SOCIOECONOMICS APPENDIX

SOCIOECONOMICS APPENDIX

Attitudes, Beliefs, Lifestyles, and Values

SEA-1

SOCIOECONOMICS APPENDIX

Attitudes, Beliefs, 

Lifestyles, and Values

Population Groups

General information about population groups was 

developed from a number of sources, including the 

documents cited in the text. While the generalized 

characterizations are not likely to apply to all 

individuals, the intention is to provide an idea of the 

range of the attitudes and lifestyles of the population 

subgroups present in the study area.

The study area population is largely rural, with strong 

ties to the land and to the many small towns. Ranch 

and farm families are one of the major groups of 

people living in the study area. They tend to favor 

traditional land uses and the preservation of 

intergenerational family operations. They may feel 

reluctance toward short-term developments that will 

alter their lifestyle. The study area population also 

includes long-time small town residents. While these 

people generally wish to maintain their way of life, at 

the same time, some may seek to find a compromise 

between their current situation and gradual 

development.

Another portion of the population in the study area is 

Native Americans, many of whom are residents of the 

three Indian reservations within the study area. These 

groups generally desire to preserve many elements of 

their heritage and do not wish to become homogenized 

into and by the non-Indian culture. At the same time, 

some tribal members or subgroups are pursuing the 

development of energy resources for the long-term 

social and economic betterment of tribal members.

A small but growing population is made up of 

professionals, craftspeople, retirees, and others who 

have moved to small towns to enjoy the slower pace of 

life and various amenities. While the forested areas of 

western Montana tend to attract more of this group than 

eastern Montana, these people are present in the study 

area as well. They may participate in opposition to 

development proposals that appear to jeopardize the 

quality of their new lifestyles.

Areas where energy resources are developed often see 

the influx of people from other areas. Many of these 

people regard their employment as temporary, expect 

to move on to other areas, and do not play an integral 

part in community affairs. Long-term local residents 

often resent these “outsiders” while at the same time 

realizing some economic benefits from the business 

and service demands of these newcomers.

In summary, residents generally value the rural 

character of their lifestyle. Specific aspects of this 

lifestyle might include appreciation of wide-open 

spaces, natural landscape, fresh air and solitude. The 

lifestyle of rural communities often offers the desirable 

qualities of neighbors knowing each other, lack of 

urban problems, relaxed pace, personal freedom, and 

being a good place to raise children. Longtime 

residents often want to see continued control of the 

land at the local level without interference from outside 

agencies or groups.

Public Comments from EIS 

Scoping Process (2001)

The public comments received during the Statewide

Document scoping process convey important 

information about general attitudes toward coal bed 

natural gas (CBNG) and other energy or mineral 

development. The vast majority of public comments 

received during scoping relayed concerns about

potential impacts on water quality and quantity. 

Specifically, commentators were concerned with the 

discharge of water of poor quality (e.g., saline) and the 

drawdown of groundwater aquifers.

Public comments are often shaped by an individual’s 

lifestyle and livelihood. For example, ranching and 

irrigated agriculture are both dependent on the supply 

of water. Of the comments received by individuals 

engaged in farming and ranching, a great many related 

to concerns about potential degradation of water 

quality and quantity, in addition to general 

environmental impacts. The comments reflect a tension 

between the desire for new development to support the 

often stagnant rural economies and the concern that 

such development could harm the environment and the 

lifestyle qualities for which Montana is known, 

including natural beauty, wide-open spaces, and 

solitude. 

In general the comments reflect a difference in 

attitudes toward CBNG development among those 

individuals and organizations that might profit directly 

from CBNG and those that would not. Those who own 

land or mineral rights where CBNG could be 

developed tend to favor cautious and prudent 

development for the economic benefits it could bring to 

them and the local economies. Some who do not stand 
SOCIOECONOMICS APPENDIX

Attitudes, Beliefs, Lifestyles, and Values

SEA-2

to benefit directly also favor responsible CBNG

development as soon as possible, believing the 

economic benefits are needed urgently to bolster 

stagnant or failing local economies and in turn help 

maintain existing rural lifestyles. Particularly in the 

less affluent portions of the study area, CBNG and 

other resource development may be seen as one of the 

few means to meet urgent human needs in the form of 

employment and income.

Other individuals, including those who do not stand to 

benefit directly from CBNG, are concerned that the 

quality of their life and the environment will be 

adversely affected; that local benefits will be minor; 

and that most of the benefits will accrue to outsiders. 

There is a perception that such outside developers, or 

“wildcatters,” will move into a community, extract the 

profits, and leave a despoiled environment behind. 

Rural residents, including those in small developments 

or neighborhoods, are generally concerned about the 

potential for CBNG development in adjacent areas to 

disturb the peaceful and pristine setting, to contribute 

unsightly development, to disturb wildlife, and to 

threaten the provision of adequate public services. 

There is also a perception from some comments that 

CBNG will adversely affect the lifestyles of the Native 

Americans living in and around the 13-county Planning 

Area—particularly those on the reservations. Concerns 

reflect the traditional high value placed on natural 

resources by these groups, the importance of existing 

water and other natural resources in tribal economies 

and cultures, and the opinion that tribal members will 

be unduly burdened with the costs of development 

while not receiving many or any benefits.

Public Comments from SEIS 

Scoping Process (2005)

Scoping comments received in the summer of 2005 

reflect similar concerns about and support for CBNG

development as those expressed during scoping for the 

Statewide Document. In addition, there was a concern 

that delayed or phased development would create 

economic impacts. Specifically, lessees and lessors 

would lose revenue due to leasing and permitting 

delays and the state would have a net present value loss 

in income and payroll taxes, as well as production 

taxes and royalties. There were also concerns about the 

displacement of wildlife to livestock grazing tracts, the 

subsequent interference with livestock grazing, and the 

potential effect on sub-irrigated tracts.

Newspaper Reports

One of the largest newspapers in the Planning Area, the 

Billings Gazette, was reviewed for information about 

local attitudes and concerns related to the 

socioeconomics of CBNG. During the week of 

February 19, 2001, the Billings Gazette presented an 

in-depth report on CBNG development in Wyoming 

and Montana. While the series was running, readers 

were invited to register their opinions about the 

positive and negative aspects of CBNG in the Powder 

River Basin. Because this was not a scientific or 

statistical survey, the responses are likely to be biased 

toward those who had a concern or issue to 

communicate. 

Of the 154 responses received, 94 agreed with the 

statement, “Coal bed methane development will be 

detrimental to Montana’s environment and shouldn’t 

be developed here.” Thirty-seven respondents agreed 

with the statement, “Coal bed methane should be 

developed in Montana with regulation to reduce 

negative affects on water and other land uses,” and 23 

selected the statement, “Coal bed methane will bring 

jobs and money to Montana and should be developed 

as soon as possible.” (Billings Gazette 2001.) Thus, 

roughly one-third of the respondents supported CBNG

development and two-thirds did not. A number of other 

written comments were published, which generally 

reflect the diversity of opinions described previously in 

the public comments section.

The results of a poll conducted by Montana State 

University at Billings were reported in the Billings 

Gazette on November 14, 2001. Of the respondents to 

this poll, 63 percent indicated support for CBNG in 

Montana if reasonable precautions were taken to 

protect the environment. Of the remainder of those 

polled, 11 percent indicated that CBNG should not be 

developed, 11 percent indicated it should be developed 

as quickly as possible, and 15 percent were undecided.

The Coalbed Natural Gas Alliance conducted a poll in 

the fall of 2004, and the results were reported in an 

article published by the Billings Gazette on January 19, 

2005. The survey involved 450 landowners from a

mailing list generated by six of the area’s largest 

CBNG producers (Marathon, Devon, Huber, Fidelity, 

Yates Petroleum, and Nance). Of those responding to 

the survey, 36 percent said that the overall impact of 

CBNG development on their community has been 

“very positive,” while 77 percent responded between 

“very positive” and “neutral.” For a similar question 

regarding effects of CBNG development on the 

environment, 47 percent responded either “positive” or 

“neutral” and 32 percent responded “somewhat 
SOCIOECONOMICS APPENDIX

Attitudes, Beliefs, Lifestyles, and Values

SEA-3

negative.” The article also presented comments on the 

survey from the director of the Powder River Basin 

Resource Council and a ranch owner. Their comments 

indicated that the survey results contradicted what they 

have experienced with ranchers and landowners. 

Attitudes Toward Public Lands

Attitudes about general social conditions and about 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) 

management of public lands in eastern Montana were 

gathered by Trent (1991) in interviews with about 100 

residents. The results are summarized here from the 

discussion in the Big Dry RMP/EIS (BLM 1995). The 

residents indicated the most important aspects of their 

area and community were the outdoors and wide open 

spaces, good people, a small town atmosphere, keeping 

the community alive, the ability to earn a living, 

enjoying outdoor recreation, and, finally, that the area 

is a good place to raise children.

In relation to use and management of public lands, 

many of the respondents stated the importance of 

multiple uses and support for resource protection while 

allowing a variety of activities on public lands. 

Vegetation and soils were identified as the resources 

most important to protect, with livestock grazing and 

hunting the most favored activities. Recreation was 

slightly less favored and oil/gas, coal, and other 

mineral development were less favored than recreation. 

Concern about local economic conditions was 

predominant among the respondents. Respondents 

were concerned about the livestock industry, citing it as 

the most threatened activity on public lands. The 

respondents also were concerned with resource 

protection and preserving special resource values such 

as wildlife habitat, riparian areas, and wetlands. 

Another summary of attitudes toward public lands and 

resource management is provided in the Off-Highway 

Vehicle Final EIS (U.S. Department of the Interior 

[USDI] 2001). The document states that social values 

for lands and natural resources take many forms, such 

as commodity, amenity, environmental quality, 

ecology, public use, spiritual, health, and security. In 

the past, natural resource management tended to 

emphasize commodity values. An emerging emphasis 

is a shift from commodities and services to 

environments and habitats. At the same time, in places 

where land use has been unrestricted, there is 

increasing concern by some that new regulations and 

uses are driving out traditional uses such as livestock 

grazing and off-highway vehicle use.

Oil and Gas Development

Other past data on attitudes toward oil and gas 

development is contained in the report “Natural 

Resource Development in Montana” (Wallwork and 

Johnson 1986). The discussion here is summarized 

from the Final Oil and Gas RMP/EIS Amendment for 

Billings, Powder River and South Dakota (1992). The 

original study consisted of interviews with 624 

Montana adults. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents 

indicated natural resource development, in general, to 

be essential to the State’s future economic health. The 

primary benefits were construed to be jobs and income, 

help the state and local economy, tax revenues, and the 

provision of needed products. Respondents indicated 

the primary costs or disadvantages associated with 

natural resource development would be environmental 

impacts, pollution, poor reclamation, population 

growth, and boom-and-bust economic cycles. About 

three-fifths of the respondents saw little or no conflict 

between natural resource development and outdoor 

recreation, while one-fourth felt that the two activities 

did conflict.

Most respondents in the 1986 interviews felt the 

following activities should be allowed on government 

lands: timber cutting (85 percent approval); oil and gas 

extraction (83 percent); coal mining (78 percent); and 

hardrock mining (79 percent). Some respondents felt 

the following activities should be prohibited on 

government lands: timber cutting (11 percent 

disapproval); oil and gas extraction (12 percent); coal 

mining (17 percent); and hard rock mining 

(15 percent). In response to specific questions about oil 

and gas leasing and development, about half the 

respondents felt oil and gas development to be essential 

to Montana’s future economic health, with a higher 

percentage of respondents in eastern Montana feeling 

this way. Another third of the respondents indicated oil 

and gas development to be fairly essential. Responses 

to the pace of development were evenly split, with 

nearly 40 percent responding that it was just right and 

40 percent feeling it was too slow. Nearly 75 percent of 

the respondents said they had a favorable impression of 

the industry. About two-fifths of the eastern Montana 

respondents rated the industry excellent or pretty good 

in its behavior as a responsible citizen of the state. 

Another two-fifths of these respondents rated the 

industry as only fair or poor in its behavior as a 

responsible state citizen.
SOCIOECONOMICS APPENDIX

Attitudes, Beliefs, Lifestyles, and Values

SEA-4

Northern Cheyenne and Crow 

Tribes

Attitudes toward coal development among the 

members of the Northern Cheyenne and Crow tribes 

are described in the Economic, Social and Cultural 

Supplement to the Powder River I Regional Draft EIS

(BLM 1989). While there may be differences in 

attitudes between coal development and natural gas 

(CBNG), there are also likely to be similarities.

Northern Cheyenne attitudes toward coal development 

are complex. In general, tribal members have shown a 

determination to maximize the potential benefits of 

coal development (such as training and employment 

opportunities and possible revenue sources) and to 

minimize the potential adverse effects (such as air 

quality degradation and increased demand on tribal 

facilities and services). In spite of the conflict it causes 

with traditional values and attitudes toward land and 

resources, many tribal members felt that if mining is 

going to occur in the area anyway, then the tribe and its 

members should try to reap some of its benefits as well 

as bear some of its costs. However, other Northern 

Cheyenne, particularly some of the more traditional 

elders, were firmly against energy development 

because of its disruption to the land and environment. 

They recognized that there is a need for jobs on the 

reservation but felt that other jobs that were less 

disruptive to the land and traditional values must be 

found.

The attitudes of individual Northern Cheyenne 

members toward coal development off the reservation 

reflected their perceptions about whether, and to what 

extent, they or their friends and family were benefiting 

from it. Those who were benefiting from coal-related 

employment or who aspired to do so seemed to be in 

favor of this development. Those who had been refused 

coal-related jobs or were not interested in them felt less 

positive about regional coal development. Many cited 

both positive effects (mostly jobs) and negative effects 

(environmental pollution, increased traffic, and drug 

and alcohol problems) that they believed were 

associated with the coal mines and power plants that 

had been constructed since 1970.

For residents of the Crow Reservation, a high level of 

concern was found regarding the impact that offreservation coal development could have on the 

reservation. Three major concerns emerged regarding 

off-reservation coal development: 1) that it would 

compete with the marketing and development of onreservation coal; 2) that reservation services and 

infrastructure would be affected and experience fiscal 

shortfalls; and 3) that regional coal development could 

have an impact on Crow culture and individual 

behavior such as alcohol and drug abuse. Specific 

cultural concerns included potential loss or dilution of 

culture values such as sharing and the importance of 

family as a result of the exposure to non-Native 

American values. 

Many people on the Crow Reservation, including tribal 

officials, expressed the concern that federal coal would 

compete directly with tribal-owned coal. If federal coal 

is leased, then tribal-owned coal is less likely to be 

leased. Tribal coal leasing was seen by some members 

as a way for the tribe to raise money to save its land 

base and to enhance the tribe’s ability to govern itself. 

If the tribe can generate its own revenues, it can 

determine how that money is spent and will no longer 

have to depend on the federal government to address 

problems.

See the section Public Comments from SEIS Scoping 

Process (2005) for a discussion regarding tribal 

concerns related to socioeconomic impacts from 

CBNG development.
SOCIOECONOMICS APPENDIX

Government Revenue Sources

SEA-5

Government Revenue 

Sources

Total county revenues for fiscal years 1999 and 2004

are presented in Table SEA-1. The table shows that the 

total revenues collected in the 13 Planning Area

counties accounted for 21.0 percent of the revenues 

collected by all of the counties in the State in 1999 and 

16.3 percent in 2004. By comparison, the Planning 

Area population was 21.8 percent of the state total in 

2000. 

Taxes

Total taxes collected by counties are shown in 

Table SEA-1. With some exceptions, taxes account for 

a large share—often about one half—of total county 

revenue. Counties that are less reliant on tax revenues 

have other miscellaneous income or intergovernmental 

income, generally related to natural resources rents or 

royalties.

Property Taxes and Assessed Value

Property taxes are levied by counties on real property 

and on any specified facilities and/or improvements to 

that real property.

The assessed value, taxable value, and total property 

taxes collected for the state and each study area county 

in 2000 are presented in Table SEA-2. The average 

mill levy rate for each county is also shown. Property 

taxes collected in the 13 study-area counties totaled 

more than $182 million, which is 23.0 percent of the 

state total. The percentage of property taxes collected 

in the study area is consistent with the study area 

population, which was similarly 21.8 percent of the 

state total in 2000. The taxes collected in the counties 

vary widely in accordance with the assessed values, 

taxable values, and tax rates and mill levies in each 

county.

Table SEA-4 shows the assessed value, taxable value, 

and total property taxes and fees collected in 2004 for 

each of the 13 counties in the study area. Total property 

taxes collected increased over 30 percent from 2000; 

however, the total of $239 million constituted 23.6 

percent of the state total, which is similar to the 

proportion observed in 2000. Much of increase in 

property taxes came from Big Horn and Yellowstone 

counties, while smaller increases occurred for Carbon, 

Custer, Rosebud, Stillwater, and Sweet Grass counties. 

Total property taxes collected for the other counties in 

the study area were relatively unchanged between 2000 

and 2004.

Natural Resource Taxes

Natural resource taxes were a relatively small 

component of total tax revenues, at $100 million or 

6.5 percent. Natural resource taxes include taxes on 

coal, oil, natural gas, and metals mining. Table SEA-4

shows the State oil and natural gas tax revenues for 

1999 and 2000. Total natural gas revenues were 

$11,205,901 in 2000—an increase of 8.1 percent from 

the previous year—while total oil revenues were 

$32,564,421—an increase of 59.1 percent from 1999. 

For both oil and natural gas, revenues in 2000 were 

42.0 percent higher than 1999.

As shown in Table SEA-1, county revenues from oil 

and natural gas production taxes and the percent of 

these revenues compared to total county revenues 

varied greatly among the 13 study-area counties. For a 

number of the counties, the income was minimal or 

zero. The exceptions include Blaine County ($626,111 

or 15.7 percent of county revenue), Carbon County 

($178,443 or 4.1 percent) and Musselshell County 

($256,627 or 7.1 percent). (Note: The Oil and Gas 

Production Tax [LGST] was eliminated after 1999.)

Oil and natural gas production tax revenues collected 

by the state of Montana from 1999 through 2004 are 

shown in Table SEA-5. While oil and natural gas 

revenues increased substantially in 2000 and 2001, 

2002 revenues were markedly lower. In 2003 and 

2004, the state share of these revenues has surpassed 

the 2002 total, while the local share remains below the 

2002 high.
SOCIOECONOMICS APPENDIX

Government Revenue Sources

SEA-6

TABLE SEA-1

TOTAL COUNTY REVENUES BY SOURCE, FISCAL YEARS 19991 AND 2004

Revenue Source

Amount 

(1999)

% of County 

Total (1999)

Amount 

(2004)

% of County 

Total (2004)

Big Horn 

County

Taxes $4,481,631 44.6% $4,098,456 38.9%

Licenses and Permits $114,511 1.1% $5,020 0.0%

Intergovernmental $1,235,480 12.3% $3,226,513 30.7%

Oil and Gas Production Tax (LGST) 

(Included in Intergovernmental above)

$5,280 0.1%

Charges for Services $1,364,573 13.6% $2,224,803 21.1%

Fines and Forfeitures $115,996 1.2% $104,961 1.0%

Miscellaneous Revenue $2,090,577 20.8% $779,100 7.4%

Investment Earnings $643,663 6.4% $84,096 0.8%

Total: $10,046,431 100.0% $10,522,949 100.0%

Carbon 

County

Taxes $2,243,839 51.8% $2,832,181 53.0%

Licenses and Permits $158,176 3.7% $23,010 0.4%

Intergovernmental $1,441,197 33.3% $2,020,479 37.8%

Oil and Gas Production Tax (LGST) 

(Included in Intergovernmental above)

$178,443 4.1%

Charges for Services $196,394 4.5% $264,928 5.0%

Fines and Forfeitures $62,692 1.4% $71,730 1.3%

Miscellaneous Revenue $62,203 1.4% $68,384 1.3%

Investment Earnings $164,215 3.8% $64,181 1.2%

Total: $4,328,716 100.0% $5,344,893 100.0%

Carter 

County

Taxes $1,026,167 53.9% $1,503,686 61.9%

Licenses and Permits $20,765 1.1% $80 0.0%

Intergovernmental $267,473 14.1% $614,190 25.3%

Oil and Gas Production Tax (LGST) 

(Included in Intergovernmental above)

Charges for Services $100,220 5.3% $191,450 7.9%

Fines and Forfeitures $6,569 0.3% $6,238 0.3%

Miscellaneous Revenue $399,562 21.0% $85,202 3.5%

Investment Earnings $82,130 4.3% $29,395 1.2%

Total: $1,902,886 100.0% $2,430,241 100.0%
SOCIOECONOMICS APPENDIX

Government Revenue Sources

SEA-7

TABLE SEA-1

TOTAL COUNTY REVENUES BY SOURCE, FISCAL YEARS 19991 AND 2004

Revenue Source

Amount 

(1999)

% of County 

Total (1999)

Amount 

(2004)

% of County 

Total (2004)

Custer 

County

Taxes $2,327,867 49.8% $2,865,221 52.7%

Licenses and Permits $110,737 2.4% $1,930 0.0%

Intergovernmental $1,042,529 22.3% $1,519,309 28.0%

Oil and Gas Production Tax (LGST) 

(Included in Intergovernmental above)

$41,434 0.9%

Charges for Services $484,733 10.4% $634,756 11.7%

Fines and Forfeitures $68,931 1.5% $71,477 1.3%

Miscellaneous Revenue $471,159 10.1% $257,342 4.7%

Investment Earnings $163,813 3.5% $84,131 1.5%

Total: $4,669,769 100.0% $5,434,166 100.0%

Golden 

Valley 

County

Taxes $387,137 57.0% $426,703 52.0%

Licenses and Permits $13,242 1.9% $480 0.1%

Intergovernmental $174,519 25.7% $286,189 34.9%

Oil and Gas Production Tax (LGST) 

(Included in Intergovernmental above)

$6,415 0.9%

Charges for Services $22,560 3.3% $29,886 3.6%

Fines and Forfeitures $13,219 1.9% $10,484 1.3%

Miscellaneous Revenue $4,967 0.7% $3,903 0.5%

Investment Earnings $63,575 9.4% $62,381 7.6%

Total: $679,219 100.0% $820,026 100.0%

Musselshell 

County

Taxes $1,084,288 30.1% $1,305,277 37.0%

Licenses and Permits $73,915 2.0% $1,835 0.1%

Intergovernmental $739,530 20.5% $1,616,815 45.9%

Oil and Gas Production Tax (LGST) 

(Included in Intergovernmental above)

$256,627 7.1%

Charges for Services $256,627 7.1% $354,328 10.1%

Fines and Forfeitures $35,272 1.0% $77,828 2.2%

Miscellaneous Revenue $1,287,222 35.7% $89,835 2.5%

Investment Earnings $130,944 3.6% $79,074 2.2%

Total: $3,607,798 100.0% $3,524,992 100.0%
SOCIOECONOMICS APPENDIX

Government Revenue Sources

SEA-8

TABLE SEA-1

TOTAL COUNTY REVENUES BY SOURCE, FISCAL YEARS 19991 AND 2004

Revenue Source

Amount 

(1999)

% of County 

Total (1999)

Amount 

(2004)

% of County 

Total (2004)

Powder 

River

County

Taxes $1,193,285 37.7% $1,732,413 37.8%

Licenses and Permits $44,235 1.4% $905 0.0%

Intergovernmental $586,548 18.5% $1,174,272 25.6%

Oil and Gas Production Tax (LGST) 

(Included in Intergovernmental above)

$89,261 2.8%

Charges for Services $1,177,971 37.2% $1,555,757 33.9%

Fines and Forfeitures $29,218 0.9% $42,180 0.9%

Miscellaneous Revenue $50,028 1.6% $52,971 1.2%

Investment Earnings $86,243 2.7% $29,086 0.6%

Total: $3,167,528 100.0% $4,587,584 100.0%

Rosebud 

County

Taxes $3,736,882 50.7% $2,417,614 32.2%

Licenses and Permits $96,804 1.3% $1,450 0.0%

Intergovernmental $1,627,917 22.1% $3,574,494 47.6%

Oil and Gas Production Tax (LGST) 

(Included in Intergovernmental above)

$14,024 0.2%

Charges for Services $642,491 8.7% $1,132,386 15.1%

Fines and Forfeitures $86,111 1.2% $61,590 0.8%

Miscellaneous Revenue $824,751 11.2% $80,518 1.1%

Investment Earnings $349,646 4.7% $249,154 3.3%

Total: $7,364,602 100.0% $7,517,206 100.0%

Stillwater 

County

Taxes $2,302,415 8.3% $2,365,085 51.5%

Licenses and Permits $338,758 1.2% $17,420 0.4%

Intergovernmental $24,113,855 86.8% $1,177,398 25.7%

Oil and Gas Production Tax (LGST)

(Included in Intergovernmental above)

$11,326 0.0%

Charges for Services $256,559 0.9% $717,346 15.6%

Fines and Forfeitures $101,596 0.4% $115,777 2.5%

Miscellaneous Revenue $445,202 1.6% $163,371 3.6%

Investment Earnings $215,360 0.8% $33,644 0.7%

Total: $27,773,745 100.0% $4,590,041 100.0%
SOCIOECONOMICS APPENDIX

Government Revenue Sources

SEA-9

TABLE SEA-1

TOTAL COUNTY REVENUES BY SOURCE, FISCAL YEARS 19991 AND 2004

Revenue Source

Amount 

(1999)

% of County 

Total (1999)

Amount 

(2004)

% of County 

Total (2004)

Sweet Grass 

County

Taxes No Report 

Received

$2,082,286 22.1%

Licenses and Permits $345 0.0%

Intergovernmental $2,366,927 25.1%

Oil and Gas Production Tax (LGST)

(Included in Intergovernmental above)

Charges for Services $4,247,320 45.0%

Fines and Forfeitures $56,549 0.6%

Miscellaneous Revenue $640,310 6.8%

Investment Earnings $41,322 0.4%

Total: $9,435,059 100.0%

Treasure 

County

Taxes $422,269 60.4% $474,025 52.8%

Licenses and Permits $16,076 2.3%

Intergovernmental $124,734 17.8% $259,193 28.9%

Oil and Gas Production Tax (LGST)

(Included in Intergovernmental above)

Charges for Services $46,933 6.7% $87,309 9.7%

Fines and Forfeitures $47,409 6.8% $19,906 2.2%

Miscellaneous Revenue $16,561 2.4% $48,112 5.4%

Investment Earnings $25,710 3.7% $8,568 1.0%

Total: $699,692 100.0% $897,113 100.0%

Wheatland 

County

Taxes $20,477 0.84% $1,141,255 59.7%

Licenses and Permits $240,304 9.9%

Intergovernmental $132,438 5.4% $520,918 27.2%

Oil and Gas Production Tax (LGST)

(Included in Intergovernmental above)

Charges for Services $25,717 1.06% $182,543 9.5%

Fines and Forfeitures $416,588 17.2% $18,068 0.9%

Miscellaneous Revenue $22,246 0.92% $10,066 0.5%

Investment Earnings $1,557,462 64.5% $38,797 2.0%

Total: $2,415,232 100.0% $1,911,647 100.0%
SOCIOECONOMICS APPENDIX

Government Revenue Sources

SEA-10

TABLE SEA-1

TOTAL COUNTY REVENUES BY SOURCE, FISCAL YEARS 19991 AND 2004

Revenue Source

Amount 

(1999)

% of County 

Total (1999)

Amount 

(2004)

% of County 

Total (2004)

Yellowstone 

County

Taxes $16,996,908 44.1% $20,549,931 49.2%

Licenses and Permits $2,732,460 7.1% $3,482,605 8.3%

Intergovernmental $7,946,773 20.6% $6,345,544 15.2%

Oil and Gas Production Tax (LGST) 

(Included in Intergovernmental above)

$5,155 0.0%

Charges for Services $8,757,415 22.7% $10,103,632 24.2%

Fines and Forfeitures $676,103 1.8% $737,145 1.8%

Miscellaneous Revenue $240,406 0.6% $251,641 0.6%

Investment Earnings $1,232,920 3.2% $260,324 0.6%

Total: $38,582,985 100.0% $41,730,822 100.0%

Study Area Total2 119,820,279 $98,746,739

% of State Total 21.0% 16.3%

Montana State Total 569,806,112 604,483,926

Source: Montana Department of Commerce, Billings (2000, 2006). 1

Based on unaudited data reported by Counties. 2

1999 total does not include Sweet Grass County (no data available).
SOCIOECONOMICS APPENDIX

Government Revenue Sources

SEA-11

TABLE SEA-2

ASSESSED VALUES AND PROPERTY TAX COLLECTIONS BY COUNTY (2000)

2000 Assessed 

Value

2000 Taxable 

Value

Total Property 

Taxes and fees 

Collected

Average Mill 

Levy

Big Horn County $565,023,700 $21,354,436 $6,952,144 293.77

Carbon County $521,678,159 $23,754,742 $9,288,300 349.51

Carter County $120,132,817 $6,808,649 $2,382,143 329.01

Custer County $371,459,345 $14,389,152 $8,806,856 460.53

Golden Valley County $98,470,244 $5,687,402 $1,784,283 305.79

Musselshell County $179,355,501 $6,881,914 $3,173,428 393.23

Powder River County $125,672,599 $4,415,991 $2,227,445 463.94

Rosebud County $1,957,565,773 $100,635,100 $20,804,541 173.34

Stillwater County $697,014,674 $28,705,444 $10,708,053 319.89

Sweet Grass County $247,083,525 $9,532,599 $3,677,085 354.74

Treasure County $86,217,475 $4,306,117 $1,646,795 329.73

Wheatland County $162,260,802 $10,468,500 $3,263,418 297.22

Yellowstone County $5,245,460,701 $204,127,734 $107,952,414 378.48

Study Area Total $10,377,395,315 $441,067,780 $182,666,905 --

% of State Total no data 26.3% 23.0% --

Montana no data $1,679,739,857 $794,598,177 --

Source: Montana Department of Revenue (2000).
SOCIOECONOMICS APPENDIX

Government Revenue Sources

SEA-12

TABLE SEA-3

ASSESSED VALUES AND PROPERTY TAX COLLECTIONS BY COUNTY (2004)

2004 Assessed Value 2004 Taxable Value

Total Property Taxes 

and fees Collected

Big Horn County $509,234,496 $19,071,825 $13,500,559

Carbon County $604,545,613 $24,558,032 $12,059,295

Carter County $128,295,092 $10,269,939 $3,692,825

Custer County $395,219,177 $14,165,809 $11,267,038

Golden Valley County $94,613,026 $4,919,186 $1,905,042

Musselshell County $200,581,108 $6,560,315 $3,949,930

Powder River County $119,338,454 $4,005,441 $2,554,997

Rosebud County $1,676,984,323 $84,867,600 $22,071,869

Stillwater County $767,840,416 $28,823,824 $12,852,966

Sweet Grass County $447,045,426 $14,688,014 $6,087,181

Treasure County $82,736,041 $3,932,398 $1,780,852

Wheatland County $152,027,561 $9,001,462 $3,497,120

Yellowstone County $6,077,895,654 $215,714,493 $143,708,149

Study Area Total $11,256,356,387 $440,578,338 $238,927,823

% of State Total 22.8% 24.8% 23.6%

Montana $49,450,862,550 $1,779,929,986 $1,014,487,652

Source: Montana Department of Revenue (2004).
SOCIOECONOMICS APPENDIX

Government Revenue Sources

SEA-13

TABLE SEA-4

MONTANA OIL AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION TAX REVENUES (1999 AND 2000)

1999 2000

% Change

1999-2000

Natural Gas Tax Revenues $10,367,718 $11,205,901 8.1%

% of Total 33.6% 25.6%

Oil Tax Revenues $20,461,684 $32,564,421 59.1%

% of Total 66.4% 74.4%

Total $30,829,402 $43,770,322 42.0%

Source: Montana Department of Revenue (2000).

TABLE SEA-5

MONTANA OIL AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION TAX REVENUES (1999 THROUGH 2004)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Total State Share $9,221,612 $13,817,290 $31,392,351 $15,837,967 $30,894,533 $47,712,085

% Change from 

Previous Year

49.8% 127.2% -49.5% 95.1% 54.4%

Total Local Share $21,607,789 $29,953,032 $61,425,763 $34,465,644 $42,494,843 $44,963,964

% Change from 

Previous Year

38.6% 105.1% -43.9% 23.3% 5.8%

Total $30,829,401 $43,770,322 $92,818,114 $50,303,611 $73,389,376 $92,676,049

% Increase from 

Previous Year

42.0% 112.1% -45.8% 45.9% 26.3%

Source: Montana Department of Revenue (2004).