife species, as described in Section 4.19.2, would be reduced. 

However, the potential for more fine fuels to accumulate as a result of 

decreased grazing could increase wildland fires. In the long term, sagebrush 

habitat availability could be reduced, but grasses and habitat for grassland 

species could increase. The total exclusion of grazing in PHMA and GHMA

would also eliminate the need for maintaining nearly 90 percent of stock water 

in the long term. 

A minimum amount of stock water ponds would be maintained for other 

wildlife management on BLM-administered lands in the planning area. 

Amphibians, shorebirds and waterfowl, and aquatic invertebrates that depend 

on stock water would decrease. The substantial reduction in stock water in 

GRSG habitat on BLM-administered lands under Alternative C would not likely 

decrease the risk of mosquito-borne diseases due to land ownership patterns 

and stock water remaining on land not administered by the BLM. Additional 
4. Environmental Consequences (Fish and Wildlife)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-215

impacts wildlife species from changes in range management under Alternative C 

are similar to those described in Section 4.19.7, Alternative C.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Fluid minerals management would apply RDFs and conservation measures as 

COAs to existing leases. This would limit surface occupancy within PHMA and 

GHMA, would impose seasonal restrictions on exploratory drilling, including 

vehicle traffic and other human activity, and would restrict surface disturbance 

to three percent of the area. Seasonal surface limitations would decrease 

impacts on wildlife species that inhabit PHMA and GHMA, as described in 

Section 4.19.2.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Impacts from all actions on wildlife species would be the same as described 

under Alternative B.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fuels treatments would not be allowed in winter range unless the treatment is 

designed to reduce wildfire risk and maintain habitat quality in the winter range. 

Proper fire control and adequate preparation work would be used in any fuel 

reduction project. Vegetation treatment plans would include pretreatment data, 

nongrazing exclosures, and long-term monitoring.

Fire suppression and emergency stabilization projects would be as described 

under Alternative B and would result in similar effects on wildlife species.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Actions would be the same as under Alternative B. There would be additional 

measures to prioritize restoration in seasonal habitats thought to be limiting 

GRSG and where factors causing degradation have already been addressed. 

Vegetation treatments and sagebrush ecosystem restoration would increase 

available habitat for sagebrush obligates; however, grassland species habitat or 

species that inhabit encroaching conifers would likely decline.

Impacts from ACECs

ACECs to protect GRSG would be designated as sagebrush reserves in PHMA, 

consisting of 4,000-acre blocks of BLM-administered land, covering 96,246 acres. 

However, no additional protections would occur for GRSG or habitat that 

could reduce impacts on wildlife habitat with an ACEC designation since all 

conservation measures would be applied to both PHMA and GHMA under 

Alternative C.

4.20.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Prohibiting or limiting road construction in the decision area would minimize 

direct and indirect impacts on wildlife, as described in Section 4.19.2. Impacts 
4. Environmental Consequences (Fish and Wildlife)

4-216 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

on wildlife habitat from this proposed action are similar to those described for 

other special status species under Section 4.19.8, Alternative D.

Impacts from Recreation

The actions proposed under this alternative are similar to Alternative B. SRPs 

would be issued only in habitat areas where the effects of recreation were 

neutral or beneficial to GRSG habitat. This action would reduce impacts from 

recreation described in Section 4.19.2 for wildlife species that occupy PHMA.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Management actions proposed under this alternative could increase the

protection of wildlife, compared to those provided under Alternatives B and C,

by minimizing disturbance on the landscape (taking ownership patterns and 

private lands into account). Public ownership would be maintained in PHMA, 

except where land exchanges would provide a greater benefit to GRSG.

Ownership changes would reduce impacts described in Section 4.19.2 for 

wildlife species that inhabit PHMA.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative D, there would be no change to the acreage open for grazing 

or available AUMs. Currently, 337,165 acres in the decision area are open for 

livestock grazing, with 69,408 available AUMs. Within PHMA, the BLM would 

conduct land health evaluations and determinations that include (at a minimum) 

indicators and/or measurements of structure/condition/composition of 

vegetation specific to achieving GRSG habitat objectives. Management actions 

would be developed if land health determinations indicate that an allotment is 

not meeting standards due to current livestock grazing. State objectives would 

be used for fine-scale analysis unless local objectives are developed at the field 

office level, in partnership with MFWP and USFWS.

Wet meadows and riparian areas in PHMA would be managed by the LFO to 

maintain forbs, edge cover, and species richness to facilitate GRSG brood 

rearing. Seasonal restrictions on livestock grazing would reduce pressure on 

riparian vegetation used by GRSG in summer. New water diversions from seeps 

or springs would be authorized only when PHMA would benefit from the 

development. Modifications to water developments would be considered to 

maintain continuity of riparian areas within PHMA. Reservoirs and stock ponds 

with riparian/wetland characteristics would be managed to support wildlife to 

the extent possible, with consideration given to the original purpose of the 

development.

Vegetation treatments to increase forage for livestock would only be allowed in 

PHMA if they conserve or enhance GRSG habitat. Allowances would be made 

for treatments with negative short-term effects but overall long-term positive 

impacts. Structural range improvements would be designed to improve GRSG

habitat, as described under Alternative B. The proposed actions described 

under Alternative D require adjustments to grazing management if current 
4. Environmental Consequences (Fish and Wildlife)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-217

livestock grazing is a causal factor in an allotment not meeting land health 

standards and would provide range enhancements to benefit GRSG. Sagebrush 

obligate species within PHMA would increase habitat quantity and quality under 

Alternative D.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

During implementation review, conservation measures would be applied in 

conformance with the approved RMP and a list of constraints and RDFs applied 

as COA to leases. The conditions are designed to minimize noise, traffic, and 

other disturbance associated with mineral extraction. These limited measures to 

reduce disturbance would likely have minimal impact on wildlife species 

compared to current practices.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

As there is no coal potential in the planning area, there would be no impacts 

from coal development. Locatable minerals development would be managed as 

described under Alternative A. Mineral pits would be restored as described 

under Alternative B. These actions would have minimal impacts on wildlife 

species.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fuels management would be designed and implemented as described in 

Alternative C. Fire suppression would be prioritized, RDFs would be applied, 

and ES&R procedures would be as described under Alternative B. Additional 

provisions would be implemented to protect vegetation to benefit GRSG in 

areas susceptible to fire. Livestock grazing would be considered for fuel 

reduction, as described under Alternative B. These actions would minimize 

impacts on sagebrush obligate species.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative D, habitat restoration would give special emphasis to 

protecting sagebrush ecosystems in designing vegetation treatments, similar to 

the actions proposed under Alternative B. Prioritization would occur as 

described under Alternative B, with emphasis given to other sensitive and listed 

species, in addition to GRSG. Restoration projects would strive to meet GRSG

habitat objectives for projects in PHMA, but those objectives would not be the 

highest priority, as under Alternatives B and C.

This alternative includes the caveat that other restoration projects may take 

precedence over sagebrush projects, based on such factors as funding 

requirements, landowner cooperation, and future ESA listings. Compared to

Alternatives B and C, the actions proposed under Alternative D would provide 

more protection for wildlife habitat that overlap with other special status 

species’ and GRSG habitat.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would the same as under Alternative A.
4. Environmental Consequences (Fish and Wildlife)

4-218 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

4.20.8 Proposed Plan Amendment

Impacts from GRSG Management

The Proposed Plan Amendment would incorporate additional GRSG 

management, including adaptive management, regional mitigation, density and 

disturbance caps, and lek buffers that could improve and protect sagebrush and 

GRSG habitats. Indirectly, these protections would maintain or improve habitat 

for other sagebrush obligates and associates in PHMA and GHMA such as 

pronghorn, mule deer, and sharp-tail grouse. Managing PHMA and GHMA for 

more shrub habitats would reduce habitat suitability for grassland associates, 

primarily migratory birds not considered special status species.

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative D.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative B. The Proposed 

Plan Amendment would provide additional incidental protections, as described 

under Nature and Type of Effects, for some special status species by limiting 

construction of new recreation facilities to those that provide a GRSG “net 

conservation gain” or are required for public health and safety or resource 

protection.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Impacts from ROW management would be similar to those described for 

Alternative D. However, under the Proposed Plan Amendment, both PHMA and 

GHMA would be ROW avoidance areas for high voltage transmission lines and 

large pipelines (366,032 acres) with limited exceptions, while PHMA would also 

be ROW avoidance areas for minor ROWs. In addition, PHMA would be ROW 

exclusion areas, and GHMA would be ROW avoidance areas for wind and solar 

energy. These measures could offer an increased level of protection from 

disturbance and habitat loss, as described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Land tenure adjustments would have impacts similar to Alternative D. Under 

the Proposed Plan Amendment, public ownership would be maintained in both 

PHMA and GHMA, except where land exchange would provide a net 

conservation gain to GRSG or if there would be no direct or indirect adverse 

impact on conservation of the GRSG. These measures would provide increased 

incidental protection to wildlife species in the planning area by maintaining intact 

habitat.

Impacts from Range Management

Impacts from range management would be similar to those described for 

Alternative D. In addition, under the Proposed Plan Amendment, the BLM 

would prioritize the review and processing of grazing permits/leases in PHMA, 

particularly in areas not meeting Land Health Standards, and integrate GRSG

Habitat Objectives as identified as Objective SS-1.4 into land health 
4. Environmental Consequences (Fish and Wildlife)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-219

assessments. RDFs would be implemented to reduce impacts when developing 

or modifying water developments in GRSG habitat. Together, these measures 

would help to improve and protect habitat quality throughout the planning area, 

thereby having incidental impacts on wildlife species.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative D.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

The BLM would determine coal suitability on a case-by-case basis as leases or 

lease modifications are submitted. Currently, there is no coal potential in the 

planning area. Therefore, no impacts on special status species are expected 

from coal management.

The Proposed Plan Amendment would provide additional protections for 

wildlife species and habitat in the planning area by closing nonenergy leasable 

mineral leasing and new mineral material sales. These closures would reduce the 

potential disturbance of wildlife species and habitats from mineral activities, as 

described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from locatable minerals management would be similar to those

described under Alternative D. SFAs (53,440 acres) would be recommended for 

withdrawal. As discussed under Section 4.9, there is no known locatable 

mineral potential in GRSG habitat, so no effect from locatable minerals is 

anticipated.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts from fire and fuels management would be similar to those described for 

Alternative D. In addition, Burn Plans would be required to meet the four 

criteria under the Proposed Plan Amendment if prescribed fire is used in GRSG 

habitat. This would provide additional protections to habitat by reducing risks 

from use of prescribed fire.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts from habitat restoration and vegetation management would be similar 

to those described for Alternative D. The Proposed Plan Amendment also 

specifies management objectives for vegetation, and encroaching conifers would 

be removed from sagebrush habitats. This could impact wildlife species 

occurring in these areas by either removing or enhancing habitat, depending on 

the habitat needs of the particular special status species.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A.
4. Environmental Consequences (Renewable Energy)

4-220 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

4.21 RENEWABLE ENERGY

4.21.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Table 4-31 provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the 

effects on renewable energy under each alternative.

Table 4-31

Comparison of Renewable Energy Resource Indicators by Alternative

Indicator

Alternative

A B C D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

Acres with “Good” or better wind 

potential within ROW exclusion areas

0 43,728 49,322 0 43,728

Acres with “Good” or better wind 

potential within ROW avoidance areas 

0 5,595 0 49,322 5,595

Acres with “Good” or better solar 

potential within ROW exclusion areas

0 0 0 0 0

Acres with “Good” or better solar 

potential within ROW avoidance areas 

0 0 0 0 0

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

 “Good” or better wind potential is classified as wind speeds of 7.0 

meters/second at 50 meters height or at wind power density of 

above 400 watts/meter (NREL 2012a).

 “Good” or better solar potential is classified as having average 

annual solar energy above 6.0 kilowatt-hours/square meter/day or a 

solar power density above 400 watts/square meter (NREL 2012b).

 Existing ROWs may be modified on their renewal, assignment, or 

amendment if the requested actions meet GRSG habitat objectives.

 ROW holders may continue their authorized use as long as they are 

in compliance with the terms and conditions of their grant.

 The demand for ROWs would increase over the life of the 

amended RMP.

 Renewable energy resources include solar, wind, and biomass 

facilities. Biomass projects are generally authorized under the 

forestry regulations, unless a new facility is being authorized for 

biomass generation, which would likely be authorized under lands 

and realty regulations. Based on recent trends (see Chapter 3), the 

development of biomass facilities within the planning area is unlikely; 
4. Environmental Consequences (Renewable Energy)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-221

therefore, impacts from biomass production facilities are not 

analyzed.

Alternatives were evaluated for acres of ROW avoidance, acres of ROW 

exclusion, and areas where new road construction is prohibited or to be 

avoided. All of these factors are considered to be impediments to solar and 

wind development. Alternatives with greater acreages of such restrictions are 

considered to have a greater impact on solar and wind development potential 

than alternatives with fewer acres of such restrictions.

4.21.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Impacts on solar and wind projects are generally related to where ROW

authorizations are allowed to occur, the mitigation measures required for 

specific project siting, and special stipulations required for resource protection.

ROWs can only occur on lands that are not ROW exclusion areas. Alternatives 

with greater ROW exclusion acreages would have long-term direct impacts on 

the ability for solar and wind projects to be developed.

As discussed in Section 4.4, ROW applications may be filed within ROW 

avoidance areas; however, projects proposed in such areas may be subject to 

restrictions that would add application processing time and increased project 

costs. Alternatives with greater ROW avoidance areas are considered to have 

short-term direct impacts (e.g., special surveys, reports, and construction and 

reclamation) and long-term direct impacts (e.g., potential operation and 

maintenance requirements) on the development of renewable energy resources.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on renewable energy and are therefore not discussed in detail: travel 

and transportation management, recreation, range management, fluid minerals, 

solid minerals, mineral split estate, fire and fuels management, habitat 

restoration and vegetation management, and ACECs.

4.21.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

The acreages of ROW exclusions and avoidances vary across alternatives and 

are provided in Table 4-32.

Table 4-32

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

Solar ROWs

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

ROW exclusion

area (acres)

0 0 345,560 0 233,219

ROW avoidance

area (acres)

9,708 112,341 0 233,219 112,341
4. Environmental Consequences (Renewable Energy)

4-222 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

As stated in Indicators, there is no “Good” (6.0 kilowatt-hours/square 

meter/day) or better solar potential within the planning area. As such, none of

the alternatives would result in impacts on solar energy development potential.

Table 4-31 provides an overview of impacts across alternatives on wind 

development potential through showing the number of acres of “Good” or 

better (Class 4 or higher) wind potential within ROW exclusion and avoidance 

areas.

Collocating utilities would reduce land use conflicts by grouping similar facilities 

and activities in specific areas and away from conflicting developments and 

activities. It would also clarify the preferred locations for utilities on BLMadministered lands, would make construction and maintenance of the facilities 

easier, and would simplify the application process for new facilities.

4.21.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative A, zero acres of lands with “Good” or better wind potential 

would be affected by ROW exclusion or avoidance areas. All lands with such 

potential would continue to be open for ROW applications on a case-by-case 

basis.

4.21.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative B, 233,219 acres would be managed as ROW exclusion areas 

and would not be open for ROW applications. Within this exclusion area, there 

are 43,728 acres considered to have “Good” or better wind potential. This 

represents 70 percent of lands with “Good” or better wind potential that exist 

within the decision area. Management under Alternative B would result in 

43,728 fewer acres open to wind energy development than under Alternative A.

Therefore, 70 percent of lands with “Good” or better wind potential that are 

open for ROW applications within the decision area under Alternative A would 

become ROW exclusion areas under Alternative B and would not be available 

for wind development.

Under Alternative B, an additional 102,633 acres would be managed as ROW

avoidance areas. Within this ROW avoidance area there are 5,595 acres 

considered to have “Good” or better wind potential. This represents nine 

percent of lands with “good” or better wind potential that exist within the 

decision area. Management under Alternative B would result in 5,595 fewer 

acres available for wind development without substantial restrictions. Therefore, 

under Alternative B, nine percent of lands with “Good” or better wind potential 

available for ROW applications within the decision area would be subject to 

substantial restrictions when compared with Alternative A. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Renewable Energy)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-223

Table 4-33 provides a detailed overview of how these ROW restrictions relate 

to individual wind classes.

Table 4-33

Wind Potential Affected by Alternative B

Wind Potential (square 

meters at 50 meters)

Total Acres on 

BLM-Administered 

Land

ROW Exclusion 

Acres (percent 

of total)

ROW Avoidance 

Acres (percent of 

total)

Class 4 “Good” 7.0-7.5 55,951 41,601.4 (74) 5,247.1 (9.4)

Class 5 “Very Good” 7.5-8.0 5,700.3 2,120.6 (37) 301.2 (5.3)

Class 6 “Excellent” 8.0-8.8 965.7 5.7 (0.6) 45.2 (4.7)

Class 7 “Best” 8.8 & above 318.5 0 (0) 1.2 (0.4)

Total Classes 4-7 62,935.5 43,727.7 (70) 5,594.7 (8.8)

Source: NREL 2012a; BLM 2012a

4.21.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative C, 345,560 acres would be managed as ROW exclusion areas

and would not be open for ROW authorizations. Within this exclusion area 

there are 49,322 acres considered to have “Good” or better wind potential. 

This represents 79 percent of lands with “Good” or better wind potential that 

exist within the decision area. Alternative C would result in 49,322 acres open 

to wind energy development than under Alternative A. Therefore, 79 percent of 

lands with “Good” or better wind potential that are open for ROW applications 

in the decision area under Alternative A would become ROW exclusion areas

under Alternative C and would not be available for wind development.

Table 4-34 provides a detailed overview of how these ROW restrictions relate 

to individual wind classes.

Table 4-34

Wind Potential Affected by Alternative C

Wind Potential

(square meters at 50

meters)

Total Acres on BLMAdministered Land

ROW Exclusion 

Acres (percent of 

total)

ROW Avoidance 

Acres (percent of 

total)

Class 4 “Good” 7.0-7.5 55,951 46,848.4 (84) 0

Class 5 “Very Good” 7.5-8.0 5,700.3 2,421.8 (42) 0

Class 6 “Excellent” 8.0-8.8 965.7 50.9 (5.3) 0

Class 7 “Best” 8.8 & above 318.5 1.2 (0.4) 0

Total Classes 4-7 62,935.5 49,322.3 (79) 0

Source: NREL 2012a; BLM 2012a
4. Environmental Consequences (Renewable Energy)

4-224 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

4.21.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative D, no acres would be managed as ROW exclusion areas and 

would not be open for ROW applications. Therefore, the same acreage would 

be open to wind energy development as under Alternative A.

Under Alternative D, an additional 233,219 acres would be managed as ROW

avoidance areas. Within this ROW avoidance area there are 49,322 acres 

considered to have “Good” or better wind potential. This represents 79 

percent of lands with “Good” or better wind potential that exist within the 

decision area. Management under Alternative D would result in 49,322 fewer 

acres available for wind development without substantial restrictions. Therefore,

under Alternative D 79 percent of lands with “Good” or better wind potential 

available for ROW applications would be subject to substantial restrictions 

when compared with Alternative A.

Table 4-35 provides a detailed overview of how these ROW restrictions relate 

to individual wind classes.

Table 4-35

Wind Potential Affected by Alternative D

Wind Potential

(square meters at 50 

meters)

Total Acres on BLMAdministered Land

ROW Exclusion 

Acres (percent of 

total)

ROW Avoidance 

Acres (percent 

of total)

Class 4 “Good” 7.0-7.5 55,951 0 46,848.4 (84)

Class 5 “Very Good” 7.5-8.0 5,700.3 0 2,421.8 (42)

Class 6 “Excellent” 8.0-8.8 965.7 0 50.9 (5.3)

Class 7 “Best” 8.8 & above 318.5 0 1.2 (0.4)

Total Classes 4-7 62,935.5 0 49,322.3 (79)

Source: NREL 2012a; BLM 2012a

4.21.8 Proposed Plan Amendment

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative B. The Proposed 

Plan Amendment would exclude wind energy development in PHMA (233,219 

acres), which would eliminate any wind energy development potential in those 

areas.

Within the ROW exclusion area, there are 47,516 acres considered to have 

“Good” or better wind potential. This represents 70 percent of lands with 

“Good” or better wind potential that exist within the decision area. Managing an 

additional 9 percent (5,900 acres) as avoidance would discourage development 

in those areas due to added costs and processing times for the proposed 

development.
4. Environmental Consequences (Renewable Energy)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-225

Table 4-36 provides a detailed overview of how these ROW restrictions relate 

to individual wind classes.

Table 4-36

Wind Potential Affected by Proposed Plan Amendment

Wind Potential

(square meters at 50 

meters)

Total Acres on BLMAdministered Land

ROW Exclusion 

Acres (percent of 

total)

ROW Avoidance 

Acres (percent 

of total)

Class 4 “Good” 7.0-7.5 55,951 41,779 (75) 5,519 (10)

Class 5 “Very Good” 7.5-8.0 5,700.3 2,179 (38) 324 (6)

Class 6 “Excellent” 8.0-8.8 965.7 6 (1) 55 (6) 

Class 7 “Best” 8.8 & above 318.5 0 3 (1)

Total Classes 4-7 62,935.5 43,964 (70) 5,901 (9)

Source: NREL 2012a; BLM 2012a

4.22 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

4.22.1 Methods and Assumptions

The analysis of economic effects considers job and labor income in an economic 

impact analysis. Economic impact analysis is used to evaluate potential direct, 

indirect, and induced effects on the economy. The analytical technique used by 

the BLM to estimate employment and income impacts is "input-output" analysis 

using the IMPLAN Pro software system. Input-output analysis is a means of 

examining relationships within an economy both between businesses and 

between businesses and final consumers. It captures all monetary market 

transactions for consumption in a given time period. The resulting mathematical 

representation allows one to examine the effect of a change in one or several 

economic activities on an entire economy, all else constant. This examination is 

called economic impact analysis. IMPLAN translates changes in final demand for 

goods and services into economic effects, such as labor income and employment 

of the affected area’s economy. The IMPLAN modeling system requires one to 

build regional economic models of one or more counties for a particular year.

The model for this analysis uses 2010 IMPLAN data and the impact area for this 

analysis includes Chouteau, Fergus, Judith Basin, Meagher, and Petroleum 

counties.

The impacts on the local economy from the RMPA are measured by estimating 

the employment (full- and part-time jobs) and labor income generated by grazing 

on allotments potentially affected and recreation under the alternatives. The 

direct employment and labor income benefit employees and their families and 

therefore directly affect the local economy. Additional indirect and induced 

multiplier effects (ripple effects) are generated by the direct activities. Together 

the direct and multiplier effects comprise the total impacts on the local economy 

(Table 4-37). The multiplier effects tied to grazing and recreation were 

estimated using IMPLAN. Potential limitations of these estimates are the time lag 

in IMPLAN data and the data intensive nature of the input-output model. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Social and Economic Conditions)

4-226 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Table 4-37

Employment Generated from Recreation and Grazing under the RMPA

Employment (full and part time jobs)

Alternative

A

Alternative B Alternative C

Alternative

D

Proposed Plan

Amendment

Wildlife-related 

recreation

8 less than Alt A less than other 

Alts

less than Alt 

A

less than Alt A

Non-Wildliferelated

recreation

12 less than Alt A less than other 

Alts

less than Alt 

A

less than Alt A

Grazing 201 201 66 201 201

Source: IMPLAN 2010

Table 4-38

Labor Income Generated from Recreation and Grazing under the RMPA

Labor income

Alternative

A

Alternative B Alternative C

Alternative

D

Proposed 

Plan

Amendment

Wildlife-related 

recreation

$192 less than Alt A less than other 

Alts

less than Alt 

A

less than Alt A

Non-Wildliferelated

recreation

$289 less than Alt A less than other 

Alts

less than Alt 

A

less than Alt A

Grazing $2,810 $2,810 $931 $2,810 $2,810

Source: IMPLAN 2010

4.22.2 Alternative A

A summary of impacts on employment and labor income across alternatives is 

provided in Table 4-37 and Table 4-38. Details of analysis are provided below 

by resource and resource use.

Impacts from Range Management

Livestock grazing would continue to be managed under the existing RMPs and 

Standards for Rangeland Health. Consequently, current economic contributions 

from allocated grazing on allotments covered under this RMPA would continue. 

Use of allocated forage on these allotments would generate 201 total jobs 

(direct, indirect, and induced) and $2.8 million in labor income (direct, indirect 

and induced) on an average annual basis within the impact area economy (refer 

to Table 4-37 and Table 4-38). On an annual basis use of the allocated forage 

and associated employment and income can be less, based on market 

conditions, drought or range practices to protect other resources. As noted in 

the discussion of employment specialization in Section 3.23.1, the five-county 

impact area can be considered specialized with respect to the grazing sector.

Direct employment generated as a result of grazing under this alternative would 
4. Environmental Consequences (Social and Economic Conditions)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-227

provide 128 jobs which would comprise about 29 percent of employment in this 

sector.

Impacts from Lands and Realty 

Currently, there are no ROW exclusion areas within the decision area. As a 

result, land use authorizations would continue to be analyzed and if approved 

could continue to support area communities and economies under this 

alternative. There are two ROW avoidance areas within the decision area. One 

is within PH and one in GH. Under this alternative, land use authorizations 

could continue within avoidance areas with implementation of proper mitigation 

measures.

Impacts from Recreation

Under Alternative A, BLM management would result in no additional measures 

to protect GRSG habitat. As a result, no impacts on recreation on BLMadministered lands would occur and associated economic contributions to the 

five-county impact would continue. Approximately eight jobs (direct, indirect,

and induced) are associated with wildlife related recreation and 12 jobs (direct, 

indirect and induced) are associated with recreation not related to wildlife in 

the five-county impact area (refer to Table 4-37). Direct employment 

generated as a result of wildlife and recreation not related to wildlife under this 

alternative would comprise about one percent of employment in sectors 

specifically attributable to tourism and recreation.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management and 

ACECs

Management under this alternative would not specifically protect GRSG habitat. 

Grazing methods, land treatments and other improvements would continue to 

be designed to accomplish habitat restoration objectives. Continuation of these 

policies would promote sagebrush habitat, but less than under Alternatives B or 

C. No ACECs to protect GRSG habitat would be included in this alternative. As 

a result, well-being and non-market values associated with GRSG habitat would 

be less than Alternatives B and C.

4.22.3 Alternative B

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative B, there would be no change to the acreage open for grazing 

or available AUMs. AMPs and permit renewals would be used to incorporate 

GRSG habitat objectives into grazing allotments. Consequently, it is anticipated 

that current economic contributions from allocated grazing on allotments 

covered under this RMPA would continue. Use of allocated forage on these 

allotments generates 201 total jobs (direct, indirect and induced) and $2.8 

million in labor income (direct, indirect and induced) on an average annual basis 

within the impact area economy (refer to Table 4-37 and Table 4-38). On an 

annual basis use of the allocated forage and associated employment and income 
4. Environmental Consequences (Social and Economic Conditions)

4-228 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

can be less, based on market conditions, drought or range practices to protect 

other resources. In addition, further reductions could occur with voluntary 

retirement of allotments under Alternative B, which would further reduce 

economic contributions. As noted in the discussion of employment 

specialization (see Section 3.23.1), the five-county impact area can be 

considered specialized with respect to the grazing sector. Direct employment 

generated as a result of grazing under this alternative would provide 128 jobs 

which would comprise about 29 percent of employment in this sector.

Impacts from Lands and Realty and Energy Development

Under Alternative B, 233,219 acres (67 percent) of the decision area associated 

with PHMA would be managed as ROW exclusion areas for new ROW 

authorizations. Further, GHMA would be identified as ROW avoidance areas.

ROW development and land use authorizations within ROW avoidance areas 

would generally avoid habitat areas, but authorizations are possible if proper 

mitigation measures are implemented as part of the development and 

authorization to offset any loss of general GRSG habitat if impacted. In addition, 

new ROWs in PHMA may only be authorized if they are collocated completely 

within the footprint of an existing authorized ROW. Further, under this 

alternative, development associated with valid existing rights (an authorized 

ROW which needs improvement) would only be allowed to the absolute 

minimum standards. All new disturbances would be limited so not to exceed a 

disturbance of three percent for that area. Therefore, this alternative may limit 

new ROWs or energy development within the planning area and would 

consequently support communities and economies less than under Alternative 

A.

Impacts from Recreation

Under Alternative B, BLM would consider the effects of SRPs on PHMA. If 

future SRP applications were denied (if not found to be neutral or beneficial to 

GRSG) under this alternative, there would be less organized hunting 

opportunities on BLM-administered land in the decision area as compared with

Alternative A. As a result, economic contributions could be less than current 

contributions depicted under Alternative A.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management and 

ACECs

Under this alternative, restoration projects would be prioritized based on 

benefit to GRSG habitat. Vegetation treatments would continue to be used for 

resource management objectives such as protection of sagebrush ecosystems.

These actions would enhance GRSG habitat. No ACECs to protect GRSG

habitat would be included in this alternative. Non-market values, such as 

existence value, would be higher for sagebrush ecosystems under this 

alternative than for Alternative A.
4. Environmental Consequences (Social and Economic Conditions)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-229

4.22.4 Alternative C

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative C, livestock grazing would be removed from all allotments in 

PHMA and GHMA resulting in a 66 percent reduction in AUMs relative to 

Alternative A. Consequently, it is anticipated that economic contributions from 

allocated grazing on allotments covered under this RMPA would be less than 

currently contributed. As a result of the reductions employment would 

decrease from 201 to 66 total jobs (direct, indirect and induced) and labor 

income would decrease from $2.8 million to $931,000 (direct, indirect and 

induced) on an average annual basis within the impact area economy (refer to 

Table 4-37 and Table 4-38). Decreases may not be as large since actual use of 

BLM is not equal to allocated use levels analyzed here. For example on any given 

year actual employment associated with billed use could be less than 201 jobs if 

actual use of BLM forage is less than allocated (possible due to increases in 

prices of factors of production, drought, market conditions, etc.). In addition, 

the decrease portrayed here could be less if alternative sources of forage is

found for willing permittees. As noted in the discussion of employment 

specialization in Section 3.23.1, the five-county impact area can be considered 

specialized with respect to the grazing sector. Direct employment generated as 

a result of grazing under this alternative would decrease from 128 jobs to 42 

jobs which would correspond to a decrease from 29 percent to 10 percent of 

employment in this sector.

Impacts from Lands and Realty and Energy Development

Under Alternative C, 345,560 acres of the decision area associated with PHMA

and GHMA would be managed as ROW exclusion area for new ROW grants. 

As a result, current land use authorizations would be relocated which could 

decrease the degree to which area communities and economies depend on 

current authorizations under this alternative. In addition, new applications in 

PHMA may only be authorized if they are collocated completely within the 

footprint of an existing authorization. Further, under this alternative, 

development associated with valid existing rights (an authorization which needs 

improvement) would only be allowed to the absolute minimum standards. All 

new disturbances would be limited so not to exceed a disturbance of three

percent for that area. Therefore, this alternative may limit new authorizations

or energy development within the planning area and would consequently 

support communities and economies less than under Alternative A.

Impacts from Recreation

Under Alternative C, implementation of a travel plan could change access 

important for current recreation activities in the decision area. If changes to 

recreation access occurred there would be a reduction in recreation visitation 

on BLM-administered lands in the decision area. As a result, economic 

contributions could be less than current contributions (depicted under 

Alternative A) and the other alternatives.
4. Environmental Consequences (Social and Economic Conditions)

4-230 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management and 

ACEC

Under this alternative, additional actions would promote expansion of GRSG

habitat at levels greater than the other alternatives. In addition, ACECs to 

protect GRSG habitat would be designated under in this alternative. These 

policies would promote expansion of GRSG habitat. As a result, well-being and 

non-market values associated with GRSG habitat would be protected to a 

greater degree than the other alternatives.

4.22.5 Alternative D and Proposed Plan Amendment

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative D and the Proposed Plan Amendment, there would be no 

change to the acreage open for grazing or available AUMs. GRSG habitat 

objectives would be considered when evaluating land health standards. 

Consequently, it is anticipated that current economic contributions from 

allocated grazing on allotments covered under this RMPA would continue. Use 

of allocated forage on these allotments generates 201 total jobs (direct, indirect 

and induced) and $2.8 million in labor income (direct, indirect and induced) on 

an average annual basis within the impact area economy (refer to Table 4-37

and Table 4-38). On an annual basis use of the allocated forage and associated 

employment and income can be less based on market conditions, drought or 

range practices to protect other resources. As noted in the discussion of 

employment specialization (see Section 3.23.1), the five-county impact area 

can be considered specialized with respect to the grazing sector. Direct 

employment generated as a result of grazing under Alternative D and the 

Proposed Plan Amendment would provide 128 jobs which would comprise 

about 29 percent of employment in this sector.

Impacts from Lands and Realty and Energy Development

Under Alternative D and the Proposed Plan Amendment, PHMA (233,219 acres 

within the decision area) would be managed as an avoidance area for new 

applications for ROWs, leases, or permits. In GHMA (112,341 acres), 

Alternative D and the Proposed Plan Amendment would allow for the issuance 

of minor ROWs, leases, and permits with appropriate conservation and 

mitigation measures on a case-by-case basis. As a result, local communities and 

economies (as well as individuals who may live in remote locations) may be 

impacted, depending on the degree to which they rely on local electricity or 

utility services.

Further, under Alternative D and the Proposed Plan Amendment, development 

associated with valid existing rights (an authorization that needs improvement) 

would be allowed only to minimum standards. Therefore, Alternative D and the 

Proposed Plan Amendment would provide less support to the communities than 

Alternative A but more than Alternatives B or C.
4. Environmental Consequences (Social and Economic Conditions)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-231

Impacts from Recreation

Under Alternative D and the Proposed Plan Amendment, impacts on recreation 

would be the same as discussed under Alternative B. As a result, economic 

contributions would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management and 

ACECs

Under Alternative D and the Proposed Plan Amendment, other restoration 

projects associated with threatened, endangered, or sensitive species would be 

considered when prioritizing projects, which could reduce the potential to 

improve GRSG habitat. In addition, no ACECs to protect GRSG habitat would 

be included. As a result, well-being and non-market values associated with other 

threatened and endangered species habitat would be more than Alternatives B 

and C. Due to uncertainty in how restoration projects are prioritized, a relative 

comparison to Alternative A cannot be made.

4.23 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

While minority and low-income populations may exist in the area, the 

alternatives and Proposed Plan Amendment are not expected to have a 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on 

these communities. Impacts on local communities are expected to be negligible, 

and there is no reason to suspect that any impacts would disproportionately 

affect minority and low income populations. For example, decreases in 

employment and income anticipated under Alternative C would be distributed 

amongst all segments of the population regardless of minority or poverty status.

As described in Section 3.24, Choteau County met the criteria for an 

environmental justice population in regards to the American Indian population. 

Outreach and coordination with several different tribes was conducted and is 

documented in Chapter 6. The planning actions in this Proposed RMPA/Final 

EIS does not impact tribal lands or any tribal oil and gas interests, nor does it 

restrict any access to sacred sites.

4.24 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Section 102(C) of NEPA requires disclosure of any adverse environmental 

effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented. 

Unavoidable adverse impacts are those that remain following the 

implementation of mitigation measures or impacts for which there are no 

mitigation measures. Some unavoidable adverse impacts occur as a result of 

implementing the Lewistown Field Office Greater-Sage-Grouse RMPA. Others 

are a result of public use of the decision area lands. This section summarizes 

major unavoidable impacts; discussions of the impacts of each management 

action (in the discussion of impacts for each resource topic) provide greater 

information on specific unavoidable impacts.

Surface-disturbing activities would result in unavoidable adverse impacts under 

current BLM policy to foster multiple uses. Although these impacts would be 
4. Environmental Consequences (Unavoidable Adverse Impacts)

4-232 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

mitigated to the extent possible, unavoidable damage would be inevitable. Longterm conversion of areas to other uses such as mineral and energy development 

would increase erosion and change the relative abundance of species within 

plant communities, the relative distribution of plant communities, and the 

relative occurrence of seral stages of those communities. Where habitat areas 

are not protected by stipulations, oil and gas development would result in 

unavoidable long-term wildlife habitat loss where developed.

Excessive use by wildlife and livestock would contribute to soil erosion, 

compaction, and vegetation loss, which could be extensive during drought cycles 

and dormancy periods. Conversely, unavoidable losses or damage to forage 

from resource development in the planning area would affect livestock and 

wildlife. Some level of competition for forage between these types of animals, 

although mitigated to the extent possible, would be unavoidable. Instances of 

displacement, harassment, and injury could also occur.

Recreational activities, mineral resource development, and general use of the 

planning area would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, 

which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence and the need 

for suppression activities. These activities, combined with continued fire 

suppression, would also affect the overall composition and structure of 

vegetation communities, which could increase the potential for high-intensity 

wildland fires.

As recreation demand increases, recreation use would disperse, creating 

unavoidable conflicts as more users compete for a limited amount of space. In 

areas where development activities would be greater, the potential for displaced 

users would increase.

Numerous land use restrictions imposed throughout the planning area to 

protect sensitive resources and other important values, by their nature, affect 

the ability of operators, individuals, and groups who use BLM-administered lands 

to do so freely without limitations. These restrictions could also require closing 

roads or trails or limiting certain modes or seasons of travel. Although attempts 

would be made to minimize these impacts by limiting them to the level of 

protection necessary to accomplish management objectives, and providing 

alternative use areas for affected activities, unavoidable adverse impacts would 

occur under all alternatives.

4.25 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Section 102(C) of NEPA requires a discussion of any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources that are involved in the proposal should it be 

implemented. An irretrievable commitment of a resource is one in which the 

resource or its use is lost for a period of time (e.g., extraction of any solid

mineral ore or oil and gas). An irreversible commitment of a resource is one 

that cannot be reversed (e.g., the extinction of a species).
4. Environmental Consequences (Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources)

June 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS 4-233

Implementing the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA

management actions would result in surface-disturbing activities, including

permitted recreation activities, mineral and energy development, and 

development in ROWs, which result in a commitment to the loss of irreversible 

or irretrievable resources. Mineral extraction or sale eliminates a nonrenewable 

resource, thereby resulting in irreversible and irretrievable commitment of the 

resource. Surface disturbance associated with energy development is reclaimed 

after the resource is removed. However, surface disturbances from gas storage,

and road ROWs, and wind development are a long term encumbrance of the 

land. Soil erosion or the loss of productivity and soil structure may be 

considered irreversible commitments to resources. Surface-disturbing activities, 

therefore, would remove vegetation and accelerate erosion that would 

contribute to irreversible soil loss; however, management actions and RDFs are 

intended to reduce the magnitude of these impacts and restore some of the soil 

and vegetation lost. Primarily because of the number of acres available for 

energy and mineral development, and development in ROWs, such disturbances 

would occur to the greatest degree under Alternative A; management under 

Alternative D and the Proposed Plan Amendment would be similar but with 

more stipulations for surface-disturbing activities. Alternative B, and to a greater 

extent Alternative C, contains additional conservation measures, mitigation 

measures, and stipulations to protect planning area resources.

Across all alternatives, an irreversible commitment of nonrenewable fossil fuels 

(e.g., oil and gas), solid minerals, and salable materials would occur from 

development over the life of the Headwaters RMP and Judith Resource Area 

RMP.

4.26 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY

Section 102(C) of NEPA requires discussion of the relationship between local, 

short-term uses of the human environment, and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity of resources. As described in the 

introduction to this chapter, “short term” is defined as anticipated to occur 

within one to five years of the activity’s implementation. “Long term” is defined 

as following the first five years of implementation, but within the life of the 

Headwaters RMP and Judith Resource Area RMP.

Across all alternatives and the Proposed Plan Amendment, management actions 

would result in various short-term effects, such as increased localized soil 

erosion, fugitive dust emission, vegetation loss or damage, and wildlife 

disturbance. Surface-disturbing activities, including utility construction and 

mineral resource development would result in the greatest potential for impacts 

on long-term productivity. Management prescriptions and RDFs are intended to 

minimize the effect of short-term commitments and reverse change over the 

long term. These prescriptions and the associated reduction of impacts would 

be greatest under Alternative C and are present to a lesser extent under 
4. Environmental Consequences (Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity)

4-234 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS June 2015

Alternative B for resources such as vegetation and wildlife habitat. However, 

BLM-administered lands are managed to foster multiple uses, and some impacts 

on long-term productivity could occur.

The short-term use of potential habitat for energy and minerals, and 

development in ROWs could also affect the long-term sustainability of some 

special status species. Special status species could be affected by habitat 

fragmentation associated with short-term resource uses and road construction 

and use.